Slashdot Mirror

> Sony: Tell you what. We'll Rochambeau you for it.
> MS: What's Rochambeau? ...

My personal favorite productivity measture: lines of code I've DELETED!

Yeah, I know this isn't any new revalation either, but I'm a believer in Refactoring[?]: improving code without adding functionality. Refactoring improved efficientcy, understandability, and removed coded duplication.

Read Martin Folwer's awsome book, and/or practice Extreme Programming[?], it'll change the way you program.

----------
I can't spell. What else is new?

My personal favorite productivity measture: lines of code I've DELETED!

Yeah, I know this isn't any new revalation either, but I'm a believer in Refactoring[?]: improving code without adding functionality. Refactoring improved efficientcy, understandability, and removed coded duplication.

Read Martin Folwer's awsome book, and/or practice Extreme Programming[?], it'll change the way you program.

----------
I can't spell. What else is new?

For what it's worth, when I visited some relatives in Germany about 8 years ago (?), my uncle mentioned a couple of laws that I found absolutely astounding. First, it was illegal to leave your car (and house? Can't remember) unlocked for any period of time. If you are making multiple trips, you are required to lock the car between each trip. That's just the law (don't know if it was local or what).

I live in Germany and I must say that these laws are something like US sex laws, laws that maybe really exist but nobody cares about them.

I've been to Europe a couple of times in a number of countries. There is no question that Europe is a great place to visit, but there's no way I would ever live there. They have absolutely no concept of freedom.

People get much more freedom in most european countries. Look at the Human Freedom Index by the UN. Other Source here.

Not to mention that it has by far the best highway system in the world.

Never heard about the German Autobahn ? The german highway system where you can drive your car without a speed limit ?

For what it's worth, when I visited some relatives in Germany about 8 years ago (?), my uncle mentioned a couple of laws that I found absolutely astounding. First, it was illegal to leave your car (and house? Can't remember) unlocked for any period of time. If you are making multiple trips, you are required to lock the car between each trip. That's just the law (don't know if it was local or what).

I live in Germany and I must say that these laws are something like US sex laws, laws that maybe really exist but nobody cares about them.

I've been to Europe a couple of times in a number of countries. There is no question that Europe is a great place to visit, but there's no way I would ever live there. They have absolutely no concept of freedom.

People get much more freedom in most european countries. Look at the Human Freedom Index by the UN. Other Source here.

Not to mention that it has by far the best highway system in the world.

Never heard about the German Autobahn ? The german highway system where you can drive your car without a speed limit ?

I get there, and the person and her brother basically shove the animals in my boyfriend's truck, without me really getting to see them.

Ever heard the expression 'buying a pig in a poke'?

an entry, since the links at the top of linked page are disabled (as explanied in-text), but guess what?:
"somethings wrong. will fix.
--[nate] " is the only thing there.
Oh well, there's always google.

--
m iso artistic geek m or female for pos. romance.

One of their Sun boxes is running sendmail 8.8.8. Isn't that a bit out-of-date/insecure?


Hmmmm....Can you say honeypot ?

Soko

I agree that being able to type 'g search text' in the location bar is a useful thing. You can tweak Mozilla to do this, with about ten lines of javascript (in the navigator.js file in chrome/comm.jar). You can also get it to search e2 for you when you type 'e search text', or whatever. A particularly useful and fast tweak is to set it up so any text entered in the location bar which features a space character is automatically treated as search text, and searched for at Google.

Mozilla also lets you search for highlighted text via the context menu.

Three cheers for highly configurable software!

M-x praise-emacs

All of the input, lets call them downvotes, (no upvotes allowed with this sorry) is simply a suggestion which is viewed by the google administration

Are you sure this would scale? There are three billion items in Google's index.

(background info: the origin of the term downvotes. Are you now calling E2's system "organized whining"?)

All of the input, lets call them downvotes, (no upvotes allowed with this sorry) is simply a suggestion which is viewed by the google administration

Are you sure this would scale? There are three billion items in Google's index.

(background info: the origin of the term downvotes. Are you now calling E2's system "organized whining"?)

The HURD is a Hird of Unix Replacing Daemons. Clearer?

What's a Hird? Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth. There, all clear now?

Seriously, the HURD is a microkernel system. Instead of having a (relatively) big kernel that provides all the necessary services, a microkernel system has a very minimal kernel and provides most of the services a kernel usually provides by way of userspace daemons (the Hird of Unix Replacing Daemons) instead.

Academic CS guys have been saying microkernels are the way of the future for years now. Mac OS10 runs on the Mach microkernel. Windows NT was supposed to be a microkernel, although by the time it actually made it to the light of day so much had been stuffed back into the kernel for performance reasons it really isn't one.

The number one drawbacks to microkernels, as the above might lead you to guess, is performance. On a single processor system expect a microkernel to lag significantly performancewise in comparison to a monolithic kernel with equal optimisations. That's a result of the fact that so many things we think of as system services are user processes instead, and of the communication overhead involved (message passing between components is used extensively, and this is not the fastest way to handle things on a uniprocessor system.)

Why do I say "on a uniprocessor system?" Well, some of that overhead becomes unavoidable anyway when you move to a multiprocessor system, and a microkernel is inherently multithreaded, so it's quite friendly to multiprocessor systems. So as multiprocessor systems become more common the performance gap may drop.

Currently the HURD is a collection of servers that run on top of the GNU Mach microkernel. Does that sentence make more sense for you now? I hope so.

The GNU Mach microkernel is something of a performance dog, but at this point the HURD is still at a development only stage anyway so it doesn't much matter. It will probably be moved to an L4 microkernel instead before it's used in production machines. The L4 family gives much improved performance. Still slower than a highly tuned monolithic kernel like Linux, particularly on uniprocessor systems, but much closer.

So if microkernels are slower, why use them at all? Well, they have the potential to bring an entire new world of flexibility to computing. Imagine having different "personalities" - different collections of "kernel service" daemons, so that your box can run Linux, BSD, Solaris, VMS, or even Windows sessions, on the fly. Imagine being able to switch between them, or run different ones simultaneously, without having "root" privileges and without affecting other users. This is just one of the many interesting things that could be done on a microkernel system but not on a monolithic one. Another one is a system where any user can do all sorts of things that normally require root access, except for mess up other users.

None of the pre-existing systems seem to have ever really taken advantage of microkernel design - rather they just use a microkernel to emulate a single monolithic kernel (usually BSD.) However, there are some pretty incredible microkernel only tricks out there waiting to be done, and the HURD developers plan on finally doing them.

• SML is a functional programming language, not a logic programming language.
• While it would be nice, I afraid the general case of the question you want to answer (if memory is freed etc.) is undecideable, being easily reducible to the Halting Problem.
• Of cause special cases can be decided, and any tool which does so would be great. But it is definately non-trivial to write for interesting cases.

Actually, it does mean that its evolution, however, its not natural evolution, and its not natural selection. Its human selection and intelligent design. And don't go there, 'cause thats a whole can of worms :P

The opinions expressed above do not represent the opinions of the author.

The main reason to care is this - if AOL does go to Gecko instead of IE (which would be a very smart decision for a number of technical and business reasons you'd know about if you read the article) then 30% of web users will no longer be using MSIE - and those bastards that write their webpages in MSHTML are going to be scrambling to fix their pages.

Now that would be freakin cool!

Royalties are so bad that "Happy Birthday" (the royalties of which go to the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts) can't be used at scouting functions without permission and there has been litigation to that effect.

That's because the Scouts don't own "Happy Birthday". AOL does through its Warner-Chappell Music Publishing division. Perpetually.

Anyway, a few polyglot-related links:

• here is the only Polyglot archive anywhere on the internet that i am aware of. Please, please read this link. It's amazing. My favorite is i think the quine (!!) which is simultaneously valid in C and Scheme. (It exploits the fact that ; is a comment operator in scheme, and is a really neat little read..)
• Here is the only polyglot i'm aware of which is not in the above archive.
• Here's a short little writeup on polyglots i did for everything2.com. It isn't that interesting.

With the crazy-ass language redefinition capabilities in perl 6, i think we can expect to see a resurgence in some very odd polyglots very soon..

Grrr.. mean, mean slashdot editors.. telling us the IOCCC winners were announced just so we can wait in suspense for a full month to see the entries.. bleh. I love the IOCCC..

Anyway, a few polyglot-related links:

• here is the only Polyglot archive anywhere on the internet that i am aware of. Please, please read this link. It's amazing. My favorite is i think the quine (!!) which is simultaneously valid in C and Scheme. (It exploits the fact that ; is a comment operator in scheme, and is a really neat little read..)
• Here is the only polyglot i'm aware of which is not in the above archive.
• Here's a short little writeup on polyglots i did for everything2.com. It isn't that interesting.

With the crazy-ass language redefinition capabilities in perl 6, i think we can expect to see a resurgence in some very odd polyglots very soon..

Grrr.. mean, mean slashdot editors.. telling us the IOCCC winners were announced just so we can wait in suspense for a full month to see the entries.. bleh. I love the IOCCC..

Art and literature have no shelf life--they can be enjoyed thousands of years after the author has passed away. It is reasonable for the author to retain copyright to their work

So what happens when somebody owns a copyright on every possible melody? It makes it pretty damn hard for songwriters to create something new. See also bananas and elephants.

until at least the day they die.

Corporate authors do not die.

For 'code' the copyright lifecycle should be a lot shorter, as is the shelflife.

The current U.S. copyright law framework provides no way to distinguish between "code" and any other literary work. Remember, code is speech, and speech is code.

Apparently, somebody's been reading E2.

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

A friend of mine told me this is the only way she masturbates. I decided to give it the old college try.

In case you haven't tried it, I do recommend it. However, do proceed with caution. Your backside is covering the drain, and a lethal amount of water can build up in the tub. The first time I tried this I came so hard that my entire body shut down. Still in the midst of orgasm, my head was under water and I gasped for air.

All though the Marquis De Sade recommends asphyxiation during sex, I had no desire to try that one. Yay, though it did add that element of excitement, what an embarrassing eulogy that would be.

Troll 81 of 90 from the annals of the Troll Library .

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!

Although I recognize that the general noder population is far more literary than the general population at large, I find quite often that even the most literary among us run into trouble with the bard. Here's a new (read: Better) way of looking at it, in a few painless steps:

Why? you ask. Sure he was bawdy and lewd, but most of his subtle penis jokes go straight over our heads in these days of T&A. *ahem* "Why, then is my pump well-flower'd," and "Give us the swords, we {women} have bucklers of our own," among others. Use your imagination for those. Get your mind into the gutter.

Shakespeare is like Sex, however for the following reasons:
The first time you do it, you're fumbling all over the place, unsure of what goes where or how. Hell, maybe it even hurts a little. There are all these crazy sweaty pieces that are supposed to fit comfy together and make some happy sort of thing. We all know that is not exactly what happens. "Ow! Ouph... Ah, yes right there- OW! wait, maybe, no, now you, um, Okokok, like that?" *wiggle* That's all very well and good - for the first time. It takes a little practice to really be able to milk (so to speak) this stuff for all it's are worth. We're allowed to fumble a little bit. The first time.

But just think of how some people can never quite get the "good sex" thing down. (After all, beyond age... ok, "beyond virginity", if you will, the fumbling is just not pretty. Bad sex is... Bad. But that's for another node.) Sometimes, even the best of us cannot quite get the "good Shakespeare" thing down either: Dost thou kickest me cur thou ruffian? I spit in thee general direction!

How bout.... NO! Stop. If ya can't do it right, please, don't do it at all. Eugenics anyone? But don't despair either, I won't cut off your balls just yet, because anyone with a mind to CAN learn to do it right. There are schools (respectable ones!) that offer courses in tantric sex. I propose to you: Tantric Shakespeare.

In these modern days, we tend to approach Will Shakes in a Discovery channel Special: "Mating Behaviors Through the Ages" type way. Get over yourselves! Turn on the Playboy channel! Seriously, you'll learn more. Most places, Shakespeare is studied as literature, like Jane Erye or Great Expectations. BORING. Shakespeare is in the THEATRE, not the libraries. Theatre is alive, it's people, it's personal; it's nitty gritty not sleeping on the wet spot up against the wall limbs flailing shouting and moaning orgasmic fun. Literature can get kinky too, sure, but the study of it is seems to tend towards the missionary postion. This world hangs tight to some pretty strange Puritan-type morals. We don't like to let go with our horny, animalistic desires. It's too scary for us, too dirty! What if someone gets hurt? What if... we like it? We mustn't let that happen! Our mommies wouldn't approve, right?

Problem is, Shakespeare is meant to be performed, it is not meant to be read, not even to be read "as a play." We've all been told this a million times, and yet we continue to disregard it. He wrote the plays for the actors. Many parts in the script are written just for the actors. You may notice, that before nearly every entrance in every play, a character already on stage says: "Lo! Here comes so-and-so!" followed by a few more lines, and then the actual entrance of aformentioned so-and-so. This statement told so-and-so, waiting backstage, that it was time for them to get onstage, and then gave them the time to actaully do it. (See: Role for more on that) The audience doesn't care that King whats-his-face is coming. They'll see him when he gets there. But the actors needed to know when to make their entrances, and Shakespeare was nice enough to tell them.

The half of the play that was not written for the actors was written for the audience. Now, obvioulsy, every play is "written for the audience." But Shakespeare was a master manipulator. He knew his audience like nobody else. He knew how he wanted them to feel, and he knew how to make them feel it. He gave them what they wanted to see. And he used them like his... "bitches." It's a great S&M love triangle. And most librarians/English professors are not "down for whatever." Shakespeare doesn't want to be analyzed. He wrote the plays for the actors so that they could give it to the audience. He wants you to be there, breathing in sync with him, butterfly position, and making eye contact. What he dishes out is supposed to be fun for us all. This is no Wham-Bam-Thank You Ma'am. Shakespeare wrote nine minute screaming orgasms. Multiple Ejaculations! When you hit the Shakespearean G-Spot, you just know, cause it feels sooo good.

You wanna fuck Shakespeare like a porn star? Approach the play as if you were the actor. Imagine that you're trying to become these characters, and portray them to an audience clearly. Shakespeare didn't care so much about leaving some great literary mark. He didn't even own the plays, technically, after he wrote them. They belonged to the theatre and the company. All he wanted was to make money. In order to do that, he had to write something that people would want to see. He also had specific actors, the "principals" whom he had to write certain types of characters for. When he invented new words, it wasn't necessarily because he was having deep thoughts on the nature of the English language; it was because he needed something to rhyme so that he could have a nice end scence. Nearly every scene ended in a rhyming couplet. The audience expected this, and so when they heard one, they figured it was time for something new to start. Some scenes keep going after one character has made his rhyming statement. This signals to the audience that another character is being particualrly wordy, or that perhaps something odd is underfoot, and they need to pay closer attention. The character of Puck, for one, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, does almost nothing BUT rhyme. He's a faerie. That's weird in and of itself. But to distinguish him as the bad ass faerie that he is, Shakespeare gave him some mad jive talkin skills.

"When in that moment, - so it came to pass, -
Titania waked, and straightway loved an ass."

SO: Next time you bust out your First Folio, do it naked, armed with a cat-o-nine and covered in metaphorical whipped cream, cause that's the way Will wants it. Oh Baby!