In how-meta-can-you-get? news, I recently read an article about what Shakespeare can teach us about blogging. Intrigued by the item, I now find myself in the position of writing a blog about blogs. According to this writer, Shakespeare made a name for himself by combining a variety of different elements. Not only did he borrow story points (if not entire plotlines) from other authors, he also melded their styles together. In his works classical ideas of tragedy are combined with holdover elements from medieval morality plays (particularly their episodic structure). Shakespeare found similar inspiration for comedy from numerous sources, including short comic sketches as well as pastoral comedies. In essence, Shakespeare was all about pastiche….

….which brings us to blogging. When the term first started to appear, I remember thinking, “What the heck is a blog?” Now that I write one, I am not even sure I am any closer to a true definition, but some common elements do appear. Blogs are often the intersection of the critical, the personal, and the popular. Whatever people blog about, whether it’s a play, a politician or a reality television show, the reactions and assessments are always personal. Furthermore, in many forums, people bring their own areas of expertise to the dialogues created on blogs, which can make it a more intellectual experience. Balancing out the potential for that kind of writing to become incredibly snobby (to say nothing of dry), popular culture has become a common medium for reflection and comparison. In the blogosphere, I could talk about William Shakespeare and Perez Hilton (shudder) in the same breath….but, don’t worry, I won’t.

Miley Cyrus is just about everywhere. If she’s not dominating record sales charts or selling out all of her tour dates, she’s topping the North American box office with her concert film. In short, she’s a teenage megastar, and she’s already managed to land herself in her first major scandal at the young age of fifteen. If you’ve been catatonic or in some other blissful location where Inside Edition can’t reach you, you might not be aware of the Photograph Seen Around the World. In a recent magazine photo shoot, the Achy Breaky spawn posed provocatively in a bedsheet—a move some of criticized in light of her age. The inevitable cycle of spin, apologies and finger-pointing has followed, all of it somehow sadly predictable. Ms. Cyrus, her stardom, and her suspiciously well-timed scandal are very much of the moment (if you don’t believe me, check back in five years when she and Hilary Duff will be on the same VH1 “Where Are They Now?” special). This makes name-dropping her in a classic play all the more curious. Georgia Shakespeare is currently staging the madcap farce The Servant of Two Masters. Since the play is translated, pop-culture references have been strewn throughout, including a shout-out to the sheet-wrapped pop tart. Why? I’m trying to imagine the same kind of adjustments being made to one of The Bard’s plays. Can you imagine if, in the middle of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Helena said, “Lysander, knowest thou not when to stop? Thou acts as Miley when she lost her top!” For both Midsummer and Servant, there is plenty of humor to be had without pillaging the tabloids.

If you have never heard of Two Geezas of Verona, fear not. Likewise, if All’s Sweet That Ends Sweet does not ring any bells, you are not alone. The two titles are part of a larger trend of rewriting Shakespeare. In this case, a playwright (and self-described satirist) has rewritten several of Shakespeare’s texts using British “yoof speak,” a combination of British street slang and text-message phrasing.

Text messaging definitely marks a generational divide. For the tech-savvy youth, it’s a no-brainer as they have never known a world without the variety of media at their fingertips. For older generations, it’s one more gizmo to shake their heads at in exasperation and vow never to learn. For those of us in between, it’s a little of both. I have definitely texted, but it is far from being a way of life. I also do not use the OMG’s and other acronyms so associated with it. I see it as a useful tool, yet there’s a part of me that just wants to tell those fast-fingered kids to get the heck off my lawn before I call the police.

Perhaps the same could be said about reinterpretations of Shakespeare. There are those of us in the “Shakespeare has to be hip and reinvented” camp, while others reside in the “stop trying to dumb it down, it’s brilliant as it is” district. In a way the battle itself is good for both sides. Perhaps when I get the urge to shake my cane at Two Geezas of Verona, I should instead give it a chance. I just might LMAO.

In a showdown between J.K. Rowling and William Shakespeare, who would win? Would it even be a fair fight? After all, Rowling does have the advantage of being alive. A better question is can they even be mentioned in the same sentence? (Yes, I know I just did). It turns out that in England, the two writers are going to be mentioned together quite a bit more. It was just announced that Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (the original British title for the first book in the series) has been added to a standardized exam. This means that the underdog wizard has officially flown his way into school curriculum.

The article seemed to pointedly reference the grouping of Rowling with esteemed British writers like Dickens and Shakespeare. While it is hard to tell if that reference is indifferent or a kind of indirect criticism, it is likely that many will take umbrage at Potter sharing the same curricular environment as Puck and Pip. It is the time-old battle between popular writing and “literature.” Given the gazillions of copies the Potter books have sold, it is hard to deny their impact (especially considering how many of those reader have devoured all seven books, but never touched a play by Shakespeare). Still, popularity does not equal quality. A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila is quite popular, but if that ever shows up on an English exam, it will be the first sign of the Apocalypse. In the end, hopefully the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. After all, Shakespeare is both popular and well-respected, so perhaps young Harry can be too.

Pulp Fiction was a zeitgeist film. It spawned a thousand horrible imitations, none of which captured the mid-nineties vibe quite the way the original did. It tapped into the retro-cool (particularly evocative of the sixties and seventies) that characterized the period. It also was the genesis of writer chic, a kind of movement wherein writers didn’t care if their dialogue sounded like dialogue, so long as everyone was cool while they said it (yes, Juno, you must tip your hat). Finally, the film managed to hone in on our timeless fascination with lowlifes and criminals.

Countless high-concept productions seek to merge Shakespeare with a given zeitgeist. Some even use the ultra-hip trappings descended from Pulp Fiction as part of their aesthetic. Still, what would happen if the Bard and the Quent truly merged? Well, it turns out, that someone wanted to find out. A new wiki site is devoted to creating a whole new take on both Shakespeare and Pulp Fiction. The ongoing project is a scene-for-scene rewrite of Tarantino’s film in the style of Shakespeare. That means Quent’s postmodern chitchat has been swapped out for iambic pentameter.

Will the result capture a new kind of zeitgeist? Hard to say. At nearly fifteen years old (God, that makes me feel old), the film is approaching retro status itself. Still, will this project amount to anything more than a highly elaborate goof? What do we gain from a nouveau-Shakespeare Pulp Fiction? That’s a question more mysterious than what lies in the luminous briefcase.

Any time an established stage or film star agrees to appear in a Shakespearean production, it brings many things: curiosity, media attention and, hopefully, good box office. For Shakespeare fans, the hope is that people who might not ordinarily attend Shakespearean theatre will come and become fans themselves. For those already interested in Shakespeare in performance, these star turns can provoke endless debates about whose interpretation of a character is the definitive one. Well, another star is throwing her hat into the ring and including herself in this ongoing debate. Paris Hilton will headline a Broadway production of Antony & Cleopatra.

Though she comes from humble beginnings, Ms. Hilton has managed to carve out a highly respected career in the entertainment industry as both a singer and actress. Anyone who witnessed her shatteringly emotional performance in House of Wax knows she is a performer of incredible depth and range. Furthermore, her soaring vocals on tracks like “Stars are Blind” have fans hoping that she will one day do a musical to combine all of her musical gifts. When asked what drew her to Shakespeare and this play in particular, she stated that the four hundred year-old tragedy struck an emotional chord with her because “people die in it and stuff… and that’s, like, sad.” No word yet on who will costar with her as Antony, but fans are keeping their fingers crossed for shirt-averse actor Matthew McConaughey. So Blog readers, if you’re interested in more information on this production, well, April Fools.

A large part of any forum for discussing, debating or analyzing Shakespeare is about what he and his plays mean to us. Often, we judge productions of the plays based on what our own assumptions about what/who Shakespeare is. If those notions lean towards the classical, the erudite and the poetic, then we’ll be disappointed, if not incensed, by productions that over-conceptualize his works. Conversely, if when we think of Shakespeare, we imagine hip, rebel poet, we’ll yawn expansively at productions that are too staid.

It is interesting, then, to think about Shakespeare from the opposite perspective: as the effect rather than the cause. In other words, are there certain things with which we immediately associate Shakespeare? A recent item on British tourism hotspots suggested this very idea. According to the article, Buckingham Palace and Stratford-upon-Avon are two of the hottest tourist attractions in the U.K. because when people think of England, two of the first things they think about are the Queen and Shakespeare. Oddly enough, when people from other countries think of the U.S., I doubt one of the first things to pop into their heads would be Eugene O’Neill.

If this is true, is Shakespeare inseparable from his British-ness? When Shakespeare is done with Yank accents, does it not work for some people based on their assumption that Shakespeare must be British? More importantly, are Brits forever associated with Shakespeare (i.e. do we automatically assume anyone with an English accent must love and be thoroughly familiar with The Bard’s works)? Does Shakespeare’s international popularity obscure other important people, landmarks and ideas from the country’s long and rich history?

In a recent editorial about Shakespeare, the writer opened and closed his piece with ironic statements about Charlie Sheen being a fan of Shakespeare. Presumably, the author wanted to offset his more serious comments about the nature of Shakespeare with the humorous incongruity of Sheen as a Shakespeare fan. After all, this is an actor who after a promising start in two high-profile Oliver Stone films (Platoon, Wall Street), quickly flushed much of his actor cred down the toilet (the drug scandals and call girl/porn star girlfriends probably didn’t help). Surprisingly, Sheen has found a second-act career as a parody of himself on the tacky-but-popular Two and a Half Men. He’s an actor who constantly seems to be doing an impression of himself.

Thus, the joke in this editorial is not suitable (or perhaps believable?) as a Shakespeare aficionado. So, what is a suitable Shakespeare fan? On one hand those of us who love the Bard get excited about the idea of Shakespeare reaching a broader audience. Yet, there is a kind of innocent condescension in that; as if Shakespeare is a sacred text understood by a select few that must be interpreted and explained to the ignorant masses. And, since Charlie Sheen doesn’t do independent films about famine relief or adopt kids from third-world countries, we assume he’s a bimbo. We assume that certain people have a right to Shakespeare, and others do not. Yet, why couldn’t he be a Shakespearean scholar? Hath not a Sheen eyes?

In a recent item about Shakespeare, the writer noted the different place The Bard’s plays hold in people’s lives along generational lines. According to him, just two generations ago, the entire canon of Shakespeare would have been familiar to most people. He suggested Will’s complete works would have been second only to the Bible in familiarity. For this writer, Shakespeare now occupies a less focal position in students’ lives. While he moves on to other points, I wondered how true that statement was? How many people walking around today have read all of Shakespeare’s plays? Moreover, of those people, how many know the plays in great detail?

While general arguments could be made about the decreased importance of reading overall in young people’s lives, that idea is not without its flaws. Yes, there are video games, iPods, computers and cell phones with the capacity for endless text messaging. Yes, there are more distractions, but there are also more opportunities. Kids can now read the complete works online. Also, you can’t tell me that there weren’t plenty of students 100 years ago who hated Shakespeare and refused to retain anything about his plays. Finally, a less Shakespeare-centric curriculum might indicate a desire to include more writers and more diversity in literature studies. In some ways, reading what came before and after can deepen our appreciation for The Bard and his plays.

The eighties often get a bad rap. While people love to be nostalgic about the sixties and seventies (particularly the films and music those periods generated), the eighties do not rate the same critical and popular respect. In many ways, the entire decade is viewed as one big Desperate Housewives episode: fun, pretty to look at it, but lacking in depth. For those of us who carry a torch for the era when rock music and hair products went hand in hand, the minor 80’s renaissance of the last year has been something of a vindication.

The extent of this renaissance can be evidenced by a middle school production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that’s been restaged in the Me Decade. Not only is the hair big and the color neon, but the director has chosen specific pop-culture icons to match certain characters. As a result, this Midsummer features a cast of characters that includes Billy Idol and The Boss. It’s an apropos concept for a play with just the right amount of excess (magic, mixed-up lovers, a talking ass, etc.). The fact that this production is being staged at a middle school is rather ironic since none of its cast was even born during the period depicted. Their entire experience of the decade is through media, making this 1980’s Midsummer a “period” piece for them. For their parents, it will probably make them smile knowingly….and feel incredibly old.