Podcast appearances and mentions of prince hamlet

6 Questions That Will Kill Your Overthinking Forever (William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Hamlet). In this podcast we will be talking about How to Stop Overthinking from the philosophy of William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Hamlet.Hamlet is one of William Shakespeare's finest and most famous masterpieces. On the surface, it is a classic revenge tragedy. The King of Denmark is murdered, and his son, Prince Hamlet, must kill the murderer to reclaim the throne. In any other play, the hero would grab a sword and the story would be over but Hamlet isn't like other heroes. He is a philosopher, a student, and a man cursed with a brilliant, hyper-active mind. We return to Hamlet because he shows a common human problem: the more we think, the less we act. He represents the kind of paralysis where we believe we are being careful, but are actually doing nothing. Shakespeare describes this state as the “pale cast of thought,” the moment when too much thinking drains the energy and urgency from an idea that once had the power to change a life. So if you feel stuck in your own head, constantly weighing options but never actually making a move it could be because you are suffering from that same "pale cast of thought." which is why we're going to take a look at the 6 questions we can extract from Hamlet's tragedy that, if answered correctly, might just put an end to your overthinking for good.So here are 6 Questions That Will Kill Your Overthinking Forever from the philosophy of William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Hamlet.Question 1: Is This a "Ghost" or a Reality?Question 2: Am I "Thinking Too Precisely on the Event"?Question 3: Am I Solving the Problem or Just Watching Myself Think?Question 4: Am I Waiting for the "Perfect" Kill?Question 5: Is This "The Ready" or "The Rest"?Question 6: To Be, or To Seem?I hope you enjoyed listening to these 6 Questions That Will Kill Your Overthinking Forever from the philosophy of William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Hamlet.Narration/Audio Editing: Dan Mellins-Cohen https://www.dmcvoiceovers.comSubscribe To Philosophies for Life https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCp1mRTkVlqDnxz_9S0YD9YQMusic used: The Travelling Symphony by Savfk - www.youtube.com/@SavfkMusic

We continue with The HAMLET Project, where we explore one scene (or section) of Shakespeare's Hamlet - one month at a time. To our knowledge, this is the first long-form, open rehearsal of this play available online! So yes, something new with Shakespeare.

Hermione Lee is the renowned biographer of Virginia Woolf, Edith Wharton, Penelope Fitzgerald, and, most recently, Tom Stoppard. Stoppard died at the end of last year, so Hermione and I talked about the influence of Shaw and Eliot and Coward on his work, the recent production of The Invention of Love, the role of ideas in Stoppard's writing, his writing process, rehearsals, revivals, movies. We also talked about John Carey, Brian Moore, Virginia Woolf as a critic. Hermione is Emeritus Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford. Her life of Anita Brookner will be released in September.TranscriptHenry Oliver: Today I have the great pleasure of talking to Professor Dame Hermione Lee. Hermione was the first woman to be appointed Goldsmiths' Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford, and she is the most renowned and admired living English biographer. She wrote a seminal life of Virginia Woolf. She's written splendid books about people like Willa Cather, Edith Wharton, and my own favorite, Penelope Fitzgerald. And most recently she has been the biographer of Tom Stoppard, and I believe this year she has a new book coming out about Anita Brookner. Hermione, welcome.Hermione Lee: Thank you very much.Oliver: We're mostly going to talk about Tom Stoppard because he, sadly, just died. But I might have a few questions about your broader career at the end. So tell me first how Shavian is Stoppard's work?Lee: He would reply “very close Shavian,” when asked that question. I think there are similarities. There are obviously similarities in the delighting forceful intellectual play, and you see that very much in Jumpers where after all the central character is a philosopher, a bit of a bonkers philosopher, but still a very rational one.And you see it in someone like Henry, the playwright in The Real Thing, who always has an answer to every argument. He may be quite wrong, but he is full of the sort of zest of argument, the passion for argument. And I think that kind of delight in making things intellectually clear and the pleasure in argument is very Shavian.Where I think they differ and where I think is really more like Chekov, or more like Beckett or more in his early work, the dialogues in T. S. Elliot, and less like Shaw is in a kind of underlying strangeness or melancholy or sense of fate or sense of mortality that rings through almost all the plays, even the very, very funny ones. And I don't think I find that in Shaw. My prime reading time for Shaw was between 15 and 19, when I thought that Shaw was the most brilliant grownup that one could possibly be listening to, and I think now I feel less impressed by him and a bit more impatient with him.And I also think that Shaw is much more in the business of resolving moral dilemmas. So in something like Arms and the Man or Man and Superman, you will get a kind of resolution, you will get a sort of sense of this is what we're meant to be agreeing with.Whereas I think quite often one of the fascinating things about Stoppard is the way that he will give all sides of the question; he will embody all sides of the question. And I think his alter ego there is not Shaw, but the character of Turgenev in The Coast of Utopia, who is constantly being nagged by his radical political friends to make his mind up and to have a point of view and come down on one side or the other. And Turgenev says, I take every point of view.Oliver: I must confess, I find The Coast of Utopia a little dull compared to Stoppard's other work.Lee: It's long. Yes. I don't find it dull. But I think it may be a play to read possibly more than a play to see now. And you're never going to get it put on again anyway because the cast is too big. And who's going to put on a nine-hour free play, 50 people cast about 19th-century Russian revolutionaries? Nobody, I would think.But I find it very absorbing actually. And partly because I'm so interested in Isaiah Berlin, who is a very strong presence in the anti-utopianism of those plays. But that's a matter of opinion.Oliver: No. I like Berlin. One thing about Stoppard that's un-Shavian is that he says his plays begin as a noise or an image or a scene, and then we think of him as this very thinking writer. But is he really more of an intuitive writer?Lee: I think it's a terribly good question. I think it gets right at the heart of the matter, and I think it's both. Sorry, I sound like Turgenev, not making my mind up. But yes, there is an image or there is an idea, or there are often two ideas, as it were, the birth of quantum physics and 18th-century landscape gardening. Who else but Stoppard would put those two things in one play, Arcadia, and have you think about both at once.But the image and the play may well have been a dance between two periods of time together in one room. So I think he never knew what the next play was going to be until it would come at him, as it were. He often resisted the idea that if he chose a topic and then researched it, a play would come out of it. That wasn't what happened. Something would come at him and then he would start doing a great deal of research usually for every play.Oliver: What sort of influence did T. S. Elliot have on him? Did it change the dialogue or, was it something else?Lee: When I was working with him on my biography, he gave me a number of things. I had extraordinary access, and we can perhaps come back to that interesting fact. And most of these things were loans he gave them to me to work on. Then I gave them back to him.But he gave me as a present one thing, which was a black notebook that he had been keeping at the time he was writing Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and also his first and only novel Lord Malquist and Mr. Moon, which is little known, which he thought was going to make his career. The book was published in the same week that Rosencrantz came up. He thought the novel was going to make his career and the play was going to sink without trace. Not so. In the notebook there are many quotations from T. S. Elliot, and particularly from Prufrock and the Wasteland, and you can see him working them into the novel and into the play.“I am not Prince Hamlet nor was meant to be.” And that sense of being a disconsolate outsider. Ill at ease with and neurotic about the world that is charging along almost without you, and you are having to hang on to the edge of the world. The person who feels themself to be in internal exile, not at one with the universe. I think that point of view recurs over and over again, right through the work, but also a kind of epigrammatical, slightly mysterious crypticness that Elliot has, certainly in Prufrock and in the Wasteland and in the early poems. He loved that tone.Oliver: Yes. When I read your paper about that I thought about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern quite differently. I've always disliked the idea that it's a sort of Beckett imitation play. It seems very Elliotic having read what you described.Lee: There is Beckett in there. You can't get away from it.Oliver: Surface level.Lee: Beckett's there, but I think the sense of people waiting around—Stoppard's favorite description of Rosencrantz was: “It's two journalists on a story that doesn't add up, which is very clever and funny.”Yes. And that sense of, Vladimir going, “What are we supposed to be doing and how are we going to pass the time?” That's profoundly influential on Stoppard. So I don't think it's just a superficial resemblance myself, but I agree that Elliot just fills the tone of that play and other things too.Oliver: In the article you wrote about Stoppard and Elliot, the title is about biographical questing, and you also described Arcadia as a quest. How important is the idea of the quest to the way you work and also to the way you read Stoppard?Lee: I took as the epigraph for my biography of Stoppard a line from Arcadia: “It's wanting to know that makes us matter, otherwise we're going out the way we came in.” So I think that's right at the heart of Stoppard's work, and it's right at the heart of any biographical work, whether or not it's mine or someone else's. If you can't know, in the sense of knowing the person, knowing what the person is like, and also knowing as much as possible about them from different kinds of sources, then you might as well give up.You can't do it through impressions. You've got to do it through knowledge. Of course, a certain amount of intuition may also come into play, though I'm not the kind of biographer that feels you can make things up. Working on a living person, this is the only time I've done that.It was, of course, a very different thing from working on a safely dead author. And I knew Penelope Fitzgerald a little bit, but I had no idea I was going to write her biography when I had conversations with her and she wouldn't have told me anything anyway. She was so wicked and evasive. But it was a set up thing; he asked me to do it. And we had a proper contract and we worked together over several years, during which time he became a friend, which was a wonderful piece of luck for me.I was doing four things, really. One was reading all the material that he produced, everything, and getting to know it as well as I could. And that's obviously the basic task. One was talking to him and listening to him talk about his life. And he was very generous with those interviews. I'm sure there were things he didn't tell me, but that's fine. One was talking to other people about him, which is a very interesting process. And with someone like him who knew everyone in the literary, theatrical, cultural world, you have to draw a halt at some point. You can't talk to a thousand people, or I'd have still been doing it, so you talk to particularly fellow playwrights, directors, actors who've worked with him often, as well as family and friends. And then you start pitting the versions against each other and seeing what stands up and what keeps being said.Repetition's very important in that process because when several people say the same thing to you, then you know that's right. And that quest also involves some actual footsteps, as Richard Holmes would say. Footsteps. Traveling to places he'd lived in and going to Darjeeling where he had been to school before he came to England, that kind of travel.And then the fourth, and to me, in a way, almost the most exciting, was the opportunity to watch him at work in rehearsal. So with the director's permissions, I was allowed to sit in on two or three processes like that, the 50th anniversary production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern at the Old Vic with David Lavoie. And Patrick Marber's wonderful production of Leopoldstadt and Nick Hytner's production of The Hard Problem at the National. So I was able to witness the very interesting negotiations going on between Tom and the director and the cast.And also the extraordinary fact that even with a play like Rosencrantz, which is on every school syllabus and has been for 50—however many years—he was still changing things in rehearsal. I can't get over that. And in his view, as he often said, theater is an event and not a text, and so one could see that actual process of things changing before one's very eyes, and that for a biographer, it's a pretty amazing privilege.Oliver: How much of the plays were written during rehearsal do you think?Lee: Oh, 99% of the plays were written with much labor, much precision, much correction alone at his desk. The text is there, the text is written, and everything changes when you go into the rehearsal room because you suddenly find that there isn't enough time with that speech for the person to get from the bed to the door. It's physics; you have to put another line in so that someone can make an entrance or an exit, that kind of thing.Or the actors will say quite often, because they were a bit in awe—by the time he became well known—the actors initially would be a bit in awe of the braininess and the brilliance. And quite often the actors will be saying, “I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand this.” You'd often get, “I don't really understand.”And then he would never be dismissive. He would either say, “No, I think you've got to make it work.” I'm putting words into his mouth here. Or he would say, “Okay, let's put another sentence or something like that.”Oliver: Between what he wrote at his desk and the book that's available for purchase now, how much changed? Is it 10%, 50? You know what I mean?Lee: Yes. You should be talking to his editor at Faber, Dinah Wood. So Faber would print a relatively small number for the first edition before the rehearsal process and the final production. And then they would do a second edition, which would have some changes in it. So 2%. Okay. But crucial sometimes.Oliver: No, sure. Very important.Lee: And also some plays like Jumpers went through different additions with different endings, different solutions to plot problems. Travesties, he had a lot of trouble with the Lenins in Travesties because it's the play in which you've got Joyce and you've got Tristan Tzara and you've got the Lenins, and they're all these real people and he makes him talk.But he was a little bit nervous about the Lenin. So what he gave him to say were things that they had really said, that Lenin had really said. As opposed to the Tzara-Joyce stuff, which is all wonderfully made up. The bloody Lenins became a bit of a problem for him. And so that gets changed in later editions you'll find.Oliver: How closely do you think The Real Thing is based on Present Laughter by Noël Coward?Lee: Oh, I think there's a little bit of Coward in there. Yes, sure. I think he liked Coward, he liked Wilde, obviously. He likes brilliant, witty, playful entertainers. He wants to be an entertainer. But I think The Real Thing, he was proud of the fact that The Real Thing was one of the few examples of his plays at that time, which weren't based on something else. They weren't based on Hamlet. They weren't based on The Importance of Being Earnest. It's not based on a real person like Housman. I think The Real Thing came out of himself much more than out of literary models.Oliver: You don't think that Henry is a bit like the actor character in Present Laughter and it's all set in his flat and the couples moving around and the slight element of farce?The cricket bat speech is quite similar to when Gary Essendine—do you remember that very funny young man comes up on the train from Epping or somewhere and lectures him about the social value of art. And Gary Essendine says, “Get a job in a theater rep and write 20 plays. And if you can get one of them put on in a pub, you'll be damn lucky.” It's like a model for him, a loose model.Lee: Yes. Henry, I think you should write an article comparing these two plays.Oliver: Okay. Very good. What does Stoppardian mean?Lee: It means witty. It means brilliant with words. It means fizzing with verbal energy. It means intellectually dazzling. The word dazzling is the one that tends to get used. My own version of Stoppardian is a little bit different from, as it were, those standard received and perfectly acceptable accounts of Stoppardian.My own sense of Stoppardian has more to do with grief and mortality and a sense of not belonging and of puzzlement and bewilderment, within all that I said before, within the dazzling, playful astonishing zest and brio of language and the precision about language.Oliver: Because it's a funny word. It's hard to include Leopoldstadt under the typical use of Stoppardian, because it's an untypical Stoppard.Lee: One of the things about Leopoldstadt that I think is—let's get rid of that trope about Stoppardian—characteristic of him is the remarkable way it deals with time. Here's a play like Arcadia, all set in the same place, all set in the same room, in the same house, and it goes from a big hustling room, late 19th-century family play, just like the beginning of The Coast of Utopia, where you begin with a big family in Russia and then it moves through the '20s and then into the terrible appalling period of the Anschluss and the Holocaust.And then it ends up after the war with an empty room. This room, is like a different kind of theater, an empty room. Three characters, none of whom you know very well, speaking in three different kinds of English, reaching across vast spaces of incomprehension, and you've had these jumps through time.And then at the very end, the original family, all of whom have been destroyed, the original family reappears on the stage. I'm sorry to tell this for anyone who hasn't seen Leopoldstadt. Because when it happens on the stage, it's an absolutely astonishing moment. As if the time has gone round and as if the play, which I think it was for him, was an act of restitution to all those people.Oliver: How often did he use his charm to get his way with actors?Lee: A lot. And not just actors. People he worked with, film people, friends, companions. Charm is such an interesting thing, isn't it? Because we shouldn't deviate, but there's always a slightly sinister aspect to the word charm as in, a magic charm. And one tends to be a bit suspicious of charm. And he knew he had charm and he was physically very magnetic and good looking and very funny and very attentive to people.But I think the charm, in his case, he did use it to get the right results, and he did use it, as he would say, “to look after my plays.” He was always, “I want to look after my plays.” And that's why he went back to rehearsal when there were revivals and so on. But he wasn't always charming. Patrick Marber, who's a friend of his and who directed Leopoldstadt, is very good on how irritable Stoppard could be sometimes in rehearsal. And I've heard that from other directors too—Jack O'Brien, who did the American productions of things like The Invention of Love.If Stoppard felt it wasn't right, he could get quite cross. So this wasn't a sort of oleaginous character at all. It's not smooth, it's not a smooth charm at all. But yes, he knew his power and he used it, and I think in a good way. I think he was a benign character actually. And one of the things that was very fascinating to me, not only when he died and there was this great outpouring of tributes, very heartfelt tributes, I thought. But also when I was working on the biography, I was going around the world trying to find people to say bad things about him, because what I didn't want to do was write a hagiography. You don't want to do that; there would be no point. And it was genuinely quite hard.And I don't know the theater world; it's not my world. I got to know it a little bit then. But I have never necessarily thought of the theater world as being utterly loving and generous about everybody else. I'm sure there are lots of rivalries and spitefulness, as there is in academic life, all the rest of it. But it was very hard to find anyone with a bad word to say about him, even people who'd come up against the steeliness that there is in him.I had an interview with Steven Spielberg about him, with whom he worked a lot, and with whom he did Empire of the Sun. And I would ask my interviewees if they could come up with two or three adjectives or an adjective that would sum him up, that would sum Stoppard up to them. And when I asked Spielberg this question, he had a little think and then he said, intransigent. I thought, great. He must be the only person who ever stood up to him.Oliver: What was his best film script? Did he write a really great film.Lee: That one. I think partly the novel, I don't know if you know the Ballard novel, the Empire of the Sun, it's a marvelous novel. And Ballard was just a magical and amazing writer, a great hero of mine. But I think what Stoppard did with that was really clever and brilliant.I know people like Brazil, the Terry Gilliam sort of surrealist way. And there's some interesting early work. Most of his film work was not one script; it was little bits that he helped with. So there's famously the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he did most of the dialogue for Harrison Ford.But there are others like the One Hundred and One Dalmatians, where I think there's one line, anonymously Stoppardian in there. One of the things about the obituaries that slightly narked me was that there, I felt there was a bit too much about the films. Truly, I don't think the film work was—he wanted it to be right and he wanted to get it right—but it wasn't as close to his heart as the theater work. And indeed the work for radio, which I thought was generally underwritten about when he died. There was some terrific work there.Oliver: Yes. And there aren't that many canonical writers who've been great on the radio.Lee: Absolutely. He did everything. He did film, he did radio. He wrote some opera librettos. He really did everything. And on top of that, there was the great work for the public good, which I think is a very important part of his legacy, his history.Oliver: How much crossover influence is there between the different bits of his career? Does the screenwriting influence the theater writing and the radio and so on? Or is he just compartmentalized and able to do a lot of different things?Lee: That's such an interesting question. I don't think I've thought about it enough. I think there are very cinematic aspects to some of the plays, like Night and Day, for instance, the play about journalism. That could easily have been a film.And perhaps Hapgood as well, although it could be a kind of John le Carré type film thriller, though it's such a set of complicated interlocking boxes that I don't know that it would work as a film. It's not one of my favorite players, I must say. I struggle a little bit with Hapgood. But, yes, I'm sure that they fed into each other. Because he was so busy, he was often doing several things at once. So he was keeping things in boxes and opening the lid of that box. But mentally things must have overlapped, I'm sure.Oliver: He once joked that rather than having read Wittgenstein from cover to cover, he had only read the covers. How true is that? Because I know some people who would say he's very clever in everything, but he's not as clever as he looks. It's obviously not true that he only read the covers.Lee: I think there was a phase, wasn't there, after the early plays when people felt that he was—it's that English phrase, isn't it—too clever by half. Which you would never hear anyone in France saying of someone that they were too clever by half. So he was this kind of jazzy intellectual who put all his ideas out there, and he was this sort of self-educated savant who hadn't been to Oxford.There was quite a lot of that about in the earlier years, I think. And a sense that he was getting away with it, to which I would countermand with the story of the writing of The Invention of Love. So what attracted him to the figure of Housman initially was not the painful, suppressed homosexual love story, but the fact that here was this person who was divided into a very pernickety, savagely critical classical editor of Latin and a romantic lyric poet. In order to work out how to turn this into a play, he probably spent about six years taking Latin lessons, reading everything he could read on the history of classical literature. Obviously reading about Housman, engaging in conversation with classical scholars about Housman's, finer points of editorial precision about certain phrases. And what he used from that was the tip of the iceberg. But the iceberg was real.He really did that work and he often used to say that it was his favorite play because he'd so much enjoyed the work that went into it. I think he took what he needed from someone like Wittgenstein. I know you don't like The Coast of Utopia very much, but if you read his background to Coast of Utopia, what went into it, and if you compare what's in the plays, those three plays, with what's in the writing about those revolutionaries, he read everything. He may have magpied it, but he's certainly knows what he's talking about. So I defend him a bit against that, I think.Oliver: Good, good. Did you see the recent production at the Hamstead Theatre of The Invention of Love?Lee: I did, yes.Oliver: What did you think?Lee: I liked it. I thought it was rather beautifully done. I liked those boats rowing around that clicked together. I thought Simon Russell Beale was extremely good, particularly very moving. And very good in Housman's vindictiveness as a critic. He is not a nice person in that sense. And his scornfulness about the women students in his class, that kind of thing. And so there was a wonderful vitriol and scorn in Russell Beale's performance.I think when you see it now, some of the Oxford context is a little bit clunky, those scenes with Jowett and Pater and so on, it's like a bit of a caricature of the context of cultural life at the time, intellectual life at the time. But I think that the trope of the old and the young Housman meeting each other and talking to each other, which I still think is very moving. I thought it worked tremendously well.Oliver: What are Tom Stoppard's poems like?Lee: You see them in Indian Ink where he invents a poet, Flora Crewe, who is a poet who was died young, turn of the century, bold feminist associated with Bloomsbury and gets picked up much later as a kind of Sylvia Plath-type, HD type heroine. And when you look at Stoppard's manuscripts in the Harry Ransom Center in the University of Austin, in Texas, there is more ink spent on writing and rewriting those poems of Flora Crewe than anything else I saw in the manuscript. He wrote them and rewrote them.Early on he wrote some Elliot—they're very like Elliot—little poems for himself. I think there are probably quite a lot of love poems out there, which I never saw because they belong to the people for whom he wrote them. So I wouldn't know about those.Oliver: How consistently did Stoppard hold to a kind of liberal individualism in his politics?Lee: He was accused of being very right wing in the 1980s really, 1970s, 1980s, when the preponderant tendency for British drama was radicalism, Royal Court, left wing, all of that. And Stoppard seemed an outlier then, because he approved of Thatcher. He was a friend of Thatcher. He didn't like the print union. It was particularly about newspapers because he'd been a newspaper man in his youth. That was his alternative university education, working in Bristol on the newspapers. He had a romance heroic feeling about the value of the journalist to uphold democracy, and he hated the pressure of the print unions to what he thought at the time was stifling that.He changed his mind. I think a lot about that. He had been very idealistic and in love with English liberal values. And I think towards the end of his life he felt that those were being eroded. He voted lots of different ways. He voted conservative, voted green. He voted lib dem. I don't if he ever voted Labour.Oliver: But even though his personal politics shifted and the way he voted shifted, there is something quite continuous from the early plays through to Rock ‘n' Roll. Is there a sort of basic foundation that doesn't change, even though the response to events and the idea about the times changes?Lee: Yes, I think that's right, and I think it can be summed up in what Henry says in The Real Thing about politics, which is a version of what's often said in his plays, which is public postures have the configuration of private derangement. So that there's a deep suspicion of political rhetoric, especially when it tends towards the final solution type, the utopian type, the sense that individual lives can be sacrificed in the interest of an ultimate rationalized greater good.And then, he's worked in the '70s for the victims of Soviet communism. His work alongside in support of Havel and Charter 77. And he wrote on those themes such as Every Good Boy Deserves Favour and Professional Foul. Those are absolutely at the heart of what he felt. And they come back again when he's very modest about this and kept it quiet. But he did an enormous amount of work for the Belarus exile, Belarus Free Theater collective, people in support of those trying to work against the regime in Belarus.And then the profound, heartfelt, intense feeling of horror about what happened to people in Leopoldstadt. That's all part of the same thing. I think he's a believer in individual freedom and in democracy and has a suspicion of political rhetoric.Oliver: How much were some of his great parts written for specific actors? Because I sometimes have a feeling when I watch one of his plays now, if I'd been here when Felicity Kendal was doing this, I would be getting the whole thing, but I'm getting most of it.Lee: I'm sure that's right. And he built up a team around him: Peter Wood, the director and John Wood who's such an extraordinary Henry Carr in in in Travesties. And Michael Hordern as George the philosopher in Jumpers. And he wrote a lot for Kendal, in the process of becoming life companions.But he'd obviously been writing and thinking of her very much, for instance, in Arcadia. And also I think very much, it's very touching now to see the production of Indian Ink that's running at Hampstead Theatre in which Felicity Kendal is playing the older woman, the surviving older sister of the poet Flora Crewe, where of course the part of Flora Crewe was written for her. And there's something very touching about seeing that now. And, in fact, the first night of that production was the day of Stoppard's funeral. And Kendal couldn't be at the funeral, of course, because she was in the first night of his play. That's a very touching thing.Oliver: Why did he think the revivals came too soon?Lee: I don't really know the answer to that. I think he thought a play had to hook up a lot of oxygen and attract a lot of attention. If you were lucky while it was on, people would remember the casting and the direction of that version of it, and it would have a kind of memory. You had to be there.But people who were there would remember it and talk about it. And if you had another production very soon after that, then maybe it would diminish or take away that effect. I think he had a sort of loyalty to first productions often. What do you think about that? I'm not quite sure of the answer to that.Oliver: I don't know. To me it seems to conflict a bit with his idea that it's a living thing and he's always rewriting it in the rehearsal room. But I think probably what you say is right, and he will have got it right in a certain way through all that rehearsing. You then need to wait for a new generation of people to make it fresh again, if you like.Lee: Or not a generation even, but give it five years.Oliver: Everyone new and this theater's working differently now. We can rework it in our own way. Can we have a few questions about your broader career before we finish?Lee: Depends what they are.Oliver: Your former colleague John Carey died at a similar time to Stoppard. What do you think was his best work?Lee: John Carey's best work? Oh. I thought the biography of Golding was pretty good. And I thought he wrote a very good book on Thackery. And I thought his work on Milton was good. I wasn't so keen on The Intellectuals and the Masses. He and I used to have vociferous arguments about that because he had cast Virginia Woolf with all the modernist fascists, as it were. He'd put her in a pile with Wyndham Lewis and Ezra Pound and so on. And actually, Virginia Woolf was a socialist feminist. And this didn't seem to have struck him because he was so keen to expose her frightful snobbery, which is what people in England reading Woolf, especially middle class blokes, were horrified by.And she is a snob, there's no doubt about it. But she knew that and she lacerated herself for it too. And I think he ignored all the other aspects of her. So I was angry about that. But he was the kind of person you could have a really good argument with. That was one of the really great things about John.Oliver: He seems to be someone else who was amenable and charming, but also very steely.Lee: Yes, I think he probably was I think he probably was. You can see that in his memoir, I think.Oliver: What was Carmen Callil like?Lee: Oh. She was a very important person in my life. It was she who got me involved in writing pieces for Virago. And it was she who asked me to write the life of Virginia Woolf for Chatto. And she was an enormous, inspiring encourager as she was to very many people. And I loved her.But I was also, as many people were, quite daunted by her. She was temperamental, she was angry. She was passionate. She was often quite difficult. Not a word I like to use about women because there's that trope of difficult women, but she could be. And she lost her temper in a very un-English way, which was quite a sight to behold. But I think of her as one of the most creative and influential publishers of the 20th century.Oliver: Will there be a biography of her?Lee: I don't know. Yes, it's a really interesting question, and I've been asking her executors whether they have any thoughts about that. Somebody said to me, oh, who wants a biography of a publisher? But, actually, publishers are really important people often, so I hope there would be. Yes. And it would need to be someone who understood the politics of feminism and who understood about coming from Australia and who understood about the Catholic background and who understood about her passion for France. And there are a whole lot of aspects to that life. It's a rich and complex life. Yes, I hope there will be someday.Oliver: Her papers are sitting there in the British Library.Lee: They are. And in fact—you kindly mentioned this to start with—I've just finished a biography of the art historian and novelist, Anita Brookner, who won the Booker prize in 1984 for a novel called Hotel du Lac.And Carmen and Anita were great buddies, surprisingly actually, because they were very different kinds of characters. And the year before she died, Carmen, who knew I was working on Anita, showed me all her diary entries and all the letters she'd kept from Anita. And that's the kind of generous person that she was.That material is now sitting in the British Library, along with huge reams of correspondence between Carmen and many other people. And it's an exciting archive.Oliver: She seems to have had a capacity to be friends with almost anyone.Lee: Yes, I think there were people she would not have wanted to be friends with. She was very disapproving of a lot of political figures and particularly right-wing figures, and there were people she would've simply spat at if she was in the room with them. But, yes, she an enormous range of friends, and she was, as I said, she was fantastically encouraging to younger women writers.And, also, another aspect of Carmen's life, which I greatly admired and was fascinated by: In Virago she would often be resuscitating the careers of elderly women writers who had been forgotten or neglected, including Antonia White and including Rosamund Lehmann. And part of Carmen's job at Virago, as she felt, was not just to republish these people, some of whom hadn't had a book published for decades, but also to look after them. And they were all quite elderly and often quite eccentric and often quite needy. And Carmen would be there, bringing them out and looking after them and going around to see them. And really marvelous, I think.Oliver: Yes, it is. Tell me about Brian Moore.Lee: Breean, as he called himself.Oliver: Oh, I'm sorry.Lee: No, it's all right. I think Brian became a friend because in the 1980s I had a book program on Channel 4, which was called Book Four. It had a very small audience, but had a wonderful time over several years interviewing lots and lots of writers who had new books out. We didn't have a budget; it was a table and two chairs and not the kind of book program you see on the television anymore. And I got to know Brian through that and through reviewing him a bit and doing interviews with him, and my husband and I would go out and visit him and his wife Jean.And I loved the work. I thought the work was such a brilliant mixture of popular cultural forms, like the thriller and historical novel and so on. And fascinating ideas about authority and religion and how to be free, how to break free of the bonds of what he'd grown up with in Ireland, in Northern Ireland, the bombs of religious autocracy, as it were. And very surreal in some ways as well. And he was also a very charming, funny, gregarious person who could be quite wicked about other writers.And, he was a wonderfully wicked and funny companion. What breaks my heart about Brian Moore is that while he was alive, he was writing a novel maybe every other year or every three years, and people would review them and they were talked about, and I don't think they were on academic syllabuses but they were really popular. And when he died and there were no more books, it just went. You can think of other writers like that who were tremendously well known in their time. And then when there weren't any more books, just went away. You ask people, now you go out and ask people, say, “What about The Temptation of Eileen Hughes or The Doctor's Wife or Black Robe? And they'll go, “Sorry?”Oliver: If anyone listening to this wants to try one of his novels, where do you say they should start?Lee: I think I would start with The Doctor's Wife and The Temptation of Eileen Hughes. And then if one liked those, one would get a taste for him. But there's plenty to choose from.Oliver: What about Catholics?Lee: Yes. Catholics is a wonderful book. Yes. Wonderful book. Bit like Muriel Spark's The Abbess of Crewe, I think.Oliver: How important is religion to Penelope Fitzgerald's work?Lee: She would say that she felt guilty about not having put her religious beliefs more explicitly into her fiction. I'm very glad that she didn't because I think it is deeply important and she believes in miracles and saints and angels and manifestations and providence, but she doesn't spell it out.And so when at the end of The Gate of Angels, for instance, there is a kind of miracle on the last page but it's much better not to have it spelt out as a miracle, in my view. And in The Blue Flower, which is not my favorite of her books, but it's the book of the greatest genius possibly. And I think she was a genius. There is a deep interest in Novalis's romantic philosophical ideas about a spiritual life, beyond the physical life, no more doctrinally than that. And she, of course, believes in that. I think she believed, in an almost Platonic way, that this life was a kind of cave of shadows and that there was something beyond that. And there are some very mysterious moments in her books, which, if they had been explained as religious experiences, I think would've been much less forceful and much less intense.Oliver: What is your favorite of her books?Lee: Oh, The Beginning of Spring. The Beginning of Spring is set in Moscow just before the revolution. And its concerns an Englishman who runs a print and publishing works. And it's based quite a lot on some factual narratives about people in Moscow at the time. And it's about the feeling of that place and that time, but it's also about being in love with two people at the same time.And, yes, and it's about cultural clashes and cultural misunderstanding, and it is an astonishingly evocative book. And when asked about this book, interviewers would say to Penelope, oh, she must have lived in Moscow for ages to know so much about it. And sometimes she would say, “Yes, I lived there for years.” And sometimes she would say, “No, I've never been there in my life.” And the fact was she'd had a week's book tour in Moscow with her daughter. And that was the only time she ever went to Russia, but she read. So it was a wonderful example of how she would be so wicked; she would lie.Oliver: Yes.Lee: Because she couldn't be bothered to tell the truth.Oliver: But wasn't she poking fun at their silly questions?Lee: Yes. It's not such a silly question. I would've asked her that question. It is an astonishing evocation of a place.Oliver: No, I would've asked it too, but I do feel like she had this sense of it's silly to be asked questions at all. It's silly to be interviewed.Lee: I interviewed her about three times—and it was fascinating. And she would deflect. She would deflect, deflect. When you asked her about her own work, she would deflect onto someone else's work or she would tell you a story. But she also got quite irritable.So for instance, there's a poltergeist in a novel called The Bookshop. And the poltergeist is a very frightening apparition and very strong chapter in the book. And I said to her in interview, “Look, lots of people think this is just superstition. There aren't poltergeists.” And she looked at me very crossly and said they just haven't been there. They don't know what they're talking about. Absolutely factual and matter of fact about the reality of a poltergeist.Oliver: What makes Virginia Woolf's literary criticism so good?Lee: Oh, I think it's a kind of empathy actually. That she has an extraordinary ability to try and inhabit the person that she's writing about. So she doesn't write from the point of view of, as it were, a dry, historical appreciation.She's got the facts and she's read the books, but she's trying to intimately evoke what it felt like to be that writer. I don't mean by dressing it up with personal anecdotes, but just she has an extraordinary way of describing what that person's writing is like, often in images by using images and metaphors, which makes you feel you are inside the story somehow.And she loves anecdotes. She's very good at telling anecdotes, I think. And also she's not soft, but she's not harshly judgmental. I think she will try and get the juice out of anything she's writing about. Most of these literary criticism pieces were written for money and against the clock and whilst doing other things.So if you read her on Dorothy Wordsworth or Mary Wollstonecraft or Henry James, there's a wonderful sense of, you feel your knowledge has been expanded. Knowledge in the sense of knowing the person; I don't mean in the sense of hard facts.Oliver: Sure. You've finished your Anita Brookner biography and that's coming this year.Lee: September the 10th this year, here and in the States.Oliver: What will you do next?Lee: Yes. That's a very good question, though a little soon, I feel.Oliver: Is there someone whose life you always wanted to write, but didn't?Lee: No. No, there isn't. Not at the moment. Who knows?Oliver: You are open to it. You are open.Lee: Who knows what will come up.Oliver: Yes. Hermione Lee, this was a real pleasure. Thank you very much.Lee: Thank you very much. It was a treat. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

We continue with The HAMLET Project, where we explore one scene (or section) of Shakespeare's Hamlet - one month at a time. To our knowledge, this is the first long-form, open rehearsal of this play available online! So yes, something new with Shakespeare.

We continue with The HAMLET Project, where we explore one scene (or section) of Shakespeare's Hamlet - one month at a time. To our knowledge, this is the first long-form, open rehearsal of this play available online! So yes, something new with Shakespeare.

We continue with The HAMLET Project, where we explore one scene (or section) of Shakespeare's Hamlet - one month at a time. To our knowledge, this is the first long-form, open rehearsal of this play available online! So yes, something new with Shakespeare.

We continue with The HAMLET Project, where we explore one scene (or section) of Shakespeare's Hamlet - one month at a time. To our knowledge, this is the first long-form, open rehearsal of this play available online! So yes, something new with Shakespeare.

As we begin Season 9, we embark on our BIGGEST venture to date: The HAMLET Project, where we explore one scene (or section) of Shakespeare's Hamlet - one month at a time. I'm excited to finally share the amazing work this groups of artists has been doing. And we're still producing new sessions!

After the last three weeks with Dante, we jump to another three-week series with Shakespeare and NINE plays!Shakespeare can be daunting, so I offer a few thoughts on how to approach him: Watch a movie FIRSTGet a good edition (hello, Folger Shakespeare Library)Keep a one-line-per-scene summary as you readEnjoy!! It will get easier and the plays are so very worthwhile.Hamlet dazzles with layered characters and razor-sharp language. Prince Hamlet wrestles with grief, revenge, and perhaps madness, while Claudius broods over the cost of his own sin. My own final note: “Everyone dies except Horatio.”Macbeth feels darker and almost Greek. The witches act as oracles, but Macbeth isn't their puppet—he chooses evil. Lady Macbeth is more accelerant than mastermind, and the play pulses with ominous energy.King Lear hit me hardest. Lear is not villainous, just weary and reckless, longing to lay down his burdens—yet no one gets that choice. Dividing his kingdom invites betrayal from his elder daughters and the scheming Edmund, while steadfast Cordelia stands tragically apart. The repeated “nothing” captures the emptiness of abdicated duty.Together they reveal Shakespeare's trademarks: sudden madness, clever disguises, and language that still crackles, showing three kinds of downfall—the victim (Hamlet), the villain (Macbeth), and the feckless ruler (Lear).LINKTed Gioia/The Honest Broker's 12-Month Immersive Humanities Course (paywalled!)My Amazon Book List (NOT an affiliate link)My Hamlet Movie ChoiceMy MacBeth Movie ChoiceMy King Lear Movie Choice (Not actually that good but I still think about it)CONNECTThe complete list of Crack the Book Episodes: https://cheryldrury.substack.com/p/crack-the-book-start-here?r=u3t2rTo read more of my writing, visit my Substack - https://www.cheryldrury.substack.com.Follow me on Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/cldrury/ LISTENSpotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/5GpySInw1e8IqNQvXow7Lv?si=9ebd5508daa245bdApple Podcasts - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crack-the-book/id1749793321 Captivate - https://crackthebook.captivate.fm

Prince Hamlet collides with Śrīmad Bhāgavatam in this mind-bending episode on the illusion of “good and bad.” Raghunath and Kaustubha explore Bhakti Yoga, mental programming, and the transformative power of staying steady amid life's chaos. They unpack a verse that flips the spiritual script: liberation doesn't require a cave—it requires clarity. With vegan cheesecake hangovers, Tom Sawyer tricks, and a dose of Shakespearean angst, this episode reveals how kings lived as yogis—and how your own messy, modern life can become sacred ground for spiritual evolution. Key Highlights: •⁠  ⁠“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” — Hamlet (and basically the Bhāgavatam too) •⁠  ⁠Why your mind is a meaning-making machine—and how that distorts reality •⁠  ⁠Eastern philosophy says good and bad are illusions—here's what that really means •⁠  ⁠The Bhagavad-gītā's bold message: you can transcend duality without renouncing your responsibilities •⁠  ⁠How tolerance is the first quality of a true sadhu or yogi •⁠  ⁠Why red isn't good, blue isn't bad, and Denmark is just a mindset

Prince Hamlet collides with Śrīmad Bhāgavatam in this mind-bending episode on the illusion of “good and bad.” Raghunath and Kaustubha explore Bhakti Yoga, mental programming, and the transformative power of staying steady amid life's chaos. They unpack a verse that flips the spiritual script: liberation doesn't require a cave—it requires clarity. With vegan cheesecake hangovers, Tom Sawyer tricks, and a dose of Shakespearean angst, this episode reveals how kings lived as yogis—and how your own messy, modern life can become sacred ground for spiritual evolution. Key Highlights: •⁠  ⁠“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” — Hamlet (and basically the Bhāgavatam too) •⁠  ⁠Why your mind is a meaning-making machine—and how that distorts reality •⁠  ⁠Eastern philosophy says good and bad are illusions—here's what that really means •⁠  ⁠The Bhagavad-gītā's bold message: you can transcend duality without renouncing your responsibilities •⁠  ⁠How tolerance is the first quality of a true sadhu or yogi •⁠  ⁠Why red isn't good, blue isn't bad, and Denmark is just a mindset

Re-duxing to honor Bob Newhart on the occasion of his recent passing. I had forgotten that some of this - from 6 years ago - inadvertently sounded like Newhart had already passed.  This is done in the style of one of his routines, which were almost always as one side of a conversation - often as if he was on a phone call, sometimes with other gimmicks (a submarine captain's announcement to his men, a driving instructor talking to an unheard driver). In this case, it's Newhart himself in the part of Hamlet, talking to JFK as an unheard Ghost.  I'm a big fan of his routines and his style, and have written up (but not (yet) recorded) one other: My version of The Aristocrats, done similarly as the agent side of the discussion. Maybe someday....In my head I sound just like him, but this is certainly a poor imitation, so I strongly recommend everyone finding his original recordings.    ============================================ Looking at Hamlet's reaction to his father's ghost by considering some comparable people in the 20th century, Bob Newhart and John F. Kennedy.   This is a way I've considered Prince Hamlet for a while, but I was reminded of it by The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, who mentioned Bob Newhart a couple of times.  And by Kylo Ren, who often seems to be playing Hamlet himself. Celebrity voices impersonated… In this construction, Bob Newhart is Hamlet, although at 33 he's a bit old for the part. How old is a long-standing debate - the Prince's situation indicates that he is in his late teens, but one of the gravediggers suggests that he is 30.  For more fun concerning Hamlet's age and motivations, check out “Hamlet: The Undiscovered Country” by Steve Roth. Here's a good article about Bob Newhart's early career. https://music.avclub.com/the-surprisingly-subversive-album-that-changed-stand-up-1798238091   As noted there, the “Lincoln” bit was “Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue,” where marketing experts are trying to help the 16th President of the United States work on his message, such as doing focus group testing for the Gettysburg address.   Bob Newhart mentioned that he campaigned for JFK because they were both Catholic: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/31/entertainment/la-et-mn-clint-eastwood-bob-newhart-rnc And if you really want to push it, this one references Hamlet as well as JFK https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/10/28/hello-this-is-bob/3de12b83-dc7e-40d5-bb3b-e49b23cbb6ce/?utm_term=.1ce6496e7045   You can find me on Twitter: @generationalize and blogging at http://stories.generationalize.com

Sounds & Sweet Airs - The Complete Works of Shakespeare Hamlet Act 1 The King of Denmark is dead. His brother now sits on the throne, married to the widow of the former monarch. Prince Hamlet is broken by the affair, but a visitation from the realm of the dead reveals details of a betrayal even greater than he could have imagined. CAST Hamlet - Kati Herbert Claudius - Phil Donnelly Gertrude - Jac Knight Ophelia - Stephanie Hull Polonius - Robert Aldington Laertes - Daniel McGinty Horatio - Gareth Johnson Ghost - Andrew Faber CREW Writer - William Shakespeare Producer / Director - Dario Knight Sound Engineer - Stephan Medhurst Title Music - Dream Cave Additional Music - John Bjork

In this episode, co-host Marlis Schweitzer weaves together a series of interviews conducted by actor-playwright and podcast dramaturge Jeff Ho while on tour with members of Why Not Theatre's Prince Hamlet. First produced in 2017 as part of Why Not Theatre's 10th anniversary theatre, Prince Hamlet has been widely acclaimed for its dynamic, intersectional approach to Shakespeare, notably its bilingual blend of English and ASL and its centering of the narrative around a Deaf Horatio played by Dawn Jani Birley. The company remounted Prince Hamlet in 2019 at the Banff Centre and then Canadian Stage, as well as a number of other Canadian stops. In Fall 2022, the company reassembled for a major North American tour, including stops in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Quebec City, among others. In what follows, you'll hear company members speak with Jeff about the rehearsal process, the importance of ASL to this distinctly bilingual production, and the kinds of reactions the production elicited in audiences. This episode features conversations with Dawn Jani Birley, Miriam Fernandes, Barbara Gordon, Jeff Ho, Dante Jemmott, Eli Pauley, and Sturla Alvsväg. Episode 9 ⁠ASL translation⁠ courtesy of Dawn Jani Birley. ⁠ASL interpretation ⁠by Dawn Jani Birley, Robert Haughton, and Alice Lo. Here are some links to things discussed in the episode and some suggestions for further reading: Why Not Theatre's Prince Hamlet Toronto Star interview (including video) with Ravi Jain and Dawn Jani Birley on the 2017 production of Prince Hamlet J. Kelly Nestruck's review of the 2019 production of Prince Hamlet Intermission Magazine video interview with Ravi Jain and Dawn Jani Birley on the 2019 production of Prince Hamlet The Stanford Daily review of the 2022 touring production of Prince Hamlet Jeff Ho's interview with Dawn Jani Birley

Hamlet is commonly regarded as one of the greatest plays ever written. Drawing on Danish chronicles and the Elizabethan vogue for revenge tragedy, Shakespeare created a play that is at once a philosophic treatise, a family drama, and a supernatural thriller. In the wake of his father's death, Prince Hamlet finds that his Uncle Claudius has swiftly taken the throne and married his mother, Queen Gertrude. The ghost of the dead king then appears and charges Claudius with 'murder most foul.' Hamlet is called to revenge his father's death: but will he be able to act before it is too late?Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Hamlet is commonly regarded as one of the greatest plays ever written. Drawing on Danish chronicles and the Elizabethan vogue for revenge tragedy, Shakespeare created a play that is at once a philosophic treatise, a family drama, and a supernatural thriller. In the wake of his father's death, Prince Hamlet finds that his Uncle Claudius has swiftly taken the throne and married his mother, Queen Gertrude. The ghost of the dead king then appears and charges Claudius with 'murder most foul.' Hamlet is called to revenge his father's death: but will he be able to act before it is too late?Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Hamlet is commonly regarded as one of the greatest plays ever written. Drawing on Danish chronicles and the Elizabethan vogue for revenge tragedy, Shakespeare created a play that is at once a philosophic treatise, a family drama, and a supernatural thriller. In the wake of his father's death, Prince Hamlet finds that his Uncle Claudius has swiftly taken the throne and married his mother, Queen Gertrude. The ghost of the dead king then appears and charges Claudius with 'murder most foul.' Hamlet is called to revenge his father's death: but will he be able to act before it is too late?Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Fluent Fiction - Danish: The Grand Show: Everyday Tales of Life in Denmark Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.org/the-grand-show-everyday-tales-of-life-in-denmark Story Transcript:Da: På en skarp, blæsende dag i Aarhus, begav Lars sig ud i verden.En: On a sharp, windy day in Aarhus, Lars set out into the world.Da: Han var iført sin yndlingshat, sort med et bredt bånd.En: He was wearing his favorite hat, black with a wide band.Da: Men ak, en pludselig vind pustede hatten af hans hoved, og den begyndte sin frie flugt ned ad gågaden.En: But alas, a sudden gust of wind blew the hat off his head, and it began its free flight down the pedestrian street.Da: Lars begyndte straks at løbe efter sin hat, mens han grinede højlydt og vejede imellem kærlighed for hans hat og absurditeten af situationen.En: Lars immediately started running after his hat, laughing loudly and wavering between love for his hat and the absurdity of the situation.Da: Samtidig, i København, kørte Ingrid på arbejde på en grå, regnfuld morgen.En: Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, Ingrid commuted to work on a gray, rainy morning.Da: Hun havde sin regnponcho på og pedalede stædigt gennem vandpytter og mod vindstød.En: She wore her rain poncho and pedaled stubbornly through puddles and against gusts of wind.Da: Trods vejret var Ingrid ved godt humør.En: Despite the weather, Ingrid was in good spirits.Da: Hun elskede den følelse af frihed på sin cykel, selv i regnvejret, og det var en fantastisk start på dagen.En: She loved the feeling of freedom on her bike, even in the rain, and it was a fantastic start to the day.Da: Et sprudlende par, Henrik og Karen, tilbragte dagen på Tivoli i København.En: A vibrant couple, Henrik and Karen, spent the day at Tivoli in Copenhagen.Da: De nød en tur i rutsjebanen, mens de delte smørrebrød og dejligt dansk bagværk.En: They enjoyed a ride on the roller coaster, while sharing open-faced sandwiches and delicious Danish pastries.Da: Dagen var varm, og solen skinnede, og det dannede rammen for et perfekt eventyr for de to.En: The day was warm, the sun was shining, and it set the stage for a perfect adventure for the two.Da: På Bornholm var Freja fuld af forventning og entusiasme.En: On Bornholm, Freja was full of anticipation and enthusiasm.Da: Hun forsøgte af kraft og kræfter at udtale det notorisk svære danske ord: 'Rødgrød med fløde'.En: She tried with all her might to pronounce the notoriously difficult Danish phrase: 'Rødgrød med fløde'.Da: Hun øvede foran spejlet, genkaldte lyden fra hendes dansklærer, og hun prøvede igen.En: She practiced in front of the mirror, recalling the sound from her Danish teacher, and tried again.Da: I Legoland tog Anders henover en indviklet Lego-model, der skulle forestille Den Lille Havfrue.En: In Legoland, Anders carefully walked over a complex Lego model that depicted The Little Mermaid.Da: Han studerede hvert enkelt lille stykke, nikkede til sig selv og pludselig begyndte et helt havfruekunstværk at komme til live.En: He studied each small piece, nodded to himself, and suddenly a whole mermaid artwork came to life.Da: I Odense, var Sofie fanget i en traditionel dansk folkedans.En: In Odense, Sofie was caught up in a traditional Danish folk dance.Da: Hun var henrykt over musikken, dansen og stemningen, og hun kunne ikke hjælpe med at grine, når hun lavede en forkert sving.En: She was delighted by the music, the dancing, and the atmosphere, and she couldn't help but laugh when she made a wrong turn.Da: Tilbage i København, ved Nyhavn, forsøgte Mads modigt at fange en måge, der havde sat sin appetit på hans hotdog.En: Back in Copenhagen, at Nyhavn, Mads bravely attempted to catch a seagull that had set its sights on his hotdog.Da: Tilskuere grinede og heppede på ham, da han kæmpede en legendarisk kamp om sit måltid.En: Spectators laughed and cheered him on as he fought a legendary battle for his meal.Da: I Roskilde, var Astrid i højt humør.En: In Roskilde, Astrid was in high spirits.Da: Hun dansede og sang med til livemusik på Roskilde Festivalen.En: She danced and sang along to live music at the Roskilde Festival.Da: Hendes hjerte pumpede i takt med trommespillet, og hendes sjæl følte sig friere end nogensinde.En: Her heart pumped in time with the drums, and her soul felt freer than ever before.Da: I Aalborg, gjorde Signe det utænkelige.En: In Aalborg, Signe did the unthinkable.Da: Mens hun forsøgte at tage en selfie på sin cykel, mistede hun balancen og rullede langsomt men uundgåeligt i kanalen.En: While trying to take a selfie on her bike, she lost her balance and slowly but inevitably rolled into the canal.Da: Omgivet af latter og opløftende heppekor, kravlede hun op igen, druknet, men ubesejret.En: Surrounded by laughter and encouraging cheers, she climbed back up, drenched but undefeated.Da: Endelig i Helsingør, trådte Nikolaj ind i sin rolle som prins Hamlet.En: Finally, in Helsingør, Nikolaj stepped into his role as Prince Hamlet.Da: Han stod på Kronborg Slot, declamerede Shakespeare og stirrede ud over vandet med en melankolsk, men beslutsom mine.En: He stood at Kronborg Castle, reciting Shakespeare and gazing out over the water with a melancholic yet determined expression.Da: Det var der, han følte sig mest levende.En: It was there that he felt most alive.Da: Da dagen nåede sin ende, hvilede hver af disse ti personer, trætte men tilfredse.En: As the day came to an end, each of these ten individuals rested, tired but satisfied.Da: De havde løbet, danset, sunget, grint, og levet.En: They had run, danced, sung, laughed, and lived.Da: Og som solen sank over Danmark, kun de glædede sig over tanken om at gøre det hele igen næste dag.En: And as the sun sank over Denmark, only they reveled in the thought of doing it all over again the next day.Da: Historien om hverdagen, livet, og det store show fortsætter!En: The story of everyday life, of living, and of the grand show continues! Vocabulary Words:On: Påa: ensharp: skarpwindy: blæsendeday: dagin: iAarhus: AarhusLars: Larsset out: begavinto: indthe: denworld: verdenHe: Hanwas wearing: var iførthis: hansfavorite: yndlingshat: hatblack: sortwith: meda: etwide: bredtband: båndBut: Menalas: aksudden: pludseliggust of wind: vindpustblew: pustedethe: hattenoff: afhis: hans

In this episode, we chat about the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.“The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark”, often shortened to “Hamlet” is one of Shakespeare's most quoted plays. It was written between 1599-1601, and is his longest play. The play is set in Denmark, where Prince Hamlet's uncle has taken over the throne by killing Hamlet's father, and marrying Hamlet's mother. This play features on many shortlists for literature for GCSE + A-level, but how will we find it (as first time readers of this play)? Listen to find out! In this episode we discuss several different stagings of the play, including the 1996 version with Kenneth Branagh, the 2009 version with David Tennant, the 2018 version with Andrew Scott, and the 2016 RSC staging with Paapa Essiedu, which are all available online, although we're not sure we can recommend all of them **cough** Branagh **cough**. Content WarningsDeath, SuicideSupport the showP.s If there's a book you want to recommend to us to read, just send us a message/email and we'll pop it on our long list (but please read our review policy on our website first for the books we accept).Social MediaWebsite: https://teachingmycattoread.wordpress.com/Email: teachingmycattoread@gmail.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/teachmycat2read/Twitter: https://twitter.com/teachmycat2read?s=09Tumblr: https://teachingmycattoread.tumblr.comYoutube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFXi9LNQv8SBQt8ilgTZXtQ

This podcast covers New Girl Season 3, Episode 12, Basketsball, which originally aired on January 14, 2014 and was written by Rebecca Addelman and directed by Lorene Scafaria. Here's a quick recap of the episode:Jess tries to bond with Coach by pretending to like basketball which leads to a feud with Nick. Meanwhile, Winston shadows Schmidt at work while he's training a new guy!We discuss Pop Culture References such as:BASKETBALL - This episode features many basketball references as the premise deals with Jess becoming a Detroit Pistons fan to befriend Coach, despite the fact that Nick's favorite team is their rivals, the Chicago Bulls. October to JuneDetroit PistonsChicago BullsPistons vs Bulls Rivalry Michael JordanTom ThibodeauJosh SmithScottie PippenAdditional Pop Culture References such as:Disposable Camera - Nick took “sexy, sensual, private pics” on a disposable camera for Jess. A disposable camera is a simple box camera meant to be used once. Most use fixed-focus lenses. Some are equipped with an integrated flash unit, and there are even waterproof versions for underwater photography. The height of the flash-equipped disposable cameras craze was around 2005. [Edward] Snowden - Nick said he didn't want his “sexy, sensual, private pics” to be on his phone because he didn't want them “beamed right into Snowden's pocket”. Edward Joseph Snowden is an American former computer intelligence consultant who leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA) in 2013, when he was an employee and subcontractor. His illegal disclosures prompted a cultural discussion about national security and individual privacy.Guy Fieri - Nick titled one of his “sexy” pics the “Guy Fieri”. Guy Ramsay Fieri is an American restaurateur, author, and an Emmy Award winning television presenter. He co-owns three restaurants in California, licenses his name to restaurants in New York City and Las Vegas, and is known for hosting various television series on the Food Network. He's also known for his iconic spiky bleached hair and goatee look.  Paula Abdul - When Jess was trying to tempt Nick during their sex stand-off, she started reading what a piston does and Nick said he was doing “a little Paula Abdul stuff.” Paula Julie Abdul is an American singer, dancer, choreographer, actress, and television personality. She began her career as a cheerleader for the Los Angeles Lakers, later choreographed music videos for those like Janet Jackson, and soon thereafter had a successful career as a musician. Abdul was also one of the original judges on the television series American Idol, and has since appeared as a judge on The X Factor, Live to Dance, So You Think You Can Dance, and The Masked Dancer. Training Day - Winston shares that Training Day is his favorite movie. Training Day is a 2001 American crime thriller that focuses on two LAPD narcotics officers over a 24-hour period in the gang-ridden neighborhoods of Westlake, Echo Park, and South Central Los Angeles. The film received numerous accolades and nominations, with Denzel Washington's performance earning him the Academy Award for Best Actor and Ethan Hawke being nominated for Best Supporting Actor.When Jess and Nick are exploring what rivalries are, they mention a few rivals: Yankees & Red Sox - Like the Detroit Pistons and Chicago Bulls, the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox major league baseball teams are arguably the fiercest rivalry in sports. In 1919, Red Sox owner Harry Frazee sold star player Babe Ruth to the Yankees, which was followed by an 86-year period in which the Red Sox did not win a World Series. This led to the popularization of a superstition known as the "Curse of the Bambino,” which was onte of the most well-known aspects of the rivalry.Jean Valjean & Javert - Both Jean Valjean and Javert are fictional characters from Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables. The story's main character, Jean Valjean, struggles to lead a normal life after serving a prison sentence for stealing bread to feed his sister's children during a time of economic depression and various attempts to escape from prison. Javert is a prison guard and then a police inspector, and his character is defined by his legalist tendencies and lack of empathy for criminals of all forms. Valjean and police Inspector Javert, who repeatedly encounters Valjean and attempts to return him to prison, have become archetypes in literary culture. Hamlet - The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet, is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare. Set in Denmark, the play depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother.This episode we discuss which one of us is most likely to fake being into something to make friends, steal someone's idea, have loose olives under your bed, and not support your partner's team. We cover the moment where Schmidt shares that Ed out-sharked him to Cece and Winston as our “Schmidtism” this episode. For “Not in the 2020s” we chat about the men vs women dynamics and some of the ageism. For “Yes in the 2020s” we discuss the moment where Nick yells out how he was going to respectfully take Jess. We also give a brief look into Bob Gunton (Ed), the Guest Star we feature in this episode.Also in this episode were the following guest stars who we do not discuss in the podcast: Gillian Vigman (Kim - Previously Discussed in S1E12), Selina Kaye (Waitress), and Adam Michna (Bar Patron).We also chat about how the writers landed on this plotline but we did not find the bear this episode.While not discussed in the podcast, we noted other references in this episode including:Half Nelson - One of the poses that Nick photographs himself in he calls the “Half Nelson”. The half nelson is a wrestling hold in which one arm is thrust under the corresponding arm of an opponent and the hand placed on the back of the opponent's neck. Most coaches refer to it as the easiest but most effective move in folkstyle wrestling, and it is very commonly used.This episode got an 7/10 rating from both Kritika and Kelly and both had the same favorite character: Nick!Thanks for listening and stay tuned for Episode 13!Music: "Hotshot” by scottholmesmusic.comFollow us on Twitter, Instagram or email us at whosthatgirlpod@gmail.com!Website: https://smallscreenchatter.com/

To listen or not to listen? That is the question. Shakespeare's Hamlet is perhaps the most famous work of the most famous author, and for good reason. Shakespeare manages to string together romance, vengeance, politics, humor and a highly proformative soliloquy all in one. As a master writer, Shakespeare is able to put together both a story and a life lesson in the form of an infamous young price: Hamlet. Join our very first Shakespeare discussion as we untangle the story of Prince Hamlet on his way to avenge the death of his father at the hands of his uncle. We talk about the best parts and the worst part of reading Shakespeare.

To listen or not to listen? That is the question. Shakespeare's Hamlet is perhaps the most famous work of the most famous author, and for good reason. Shakespeare manages to string together romance, vengeance, politics, humor and a highly proformative soliloquy all in one. As a master writer, Shakespeare is able to put together both a story and a life lesson in the form of an infamous young price: Hamlet. Join our very first Shakespeare discussion as we untangle the story of Prince Hamlet on his way to avenge the death of his father at the hands of his uncle. We talk about the best parts and the worst part of reading Shakespeare.

Hamlet by William Shakespeare audiobook. Hamlet is commonly regarded as one of the greatest plays ever written. Drawing on Danish chronicles and the Elizabethan vogue for revenge tragedy, Shakespeare created a play that is at once a philosophic treatise, a family drama, and a supernatural thriller. In the wake of his father's death, Prince Hamlet finds that his Uncle Claudius has swiftly taken the throne and married his mother, Queen Gertrude. The ghost of the dead king then appears and charges Claudius with 'murder most foul.' Hamlet is called to revenge his father's death: but will he be able to act before it is too late?

On this episode we present to you a spoiler free discussion on 2022s THE NORTHMAN by Robert Eggers, director of The VVITCH & THE LIGHTHOUSE! We also have some updates on whats new with Death By DVD and what will be happening in the future as we take a brief break to record and create new episodes! The Death By DVD SENTINEL remix theme by LINUS FITNESS-CENTREDEATH BY DVD PRESENTS : WHO SHOT HANK? The first of its kind (On this show, at least) an all original narrative audio drama exploring the murder of this shows very host, HANK THE WORLDS GREATEST! Explore WHO SHOT HANK, starting with the MURDER!  A Death By DVD New Year Mystery  WHO SHOT HANK : PART ONE  WHO SHOT HANK : PART TWO  WHO SHOT HANK : PART THREE  WHO SHOT HANK : PART FOUR  WHO SHOT HANK PART 5 : THE BEGINNING OF THE END WHO SHOT HANK PART 6 THE FINALE : EXEUNT OMNES 

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrockby T.S. Eliot (1888-1965)     S'io credesse che mia risposta fosse     A persona che mai tornasse al mondo,     Questa fiamma staria senza piu scosse.     Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo     Non torno vivo alcun, s'i'odo il vero,     Senza tema d'infamia ti rispondo.Let us go then, you and I,When the evening is spread out against the skyLike a patient etherized upon a table;Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,The muttering retreatsOf restless nights in one-night cheap hotelsAnd sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:Streets that follow like a tedious argumentOf insidious intentTo lead you to an overwhelming question…Oh, do not ask, "What is it?"Let us go and make our visit.In the room the women come and goTalking of Michelangelo.The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panesLicked its tongue into the corners of the evening,Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,And seeing that it was a soft October night,Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.And indeed there will be timeFor the yellow smoke that slides along the street,Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;There will be time, there will be timeTo prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;There will be time to murder and create,And time for all the works and days of handsThat lift and drop a question on your plate;Time for you and time for me,And time yet for a hundred indecisions,And for a hundred visions and revisions,Before the taking of a toast and tea.In the room the women come and goTalking of Michelangelo.And indeed there will be timeTo wonder, "Do I dare?" and, "Do I dare?"Time to turn back and descend the stair,With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—[They will say: "How his hair is growing thin!"]My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—[They will say: "But how his arms and legs are thin!"]Do I dareDisturb the universe?In a minute there is timeFor decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.For I have known them all already, known them all—Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;I know the voices dying with a dying fallBeneath the music from a farther room.     So how should I presume?And I have known the eyes already, known them all—The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,Then how should I beginTo spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?     And how should I presume?And I have known the arms already, known them all—Arms that are braceleted and white and bare[But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!]Is it perfume from a dressThat makes me so digress?Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.     And should I then presume?     And how should I begin?          . . . . .Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streetsAnd watched the smoke that rises from the pipesOf lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? …I should have been a pair of ragged clawsScuttling across the floors of silent seas.          . . . . .And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!Smoothed by long fingers,Asleep… tired… or it malingers,Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,Though I have seen my head [grown slightly bald] brought in upon a platter,I am no prophet—and here's no great matter;I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,And in short, I was afraid.And would it have been worth it, after all,After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,Would it have been worth while,To have bitten off the matter with a smile,To have squeezed the universe into a ballTo roll it toward some overwhelming question,To say: "I am Lazarus, come from the dead,Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all"—If one, settling a pillow by her head,     Should say: "That is not what I meant at all.     That is not it, at all."And would it have been worth it, after all,Would it have been worth while,After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—And this, and so much more?—It is impossible to say just what I mean!But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:Would it have been worth whileIf one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,And turning toward the window, should say:     "That is not it at all,     That is not what I meant, at all."          . . . . .No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;Am an attendant lord, one that will doTo swell a progress, start a scene or two,Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,Deferential, glad to be of use,Politic, cautious, and meticulous;Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—Almost, at times, the Fool.I grow old… I grow old…I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.I do not think that they will sing to me.I have seen them riding seaward on the wavesCombing the white hair of the waves blown backWhen the wind blows the water white and black.We have lingered in the chambers of the seaBy sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brownTill human voices wake us, and we drown. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit iwillreadtoyou.substack.com/subscribe

Denmark has been conquered by Fortinbras of Norway. The coroner reported 9 Danish deaths, four within the royal family, the other five intimately connected to the family. Fortinbras has established a totalitarian regime and sought to suppress all Danish opposition—and especially the truth behind the nine Danish deaths. (Fortinbras ridiculously claims that as part of his takeover he single-handedly defeated the nine in hand-to-hand combat using poisoned fencing equipment). In this truth-suppressed society, the only outlet for the truth is Resistance Radio, an underground radio show hosted by “The Great Dane,” a sleuthing citizen committed to the truth. In this episode The Great Dane shares with his audience the epic discovery of “The Polonius Tapes.” Polonius, a former adviser to the Danish King, had long touted a “To thine own self be true” policy in the castle of Elsinore, encouraging external processing among its inhabitants. However, Polonius secretly recorded everyone's private soliloquizing in order to spy on the speakers. The Great Dane shares highlights from these tapes, enlisting a troupe of actors to give voice to these hitherto unknown texts (most of which were originally spoken by Prince Hamlet). With the sharing of these speeches the truth begins to emerge surrounding the Tragedy of Hamlet, prince of Denmark. Finally, The Great Dane has a star witness in Hamlet's best friend, Horatio, the only known survivor with direct knowledge of the deeds (and misdeeds) of the last days of independent Denmark.

T.S. Eliot - The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock - Poetry Supplement - Episode 2 Hi, This is Christy Shriver, and we're here to discuss books that have changed the world and have changed us.    I'm Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast.  This is week two in our discussion of the trans-Atlantic icon, Thomas Stearns Eliot or as he's widely referred to, TS Eliot.  As we mentioned last week, TS Eliot was the recipient of the 1948 Nobel Prize in Literature.  When the Swedish Academy presented him this award, Gustaf Helstrom compared Eliot's contribution to those of Sigmund Freud.  Eliot understood and expressed so much of the heart of humanity during those years.      He also spoke and commented on man's hope for the future, which is something you don't really think about especially when you think about how dark a lot of his poetry is.      For Eliot, hope for the future was often found in the study of the past, and as a history and psychology teacher, this is something that resonates strongly with me.  He believed that by looking backwards we could make a better future.  I want to read just the final couple of sentences of Helstrom' introduction during the ceremony where he received his Nobel Prize.  “For you the salvation of man lies in the preservation of the cultural tradition, which, in our more mature years, lives with greater vigor within us than does primitiveness, and which we must preserve if chaos is to be avoided. Tradition is not a dead load which we drag along with us, and which in our youthful desire for freedom we seek to throw off. It is the soil in which the seeds of coming harvests are to be sown, and from which future harvests will be garnered. As a poet you have, Mr. Eliot, for decades, exercised a greater influence on your contemporaries and younger fellow writers than perhaps anyone else of our time.”    Of course that resonates with me as well.  There has been so much criticism about studying the writings of the past and many see little value to the thoughts, stories and experiences of those who lived on this planet before us.  But I strongly disagree, and  I love listening to Eliot and Helstrom.     Ha!  Well, you know what I call that?    Of course, I do, you call it, “the arrogance of the presence”    Well, I'm pretty sure I didn't coin that phrase, but yes- I believe that's exactly what it is- and creating that continuity between the past and the present seems to be the impetus, at least in part, for all the classical and historical allusions in Eliot's writing.    Well, there is no doubt about that.  For sure.  However, I wanted to go back to the psychology side of it for a minute.  When we talking Gatsby, we mentioned we'd get into a little neuroscience about what makes us enjoy all these weird metaphors and ironies.  We mentioned that Eliot would be an interesting place to talk about that because for one thing- his writing is so obviously psychological and weird- two things we don't associate with beauty necessarily.  Today, our goal is to look at the words, the metaphors, the ironies of this poem.  I promise, it will be interesting although I'm not sure I've made it sound so quite yet, so let's start our discussion thinking about our brains.    For sure,  of course the unanswerable question is the mysterious connection behind the brain and art.  Art and beauty are so important to being human.  There is no doubt it's essential for happiness.  The research behind this connection beyond that however,  is complex and there is not total agreement on what all of it means.  Of course we know art raises serotonine levels- and that's where happiness comes from- if we're talking biochemistry-      can tell you definitely from a scientific standpoint what makes any one particular thing beautiful, why do we call certain things beautiful, and why it even matter?  Of course, we all know it does, even children feel this.     We know that it absolutely DOES matter; there is no debate that we must have beauty in our world.  But let's look specifically at the beauty of words.  That matters too, but a lot of times, we really don't think of it  as much as we think visual art or music.  We know that neurons get excited when two arbitrary ideas are connected- like in the case of puns or metaphors.  Think of it like we get a hit of brain-happiness.  So, when we read poems like Prufrock, even though the images may not be what we traditionally consider beautiful, like sunsets or roses or things like that, because there is so much that is unexpected and unique, our brain is activated in different ways and we find pleasure in these connections.    Let me give you an example that is not from this poem, but most people would understand.  Let's go back to visual art. Have you ever wondered why the Mona Lisa is so famous?  Is it because this woman is just that gorgeous?  This has always confused people.  One scientist, Dr. Maragaret Livingstone, suggests the delight, at least in part is because depending on the angle, Mona Lisa's expression is different, and we get pleasure from these unexpected changes- they're unexpected.  Our brain activity is affected- and we get a happiness hit.     So, when Eliot or Fitzgerald or anyone puts two expressions together that take us by surprise- we are affected neurologically?      Researchers definitely think that's a part of it..  When we listen to the words in some of those more poetic parts of Gatsby, we can feel sensations of brain activity that scientists would connect to sensations of pleasure.  We can say it more than once and feel it again.  At the end of the day, there is pleasure in making connections- that is the human experience.  It makes us feel our humanity.  If you're far away from home and you find someone from your same hometown- you make a connection- even if it's no more than, funny, we went to the same high school,  bam- there's a sensation of pleasure.  We've made a human connection.    Having that idea in mind, when you read a poem like TS Eliot, and if you take the time to try to understand or make sense of all the connections, neuroscientists would tell you that the intellectual pursuit towards understanding the patterns in the words, solving the problems in the poem, or seeing the images provoke neural stimulation that is actually positive- especially if you have a natural affinity for word games- and that is true even if the poem itself is dark.        Which of course it really is.  It is strange when you think of a poem like Prufrock that can be so frustrating;  you have to wonder, why do people like reading it over and over again?  Why do we like reading any poem over and over again?      Exactly- Why do we like to read some books or watch some movies over again.  There are many, and I'd say the majority even if we enjoyed them the first time, do not entice us to re-read or re-watch at all?  The answer, from the neuroscience perspective is because things like poems such as Prufrock prevent easy absorption- you will understand one part of the text, but the next reading, you may find something else in a different place. So, it's a piece of art that re-stimulates your brain differently and that will keep you coming back.  Did that make sense or was that just confusing?    No, it makes sense- humanities people use words like the connection between body and spirit- science speak might be biology and psychology and our spirit- And it's easy for me to accept how all these human elements work together in a mysterious way.  I will also say, as a teacher who interacts with hundreds of people every single day, I get a lot of pleasure from all kinds of unexpected connections.  Truth be told, that may be one of my favorite things.  I don't know.  I'd have to reflect.    So, after all that intro- Let's see these connections and stimulate some brain waves.  Read stanza one, and I'll give you some thoughts on it. .     Let us go then, you and I,  When the evening is spread out against the sky  Like a patient etherized upon a table;  Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,  The muttering retreats  Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels  And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:  Streets that follow like a tedious argument  Of insidious intent  To lead you to an overwhelming question ...  Oh, do not ask, “What is it?”  Let us go and make our visit.    So, the first thing you may ask yourself is who is he talking to?  The poem. is in the second person- who's YOU? This is never explained.  Eliot never names a second person.   Is the reader being talked to- am I supposed to be the second person, like a letter or a traditional dramatic monologue? Is there an imaginary person that's this second person; is he talking to himself?  The first rule in reading modern poetry is that modern poets are like powerful women- they never explain themselves.      Well, there you go-I can almost hear that coming out of Maggie Smith's mouth in her role as the Dowager in Downton Abbey.     I know- that's who I was channeling, to be honest.  But in the case o Modern poets, they deliberately leave these ambiguities in the text for a reason, and the purpose is not to confuse the reader, although that may be how it feels.  What they want you to do, as a reader, is meet them halfway in building meaning- you, as a reader, are to make the work of art more about you as an individual- a personal connection, so to speak.  So, in this case- Who IS the YOU?- And, I'd have to ask, who do you want it to be?  What will help you make the most meaning out of the words.  What helps you make the most sense of the images?      That sounds like you're making the reading exhausting.    Well, there is that risk, so, I'm going to defy the modernists and just give you my opinion or how I interpret this- just to maybe make it easier- but let me just say- I'm not right.  I'm not wrong, but I'm also not right.  This is just ONE way of seeing things.  In fact, I may give you a couple of theories and let you go from there.      That has always frustrated me about English teachers.  There is never a right or wrong answer.    Not true, there definitely can be a wrong answer- a wrong answer is one that cannot be supported from the text.  So, it would be wrong to say, that he's talking about Martians and space aliens here- but then again, maybe- that's not true either and  you could have a space reading of this poem, I've never tried.      But here's one way of looking at it- When I look at those lines that you just read- here are my first thoughts- the words are initially decisive- come- you-and I- let us go? Like me saying, come, Garry, let's go get dessert.  Let's go to the park.   It's a nice invitation-  I see it as a guy talking in his own mine- role-playing how he wished he would talk to people in the real world- how he would like to engage other people- but there isn't anyone there yet, so he's just saying it to himself- practicing and getting up his nerve to do something he wants to do for real.  However, this spirit of bravery collides immediately with the first image.  Now remember- an image is something you can see or experience in your mind- we can see a sky- we can also feel or at least remember how it feels to be etherized- he puts these to images together-to mix the messages.    The evening is spread out against the sky like a patient etherized upon a table.      How do those two things even go together?  Obviously they don't-     If you are etherized- that means you're under the influence of ether-today we don't use ether for this- but during WW1, they used it to numb people for medicinal purposes.    Does it knock people out, make them unconscious?    Well, just smelling it won't make you lose consciousness, but it was used as an anesthetic until safer methods were invented.     And so here's how this all works- this poem is about how it feels to be a modern man- or modern person- to use more politically correct terminology.  Think of J Alfred as gender- generic- it applies beyond gender-This guy is alone.  so I look at it like he's talking to himself.  He walks out in the sky- it should be a romantic scene- he wants it to be we will see later- we're going to see that he's going to a party with a lot of women (at least maybe he is), but in this stanza, the sky doesn't invigorate him, it doesn't give him peace or a sense of fresh air- he feels nothing- it's a sensation of numbness- like being a patient who has been given strong numbing medication.  And as we keep reading, he takes us- or as I interpret it- the other side of himself- the YOU- he's talking to- into the streets and look what he sees.  These are not romantic images.  These are sleezy images.  One-night cheap hotels, sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells.  There is nothing here that connotes human connections, intimacy, fellowship. Nothing here that makes you feel happy.    Eliot creates a simile but he also personifies the streets- the streets are compared to a tedious argument- tiresome, boring, pointless- he says the intent of the streets is insidious- the definition of insidious means gradual, subtle, but with harmful effects.      The streets are not our friends.      No, they don't seem to be.  They pretend to be, but they are insidious- deceitful with harmful effects. And all of this brings us to this next like where he asks what he calls “an overwhelming question”- but he won't tell us what the question is.  Is it because he doesn't know the question?  Is it because there is not question?  There is a feeling of pointlessness in this entire stanza- and remember, for modern poetry,  the feeling is the thing.      Well, I cannot say that I don't understand this emotion that he's expressing.  I think every young person does at one point in their life or another.  We all think whatever the streets represent is glamorous at some point- but then we get knocked back by reality…hopefully sooner rather than later.    Well, that's true, and especially for modern people.  People who live in urban environments.  People who live in communities without big family or historical connections- and there is nothing in this poem to suggest that that is Prufrock's case- look at what I'm doing- I'm putting my own meaning in this poem.  I did grow up in a city of 3 million people.  My window as a child faced to the streets with people walking and laughing looking like the night life was where happiness lived.  I grew up in a city with no historical connections and so forth- so I'm meeting  Eliot in this poem and creating the images in my mind not of seedy Boston, but Belo Horizonte (although my neighborhood wasn't seedy).  It was modern.  Does that make sense at all?    Sure it does.      .  Now that I gave one spin on this first stanza- and I promise I won't do this the entire way through- we'd never finish this episode- but I want to express a framework for how to enjoy a poem like this.  Here's a second way reading this same stanza, and this may be the majority view.  Lots of people think  he's talking to a woman- the woman he wants to ask out.  It is a love song, that's in the title, so, it stands to reason if you look at it that way, that he's talking to a woman- the woman he's going to meet.  The overwhelming question in this case would be a proclamation of a love interest of some sorts.  Read the next several stanzas.     In the room the women come and go  Talking of Michelangelo.    The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,  The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes,  Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,  Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,  Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,  Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,  And seeing that it was a soft October night,  Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.    And indeed there will be time  For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,  Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;  There will be time, there will be time  To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;  There will be time to murder and create,  And time for all the works and days of hands  That lift and drop a question on your plate;  Time for you and time for me,  And time yet for a hundred indecisions,  And for a hundred visions and revisions,  Before the taking of a toast and tea.    In the room the women come and go  Talking of Michelangelo.    This business of Michelangelo is funny.  Why do they have to be talking of Michelangelo?      I know- Eliot does a lot with figurative language in this poem- meaning he isn't always being literal about everything.  This will sound technical, but not boring, I hope.   As we all know- even today, authors use similes and metaphors to help us understsnd their ideas- that take something we don't understand, compare it to something we do understand and bam- they make sense- oh my love is a red red rose- you don't know what your love is like, but you do know what a rose is and a red red rose must be a very very deep and beautiful one so there- the metaphor makes me love you    Or at least Robert Burns.  Didn't he say that?    True, although I think that line has gotten some use over the year.  Elliot's uses metaphors and similes but really for as much imagining as we have here- not all that much.  There really are only three similes in this entire poem of over 100 lines which is strange.  He uses what we call metonymy and synecdoche-     Synec-do-what?  Isn't there a sad movie with Phillip Seymor Hoffman called that.    Yes- and ironically not too different from Prufrock- it's Big word- But it means when some part of something is used to represent something bigger than just the one thing.  So, here's what's going on- he says the women are talking of Michelangelo- what we are to understand is that the women may or may not literally be talking about Michelangelo.  Michelangelo is a thing that is standing in to represent the kinds of things women like this talk about.  These women are cultured= or at least they pretend to be- they talk about sophisticated things like classical art- likely dull things- I'm not saying that Michelangelo is necessarily dull- but for some people, maybe like a guy like Prufrock it could be- it's tedious pretentiousness- talking about things you're supposed to be interested in- things you can snub others about- but not really enjoyable- “The Galleria d' accademia is such a small museum for such an impressive piece of art like Michelangelo's David.” Don't you agree?  But I will say the sunlight there highlight  the craftmanship so characteristic of the high renaissance.  To which someone replies- “oh most definitely”..and there's a wonderful tea shop just across the street with a marvelous pastry chef name Leonardo, who makes the best biscotti.     Hahahaha- it sounds like you've been talking of Michelangelo, yourself.  Is that true about Leonardo.    Ha!  Well, it is- but it's just a bakery I found on Google.  I'm just pretending to have eaten the biscotti- I read that in a Google Review.  But the idea is the  snobbery.  Metonymy is when you use a thing to represent a bunch of things that are associated with a thing- and that's what Michelangelo is standing in for here.  Synecdoche and metonymy are so close to the same things- don't bother trying to separate them- it's something representing a larger group.    So, is the yellow fog metonymy too?    The yellow fog is the most confusing part of the whole poem.  Again, you're supposed to interpret it for yourself- but here's one idea.  We have this guy, he's getting his courage to go into a party of sophisticated women and he expects to be snubbed.  This is kind of how he sees himself- like a cat- but a fog cat it's- licking its tongue, suddenly leaping- rubbing its muzzle- a tom cat could be suave and debonair, but this one is kind of foggy- and definitely unattractive.    This is really stream of consciousness- psychological- this guy thinking of himself like a tom cat, like a fog, slying going into a party-  on a soft October night, curling up in a corner and falling asleep-  this is the most positive point in the entire poem.    Exactly- and it really is- even though it feels disconnected and scattered- but is actually highly structured and organized.  Prufrock is definitely not a sly tom cat getting ready to pounce in real life.  And when he thinks about it for half a second more he knows it.   He starting talking about time- which is really an allusion to the Bible passage in Ecclesiastes as well as Andrew Marvelll's poem To His Coy Mistress.  Marvel's poem is one of the most famous seize the day poems ever written in English.   In Marvell's poem, a suave sexy man seduces a woman by telling her they need to seize the day because she might die.  In Marvel's poem, he basically says, if we had all the time in the world, I wouldn't mind playing this coy game of you pretending to be prudish, but we don't have all the time in the world and you aren't, you're going to die, worms are going to take your virginity- you'll be ugly so if you want to maximize what you have we need to consummate this thing right now.    Ha! Well, if you know that poem, this part is extremely ironic.  Prufrock isn't bold or brave like Marvel.  Instead of overpowering the women, He makes excuses for himself- he says the exact opposite- there's plenty of time, life is long, I can put off making my move.      And the line that people have really enjoyed is that last phrase, “Time for you and time for me and time yet for a hundred indecisions, and for a hundred visions and revisions, before the taking of a toast and tea.     There is a sense that he's putting things off, but there is another sense where he sees his life as an indistinguishable endless charade of toast and tea and pointlessness.  No end in sight to the mad dreariness of his existence.  Prufrock as we're going to see as we keep reading is going no where.  He's going no where in life- and I think you could think that he's physically going no where-     like he may not even really be at the party-- even though at the beginning of the poem he definitely says, let us go,    I think so.  It's ambiguous.  Maybe he's no where- this encounter is in his mind, and that's why he's in hell.  Hell is a place you never get out of.      And indeed there will be time  To wonder, “Do I dare?” and, “Do I dare?”  Time to turn back and descend the stair,  With a bald spot in the middle of my hair —  (They will say: “How his hair is growing thin!”)  My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,  My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin —  (They will say: “But how his arms and legs are thin!”)  Do I dare  Disturb the universe?  In a minute there is time  For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.    For I have known them all already, known them all:  Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,  I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;  I know the voices dying with a dying fall  Beneath the music from a farther room.                 So how should I presume?    And I have known the eyes already, known them all—  The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,  And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,  When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,  Then how should I begin  To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?                 And how should I presume?    And I have known the arms already, known them all—  Arms that are braceleted and white and bare  (But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!)  Is it perfume from a dress  That makes me so digress?  Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.                 And should I then presume?                 And how should I begin?    Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets  And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes  Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows?    There are no less than 15 questions in this poem.  The most important ones seem to be centered here with “can I ask a woman out for a date?  Which some how gets connected to “What is the meaning of life?”  Prufrock is a poem about being lonely, isolated, unable to make human connections.  Unable to get out of my head, my physical location- the hell I've created for myself.    Well, in a sense, it's possible these are two versions of the same questions.  Human intimacy and interaction is what makes us love our life.  What is a life without intimacy, connectivity, courage.  These are the things that a modern man like  J. Alfred Prufrock does not have.  Prufrock clearly wishes he could get beyond himself- to ask out a woman is an expression of that.  It changes reality- one way or another.  But it takes boldness to do that.  You have to, as we used to say, “man up”- and Prufrock has none of that.  The sexual loneliness is a manifestation of a metaphysical problem really.      Which takes us to another synechoche- these claws  Here the claws represent the crab.  Prufrock thinks he should have been a crab.     I should have been a pair of ragged claws  Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.    And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!  Smoothed by long fingers,  Asleep ... tired ... or it malingers,  Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.  Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,  Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?  But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,  Though I have seen my head (grown slightly bald) brought in upon a platter,  I am no prophet — and here's no great matter;  I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,  And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,  And in short, I was afraid.    And would it have been worth it, after all,  After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,  Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,  Would it have been worth while,  To have bitten off the matter with a smile,  To have squeezed the universe into a ball  To roll it towards some overwhelming question,  To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,  Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—  If one, settling a pillow by her head                 Should say: “That is not what I meant at all;                 That is not it, at all.”    And would it have been worth it, after all,  Would it have been worth while,  After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,  After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—  And this, and so much more?—  It is impossible to say just what I mean!  But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:  Would it have been worth while  If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,  And turning toward the window, should say:                 “That is not it at all,                 That is not what I meant, at all.”    And here we see way more of Eliot criticizing modern man.  We are too anxious, likely overeducated in impractical things.  Our anxiety of failure brought on by our culture, our education, urban expectations paralyze us into doing nothing.  We have no courage.  There's a reference here to John the Baptist which I think is really interesting.  John the Baptist had his head cut off and served to King Herod.  Here, Eliot references that, but in Prufrock's case, what would bother him about being decapitated in this scenario would be that his dead head that would be served up to King Herod would reveal he's balding.  He just can't, to use his phrase,   “ bite off the matter with a smile,  and squeeze the universe into a ball”.  He can't be like Lazarus in the Bible and come back from the dead. And when we see what horrifies him- he's horrified that he'll approach a woman, she'll listen to him then reply that “that is not what I meant at all.  That is not it, at all.”    Oh my, how could a guy like J. Alfred misinterpret my politiness for interest?  “That is not what I meant t all”. It's embarrassement, shame, rejection- all of the bad things in life.  Prufrock's life has so little meaning in any other area thst. Concern about his looks, a rejection from a woman he doesn't appear he even cares about, is enough to wipe him out.  Let's finish.     No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;  Am an attendant lord, one that will do  To swell a progress, start a scene or two,  Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,  Deferential, glad to be of use,  Politic, cautious, and meticulous;  Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;  At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—  Almost, at times, the Fool.    I grow old ... I grow old ...  I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.    Shall I part my hair behind?   Do I dare to eat a peach?  I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.  I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.    I do not think that they will sing to me.    I have seen them riding seaward on the waves  Combing the white hair of the waves blown back  When the wind blows the water white and black.  We have lingered in the chambers of the sea  By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown  Till human voices wake us, and we drown.    Prince Hamlet, of course, is the most famous slow-mover in the world.  Prince Hamlet's most famous line is, “To be or not to be, that is the question.”  Prince Hamlet was told by his father, as a ghost, that he was supposed to revenge his father's death.  Hamlet waffled, went back and forth, debated, worried about if life was even worth- should I kill myself. But the thing about Hamlet, in the final scene of the play he does act. He does actually have a purpose to exist.  He does revenge his father.  He does DO something.      Prufrock is not Prince Hamlet.  He's not even a prince at all.      And, He will NEVER act, and he knows it.  He is going be a failure, a loser, and not because he tried and failed, but because he doesn't have any energy, any courage, any desire to even try for anything.  He is just going to do nothing?  He will spend his energy worrying if he should eat a peach.  Not even  fictitious sirens in his imagination will try to seduce him- that's an allusion to the Odyssey- but you'd think, if you were a person who can live in a made up world- in your made up world the sirens would want you- isn't that what video game world is about in part.?  For for Prufrock, Not even in his dreams is he seductive.  He just linger by the sea in his imagination until he wakes up and the final lines of the poem, “we drown.”    That IS dark.  So nihilistic.      Well, it's modernism for- not the most positive take on the modern world- those guys knew how to see the dark side of life.  But you know what, unlike Fitzgerald who chose to sink in a sea of poor choices, Eliot did not.  The man who wrote Prufrock as a young man, wrote The Waste Land slightly older, and then wrote the “Four Quartets” later in life.  These last meditations are about time, divinity, and humility among other things and are considered his finest works.  All the things that confuse Prufrock and defeat Prufrock really don't defeat the real T.S. Eliot.  And I guess that's where I find the redemption.  Eliot's work takes us through the modern world but he navigates himself to a place of peace. I like that about him. We've all been Prufrock at one time or another.  The virtual world of today is way worse than anything Eliot experienced, and  Especially now because of the pandemic, many of us have felt a lot of the stream of conscious judgement poor Prufrock feels- but we don't have to drown or be him- we can be Lazarus- and come out of it.  And that's the thought I want to take away from this.    Well, there you have it, the positive spin on nihilism.  We hope you have been able to understand just a little bit of this very confusing poem.  Maybe it's inspired you, maybe it hasn't.  Thanks for being with us this week.  Next week, we are going to change directions and get into a little fantasy literaeture with J.R.R. Tolkein and The Hobbit.  That will be a welcome change of pace.      HA!1. It will be good though.  He's a great writer, and although also a devoted Catholic, and from Oxford, England has a very different take on things.  I look forward to it.       

addressed in the arts as death. Rather it’s the loss of a faithful companion in Old Yeller, William Shakespeare’s Prince Hamlet asking the question, “To be, or not to be”, or Tolstoy’s powerful reminder that we can simply not avoid dealing with the inevitability of death and our own mortality in The Death of Ivan Ilyich, death has and will always play a central theme, as art imitates life, and life in this world is certain to come to an end for each of us. As we continue our series this week, One Thing, we will be taking a look at death from a biblical perspective.

Here's Part 4 of 4 of "When Tough Decisions Are Hard To Make… …Flip a Coin." It’s time for all decision-makers (yes, you) to play the latest decisions-decisions game. Here’s how to play. Fill in the blanks between the brackets in the following sentence. Then drive yourself nuts trying to pick one: To be (…) or not to be (…). (Don’t let Prince Hamlet fool you. To be is not the question. To be is the decision. Your decision.) Here are a few hints to get you going. To be (in the office) or not to be (in the office). To be (masked) or not to be (masked). To be (vaccinated) or not to be (vaccinated). To be (decisive) or not to be (decisive). To be (the leader they need me to be) or not to be (the leader they need me to be). Now it’s your turn to play. But note these two rules. Playing is not optional — you may not decide to not decide. And your decisions reserve the right to go public, with or without your blessing. Rule #1 has always applied, but Rule #2 is new. That Virus has made many decisions, and non-decisions, go viral. Have a nice game.

Here's Part 3 of 4 of "When Tough Decisions Are Hard To Make… …Flip a Coin." It’s time for all decision-makers (yes, you) to play the latest decisions-decisions game. Here’s how to play. Fill in the blanks between the brackets in the following sentence. Then drive yourself nuts trying to pick one: To be (…) or not to be (…). (Don’t let Prince Hamlet fool you. To be is not the question. To be is the decision. Your decision.) Here are a few hints to get you going. To be (in the office) or not to be (in the office). To be (masked) or not to be (masked). To be (vaccinated) or not to be (vaccinated). To be (decisive) or not to be (decisive). To be (the leader they need me to be) or not to be (the leader they need me to be). Now it’s your turn to play. But note these two rules. Playing is not optional — you may not decide to not decide. And your decisions reserve the right to go public, with or without your blessing. Rule #1 has always applied, but Rule #2 is new. That Virus has made many decisions, and non-decisions, go viral. Have a nice game.

Here's Part 2 of 4 of "When Tough Decisions Are Hard To Make… …Flip a Coin." It’s time for all decision-makers (yes, you) to play the latest decisions-decisions game. Here’s how to play. Fill in the blanks between the brackets in the following sentence. Then drive yourself nuts trying to pick one: To be (…) or not to be (…). (Don’t let Prince Hamlet fool you. To be is not the question. To be is the decision. Your decision.) Here are a few hints to get you going. To be (in the office) or not to be (in the office). To be (masked) or not to be (masked). To be (vaccinated) or not to be (vaccinated). To be (decisive) or not to be (decisive). To be (the leader they need me to be) or not to be (the leader they need me to be). Now it’s your turn to play. But note these two rules. Playing is not optional — you may not decide to not decide. And your decisions reserve the right to go public, with or without your blessing. Rule #1 has always applied, but Rule #2 is new. That Virus has made many decisions, and non-decisions, go viral. Have a nice game.

Here's Part 1 of 4 of "When Tough Decisions Are Hard To Make… …Flip a Coin." It’s time for all decision-makers (yes, you) to play the latest decisions-decisions game. Here’s how to play. Fill in the blanks between the brackets in the following sentence. Then drive yourself nuts trying to pick one: To be (…) or not to be (…). (Don’t let Prince Hamlet fool you. To be is not the question. To be is the decision. Your decision.) Here are a few hints to get you going. To be (in the office) or not to be (in the office). To be (masked) or not to be (masked). To be (vaccinated) or not to be (vaccinated). To be (decisive) or not to be (decisive). To be (the leader they need me to be) or not to be (the leader they need me to be). Now it’s your turn to play. But note these two rules. Playing is not optional — you may not decide to not decide. And your decisions reserve the right to go public, with or without your blessing. Rule #1 has always applied, but Rule #2 is new. That Virus has made many decisions, and non-decisions, go viral. Have a nice game.

Today the greatest question is... Do I get the Jab or not? Prince Hamlet asks the question "To be or not to be?" (Act 3 Scene 1) In this scene Hamlet is bemoaning the pain and unfairness of life but acknowledging the alternative could be worse. I believe we feel the same as Hamlet when it comes to the Jab. Is it better to live the way the Lord says or to take our chances with man's chemicals raging through our veins?

Today the greatest question is... Do I get the Jab or not? Prince Hamlet asks the question "To be or not to be?" (Act 3 Scene 1) In this scene Hamlet is bemoaning the pain and unfairness of life but acknowledging the alternative could be worse. I believe we feel the same as Hamlet when it comes to the Jab. Is it better to live the way the Lord says or to take our chances with man's chemicals raging through our veins?

Some spooky happenings are going on in Denmark after the death of the old king and the rise of the new one. Prince Hamlet has a hard time adjusting to his new step-father while Laertes goes off for a bit of fun in France. The guards see a ghost and have an idea about how to get it to talk to them. The audioplay of Mick Theebs's satirical modern language reimagining of Shakespeare's Hamlet. To buy a copy of the text, visit https://www.micktheebs.com/store-full?category=Books or if you feel like supporting evil multinational corporations find it on Amazon. Starring (in alphabetical order): Matt Apgar Carlos Cabral Gabriella DePaul Taylor Rajaniemi Fior Rodriguez Keith Roland Jesse Roy Mick Theebs

Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Part 5 (Part 5 of 5 Full Play) --- The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare sometime between 1599 and 1602. Set in Denmark, the plaisy depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother. --- William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. --- Audiobooks Daily is a weekly podcast featuring the best of public domain short stories, novels, poetry, and plays. Every episode features a new chapter, full audiobook, or commentary of a great literary work. Authors included on our podcast: Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Conan Doyle, and many more! Join our community of literary lovers as we listen to some of the greatest fictional novels, stories, poems, and plays ever created! --- Episodes are uploaded four times a week. This is a Librivox recording. Support or learn more by visiting librivox.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/public-domain-media-presents-audiobooks-daily/support

Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Part 4 (Part 4 of 5 Full Play) --- The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare sometime between 1599 and 1602. Set in Denmark, the plaisy depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother. --- William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. --- Audiobooks Daily is a weekly podcast featuring the best of public domain short stories, novels, poetry, and plays. Every episode features a new chapter, full audiobook, or commentary of a great literary work. Authors included on our podcast: Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Conan Doyle, and many more! Join our community of literary lovers as we listen to some of the greatest fictional novels, stories, poems, and plays ever created! --- Episodes are uploaded four times a week. This is a Librivox recording. Support or learn more by visiting librivox.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/public-domain-media-presents-audiobooks-daily/support

Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Part 3 (Part 3 of 5 Full Play) --- The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare sometime between 1599 and 1602. Set in Denmark, the plaisy depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother. --- William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. --- Audiobooks Daily is a weekly podcast featuring the best of public domain short stories, novels, poetry, and plays. Every episode features a new chapter, full audiobook, or commentary of a great literary work. Authors included on our podcast: Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Conan Doyle, and many more! Join our community of literary lovers as we listen to some of the greatest fictional novels, stories, poems, and plays ever created! --- Episodes are uploaded four times a week. This is a Librivox recording. Support or learn more by visiting librivox.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/public-domain-media-presents-audiobooks-daily/support

Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Part 2 (Part 2 of 5 Full Play) --- The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare sometime between 1599 and 1602. Set in Denmark, the plaisy depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother. --- William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. --- Audiobooks Daily is a weekly podcast featuring the best of public domain short stories, novels, poetry, and plays. Every episode features a new chapter, full audiobook, or commentary of a great literary work. Authors included on our podcast: Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Conan Doyle, and many more! Join our community of literary lovers as we listen to some of the greatest fictional novels, stories, poems, and plays ever created! --- Episodes are uploaded four times a week. This is a Librivox recording. Support or learn more by visiting librivox.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/public-domain-media-presents-audiobooks-daily/support

Hamlet by William Shakespeare - Part 1 (Part 1 of 5 Full Play) --- The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare sometime between 1599 and 1602. Set in Denmark, the plaisy depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother. --- William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's greatest dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. --- Audiobooks Daily is a weekly podcast featuring the best of public domain short stories, novels, poetry, and plays. Every episode features a new chapter, full audiobook, or commentary of a great literary work. Authors included on our podcast: Edgar Allan Poe, Virginia Woolf, Jane Austen, Mark Twain, William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur Conan Doyle, and many more! Join our community of literary lovers as we listen to some of the greatest fictional novels, stories, poems, and plays ever created! --- Episodes are uploaded four times a week. This is a Librivox recording. Support or learn more by visiting librivox.org --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/public-domain-media-presents-audiobooks-daily/support

Hi, I am Marmee Regine, your host in Pandemic Podcast Coronavirus. Today we are now in the 5th episode where we will discuss the most anticipated vaccine. That is why the episode title is, "To vaccinate or not to vaccinate." There is always a dilemma that humans like us are facing every day. It is a reflection of the famous lines in literature, "To be or not to be." It is a question on which path to take when you are on the crossroads of life. "To be, or not to be" is the opening phrase by Prince Hamlet in Act 3, scene 1 of William Shakespeare's play Hamlet. It is all about life and death: "To be or not to be" has a meaning about life and death. "To live or not to live," which means "To live or die." Hamlet discusses how painful and miserable to live a life back then and how death, such as suicide, is the solution to end such misery. And fast forward to today, many people living in these uncertain times of the pandemic are having difficult times; that is why those who tested positive in China committed suicide. I mentioned that in passing from my previous podcast episode #2 on viral load. Isn't it ironic that history repeats itself even after several centuries?Moving on, this is the first part of my podcast episode on the topic of vaccines. In this episode, let us start this discussion on the historical notes that researchers did in the past until the present, which is the so-called self-experimentation of their study drug or vaccine along with some of their volunteer friends. An article regarding this matter was published entitled, Self-Experimentation in the Time of COVID-19. It was published in the online magazine, The Scientist which was well researched by the writer, Amanda Heidt, who is in her second master's in science communication at the University of California, Santa Cruz.Link: https://www.the-scientist.com/author/amanda-heidt-4941I will share the link on my Patreon page. Let us go into a brief flashback in time. In the olden days, an infectious disease expert in the US Public Health Service, by the name of Joseph Goldberger, was given the responsibility in 1914 to study the pellagra's causation. Pellagra is a skin disease with classic symptoms of dermatitis, diarrhea, dementia, and death. Most of the scientist believed those times believed that it was due to a germ. However, Goldberger's theory is that pellagra was due to a nutritional deficiency. Did you know that Joseph Goldberger, his wife, and some volunteers joined them to inject themselves the blood of pellagra victims and an intake of a pill form containing the feces and urine of patients? Ewww, a human guinea pig? Goldberger repeated this experimentation in other cities, and before he died of cancer in 1929, his research work landed him four Nobel Prize nominations. Wow, the saying here is applicable, "You reap what you sow."In other famous examples, a virologist from the University of Pittsburgh named Jonas Salk, who initially tested the polio vaccine to himself and his children in the year 1952 before giving it to other volunteer subjects.  You heard it right that Jonas Salk tested his original polio vaccine on both himself and his children ahead of widespread trials. Another example was from a married Russian couple, Marina Voroshilova and Mikhail Chumakov, who were considered polio experts. They also self-administered in 1959 a potential vaccine before letting their three sons have an intake of those sugar cubes laced instilled with a weakened poliovirus. After a lengthy argument in what form of drug administration to give patients, they agreed on the oral intake of the vaccine using live poliovirus. Later on, in 1994, the World Health Organization declared polio disease eradicated in the Western Hemisphere.These brave researchers are willing to risk their health and health, including their families, for a greater good to humanity. There were&

How to Survive is on Patreon! Support us at Patreon.com/HowtoSurvivePod  It's episode 215...and break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue. Hamlet (1996) tells the story of Prince Hamlet. After his father dies in a suspicious orchard accident, Hamlet struggles to adjust to life with his uncle as his new stepdad. The same uncle is also the king now, and everyone is feeling very guilty, and before long Hamlet kills someone by accident, and then a bunch of other people die. It's four hours long We discuss rotten happenings in the state of Branagh, give advice to the King on how to better hide your guilt or otherwise replicate a successful crime, and ask if this is the most expensive vanity project ever? All of which leads to one important question: How would you survive? Whatever happens, one thing's for sure: Hide fox and all after! Next week, it's four hours of fun with Kenneth Branagh and Hamlet (1996). Get in touch! HowtoSurviveShow@gmail.com Follow us on Twitter! @HowToSurvivePod

Show Notes: President Scott L Wyatt and Steve Meredith are joined by Dr. Joy Sterrantino to discuss the second book in the Summer Book Club: Hamlet. The trio discuss the upcoming performance of Hamlet by the Utah Shakespeare Festival, the complex relationships found within the story, and the overall themes woven into the story. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, often shortened to Hamlet, is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare sometime between 1599 and 1602. Set in Denmark, the play depicts Prince Hamlet and his revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet's father in order to seize his throne and marry Hamlet's mother. Hamlet is Shakespeare's longest play and is considered among the most powerful and influential works of world literature. It was one of Shakespeare's most popular works during his lifetime and still ranks among his most performed. Note: The Utah Shakespeare Festival will be performing Hamlet beginning June 8th and running through October 12th, 2019. Featured Quote: "It was not this haughty thing just for kings and queens, which I think there’s a misinterpretation that some people think that that’s what Shakespeare was about, but it wasn’t. " Joy Sterrantino, Assistant Professor of English, Southern Utah University Links Associated with this Episode: Joy Sterrantino - Faculty Website About the Summer Book Club series Transcript Follow Us: Solutions for Higher Education Podcast SUU Blog SUU Facebook

To see or not to see? That is the question. Anyone with even the slightest interest in theatre has probably seen a production or two of William Shakespeare’s Hamlet in their lifetime. Considered by many to be Shakespeare’s - if not the world’s - greatest play, it’s one-third ghost story, one-third dysfunctional family drama, and one-third revenge tale. It’s now the first-ever Shakespeare play to be mounted on the Nellie W. Codding stage at the Spreckels Performing Arts Center. Artistic Director Sheri Lee Miller helms the production which runs through February 17. Something is rotten in the state Denmark. A spirit claiming to be the late King has appeared to Prince Hamlet to inform him he was poisoned by his own brother Claudius, who then married the widowed queen Gertrude and usurped the throne. He has one simple request of Hamlet – revenge! Miller has gathered an impressive roster of talent to essay the Bard’s classic roles. First and foremost, there’s Keith Baker as the brooding Prince. Baker is a marvel to watch and to listen to as Shakespeare’s words come trippingly off his tongue. Peter Downey is magnetic as the scheming Claudius, shading his villainy with a glimpse into his humanity and his true love of Gertrude. Eric Thompson’s Polonius brings a welcome lightness to the stage and is sorely missed upon his “departure”. Chad Yarish as faithful friend Horatio, Danielle Cain as the easily swayed Gertude, Ivy Rose Miller as the doomed Ophelia and the entire supporting cast do honor to their roles. The stark yet imposing set by Elizabeth Bazzano and Eddy Hansen in conjunction with Hansen’s lighting Design and Chris Schloemp’s projections design give the production an otherworldly feel. Costumes by Pamela Johnson pop against the dark and dank (courtesy of ample fog) backgrounds. An extremely effective addition is a live music “soundscape” composed and performed by Nancy Hayashibari. Accompanying many scenes, Hayashibari’s contribution to this production’s success cannot be overstated. Look, folks, I’m no Shakespeare pushover. It’s overdone, usually underproduced, and often interminable, but I get it. It’s royalty free, has roles that are on every actor’s bucket list, and comes with a built-in audience. Yes, it’s long, but director Sheri Lee Miller has put together an outstanding production of Hamlet that should reach beyond that “Shakespeare” audience. Will they come? Aye, there’s the rub. 'Hamlet' runs through February 17th at the Spreckels Performing Arts Center in Rohnert Park. Friday and Saturday evening performances are at 8pm, the Sunday matinee is at 2pm. There’s also a Thursday, February 14th performance at 7pm. For more information, go to spreckelsonline.com

 The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock                            S’io credesse che mia risposta fosse                            A persona che mai tornasse al mondo                            Questa fiamma staria sensa piu scosse.                            Ma perciocche giammai di questo fondo                            Non torno vivo alcun, s’i’odo il vero                            Sensa tema d’infamia ti rispondo.                   Let us go then, you and I,                 When the evening is spread out against the sky                 Like a patient etherized upon a table;                 Let us go, through certain half-deserted streets,                 The muttering retreats                 Of restless nights in one-night cheap hotels                 And sawdust restaurants with oyster-shells:                 Streets that follow like a tedious argument                 Of insidious intent                 To lead you to an overwhelming question . . .                 Oh, do not ask, ‘What is it?’                 Let us go and make our visit.                 In the room the women come and go                 Talking of Michelangelo.                 The yellow fog that rubs its back upon the window-panes,                 The yellow smoke that rubs its muzzle on the window-panes,                 Licked its tongue into the corners of the evening,                 Lingered upon the pools that stand in drains,                 Let fall upon its back the soot that falls from chimneys,                 Slipped by the terrace, made a sudden leap,                 And seeing that it was a soft October night,                 Curled once about the house, and fell asleep.                 And indeed there will be time                 For the yellow smoke that slides along the street,                 Rubbing its back upon the window-panes;                 There will be time, there will be time                 To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet;                 There will be time to murder and create,                 And time for all the works and days of hands                 That lift and drop a question on your plate;                 Time for you and time for me,                 And time yet for a hundred indecisions,                 And for a hundred visions and revisions,                 Before the taking of a toast and tea.                 In the room the women come and go                 Talking of Michelangelo.                 And indeed there will be time                 To wonder, ‘Do I dare?’ and, ‘Do I dare?’                 Time to turn back and descend the stair,                 With a bald spot in the middle of my hair—                 [They will say: ‘How his hair is growing thin!’]                 My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,                 My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—                 [They will say: ‘But how his arms and legs are thin!’]                 Do I dare                 Disturb the universe?                 In a minute there is time                 For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.                 For I have known them all already, known them all—                 Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons,                 I have measured out my life with coffee spoons;                 I know the voices dying with a dying fall                 Beneath the music from a farther room.                 So how should I presume?                 And I have known the eyes already, known them all—                 The eyes that fix you in a formulated phrase,                 And when I am formulated, sprawling on a pin,                 When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,                 Then how should I begin                 To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?                 And how should I presume?                 And I have known the arms already, known them all—                 Arms that are braceleted and white and bare                 [But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!]                 Is it perfume from a dress                 That makes me so digress?                 Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.                 And should I then presume?                 And how should I begin?                                          .      .      .      .      .                   Shall I say, I have gone at dusk through narrow streets                 And watched the smoke that rises from the pipes                 Of lonely men in shirt-sleeves, leaning out of windows? . . .                 I should have been a pair of ragged claws                 Scuttling across the floors of silent seas.                                          .      .      .      .      .                   And the afternoon, the evening, sleeps so peacefully!                 Smoothed by long fingers,                 Asleep . . . tired . . . or it malingers                 Stretched on the floor, here beside you and me.                 Should I, after tea and cakes and ices,                 Have the strength to force the moment to its crisis?                 But though I have wept and fasted, wept and prayed,                 Though I have seen my head [grown slightly bald] brought in upon a platter                 I am no prophet—and here’s no great matter;                 I have seen the moment of my greatness flicker,                 And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, and snicker,                 And in short, I was afraid.                 And would it have been worth it, after all,                 After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,                 Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,                 Would it have been worth while                 To have bitten off the matter with a smile,                 To have squeezed the universe into a ball                 To roll it toward some overwhelming question,                 To say: ‘I am Lazarus, come from the dead,                 Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all’—                 If one, settling a pillow by her head,                 Should say: ‘That is not what I meant at all.                 That is not it, at all.’                 And would it have been worth it, after all,                 Would it have been worth while,                 After the sunsets and the dooryards and the sprinkled streets,                 After the novels, after the teacups, after the skirts that trail along the floor—                 And this, and so much more?—                 It is impossible to say just what I mean!                 But as if a magic lantern threw the nerves in patterns on a screen:                 Would it have been worth while                 If one, settling a pillow or throwing off a shawl,                 And turning toward the window, should say:                 ‘That is not it at all,                 That is not what I meant at all.’                 No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;                 Am an attendant lord, one that will do                 To swell a progress, start a scene or two                 Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,                 Deferential, glad to be of use,                 Politic, cautious, and meticulous;                 Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;                 At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—                 Almost, at times, the Fool.                 I grow old . . . I grow old . . .                 I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.                 Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?                 I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.                 I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.                 I do not think that they will sing to me.                 I have seen them riding seaward on the waves                 Combing the white hair of the waves blown back                 When the wind blows the water white and black.                 We have lingered in the chambers of the sea                 By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown                 Till human voices wake us, and we drown.

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” - Prince Hamlet, HamletThis week's guest, Dr. Michael Edelstein, helps his patients see clearly what Shakespeare intuited about the relationship between thinking and emotional health. Edelstein is a long-time libertarian and practitioner of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. This method leaves your childhood in the past, and instead trains you to challenge and replace distorted thinking with a more rational – even cheerful – perspective towards the things we cannot change. As the world hurtles towards an uncertain and unsettling future, we can find comfort in Dr. Edelstein's advice on how to stay happy in a statist world. First, we need to recognize the traps that we're likely to fall into, including the sacred cow of "self esteem." Self esteem, Edelstein says, is the "unempirical, illogical and impractical" notion that we should rate our whole selves, rather than our actions, and think highly of ourselves regardless. Once we start thinking this way, we're more likely to end up with the opposite emotion when we make mistakes. When large groups or nations succumb to these stark and unrealistic self-portraits, it can lead to nationalism, wars, and even mass insanity. It's not often that you get to hear a libertarian attorney interview a libertarian clinical psychologist on the secret to overcoming anxiety and depression. Just because the world's gone crazy doesn't mean you have to. Bob's producer, Charlie Deist, also joins the show. Learn how to respond rationally to adverse events from the Bay Area's premier vegan, libertarian cognitive behavioral therapist, on the show of ideas, not attitude.

Prince Hamlet is a moody death-metal addict with a messed-up ghost on his case. The jealous monarch from The Winter’s Tale has become a tyrannical ruler in imperial China. And the 70’s musical The Wiz is … well … The Wiz. It’s hard to conceive of any scenario in which a presentation of ‘The Wiz’ – a variation on the Wizard of Oz set in a fantasy version of a New York ghetto – would be made to seem tame and safe, but safety is a matter of perspective. In what turns out to be Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s most daring and inventive summer season in years, the Allen Elizabethan Theater has now opened, presenting two supremely bold, thoroughly satisfying takes on William Shakespeare—and a perfectly pleasant production of The Wiz that, in any other year, might have actually felt like the risky choice. Helmed by first-time OSF director Robert O‘Hara, the delightfully revolutionary 1975 adaptation of Frank Baum’s fantasy novel has been given a respectfully energetic staging that may comes as a shock to anyone who thinks that the 1978 Michael Jackson-Diana Ross movie was actually The Wiz. The movie version changed the tone, cut crucial songs, and transformed the sweetness of the stage show into confusing, uncomfortable, weirdness. On a strikingly bare stage, a mostly African-American cast brings The Wiz to life, not with elaborate sets, but with brilliant costumes and over-sized, crystal clear performances. As Dorothy, Ashley D. Kelley is all kinds of adorable, and she leads an impressive cast of singers and actors who act first, sing second, and dance third, but fully capture the up-from-the-streets inspiration that is sewn into every beat of Charlie Smalls and William Brown’s groundbreaking show. Compared to the committed, goofy comfort of The Wiz, Lisa Peterson’s freaky, gleefully transgressive art-house horror show of a Hamlet is the equivalent of setting fire to elementary school. Which is to say, it’s brilliant, but possibly not what anyone expected. Danforth Comins’ angsty/angry prince carries an electric guitar, is haunted by the ghost of his dead father—who is seen running here and there past doorways and windows before suddenly appearing right next to his son. Hamlet is ominously “shadowed” by the ever-watching form of Neurosis guitarist Scott Kelly, accompanying the action on an array of instruments. The introduction Kelly’s Doom Metal music, intrinsically spring from feelings of anger and fear, is nothing short of ingenious, and the cast’s commitment the creepy beats of a classic horror story results in a Hamlet that is alternately thrilling, heartbreaking, and unforgettably disturbing. Standing somewhere in between those two shows is Desdemona Chiang’s surprisingly effective staging of Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale, an emotionally complex, endlessly surprising interpretation of the Bard’s silliest and saddest romantic fantasy. Almost post-modern in structure, the story begins in Sicilia – transformed here into China – where the jealous king Leonates — becomes convinced that his wife, the devoted queen Herminone has been unfaithful. The resulting series of misfortunes move the tale to Bohemia, here imagined as a kind of steampunk/Godspell version of the Old West, giving Shakespeare’s melancholy masterpiece a touch of Kung Fu. As Leonates abandoned daughter Perdita (Cindy Im, breathtakingly good) comes to adulthood in a foreign country, the patented forces of fate and Shakespearean soft-heartedness conspire to bring two broken families back together again. Rarely has The Winter’s Tale made so much emotional sense, transformed with skill and affection into a play overflowing with sweet, life-affirming beauty. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival runs February to October, in Ashland, Ore. For information on all currently running shows visit osfashland.org. I’m David Templeton Second Row Center, for KRCB