If I could have a one-hour interview with anyone at all, be they dead or alive and with a wide open door to press on anything and everything under the sun, here's a few of the folk I'd most like to engage with, and some pithy reasons as to why.
Were it possible for me to have had a conversation with President John F. Kennedy, whose record of leadership in the White House was only slightly tinged by the tainted and ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion fiasco, here’s what I may have proffered up to the President, as my take on the matter, were he still with us today.
Photo: courtesy of chronosthing.blogspot.com
By Alan Gray
If we can travel to Cuba or anywhere else in our imagination, then why not indeed in a physical manifestation?
It's an absurd notion to maintain in 2008 the ideas and ideals that led our government leaders to this monumental micro-management morass decades ago, during the so-called Cold War period. With that era now gone with the proverbial wind - and receding fast from the memories of those of us still around and able to recall the days of the "duck and cover" drills at school, never mind the total absence of any knowledge or remembrance from the majority of the younger generation of Americans alive today - I for one think it's high time we replace the dispirited Cold War past with some Hot Fare (i.e., cheap vacation travel excursions to Cuba's hospitable tropics) repast.
Now having said all that, there are admittedly some very touchy political and economic issues on the table, and these most certainly do need to be discussed, debated, aired out to dry, and otherwise resolved and ironed out by all involved parties - and this most certainly needs to be done in a logical, orderly and diplomatically civil way prior to any mad dash on anyone's part to get the first available seat on a bucket flight to Havana. These innumerable economic and political issues need not be the focus of this brief article, which in its own humble way will not be pretentious enough to delve into the morass of what all agree has grown into the diplomatic equivalent of huge, hideously ugly and growing slag heap beside a gargantuan coal mine.
My sensibilities are shaken when I ponder the question posed as this article's headline, juxtaposed with images of Jesse Jackson, the Rev. Al Sharpton, former President Jimmy Carter, and so many others who've been busily about the business of interposing themselves all over God's green acre, wherever and whenever they please - and puh-LEASE ... spare me the line about it all being in the name of world peace or some-such lofty global goal. We're not idiots. Really, already. Who among us wouldn't give our eye teeth to travel to Syria, in the midst of a Middle East war at that, to enjoy the palatial luxuries of high living on an all-expenses-paid junket? Come on ... remember the commercial from the American Beef Council from years ago that asked, "Where's the beef?" To my mind, it's appropriate to ask at this juncture, "Where's the peace?"
Rather than belabor this into some declension of dull triviality, which is not what an issue so important as this one warrants, let me just say again: if you can imagine yourself enjoying the sun, surf, sand and siesta-time snooze of a cozy Cuban beach in your mind's eye, why on earth should there be any physical restriction from your pursuing the greatest American freedom of all: the freedom our Constitution gives you to pursue life, liberty and happiness - even if that individual "manifest destiny" takes you into account on a manifest of snowbirds flocking to Havana?
This may be an oversimplification of a very complex and certainly emotive issue, but I for one believe it's high time our political leaders take up the mantle, drop the shibboleths about "Communist Cuba", and move us - as we did in our recent diplomatic gestures with Vietnam and Cambodia - into the 21st century already!
About the blogger: Alan Gray is CEO & Senior Consulting Partner with Total Image Worx, a boutique PR, communications and marketing services consulting practice with offices in Fairfax, VA and Panama City, Panama. See his professional profile at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alangray
To define the art of writing is to essentially invoke the question asked by the sages of all ages as to what it is, exactly, that constitutes the quintessential ingredient of good writing?
Writers and thinker-philosophers throughout the ages have puzzled and wrung their hands over this burning and controversial question, and it is one that has thereby bound each writer into a close-knit guild in the sense that all of these men and women have been in pursuit of no less than the "holy grail" of the writing craft: the quintessential ingredient that most distinguishes good writing - writing that transcends time and remains compelling - from the runners-up and also-rans of the writing realm.
"Clear thinking," my English teacher would confide to me as he watched me scratch out voluminous writings in high school, is the secret ingredient to good writing. Of course, in high school I had no clue what Mr. Starr, an elderly Scotsman with the singing lilt of a well-educated highlander (and the ruddy complexion of one too, who likely imbibed a little too much of that quintessential morning toddy) meant by this, at least in the context of a high school English composition class.
It was only much later that Mr. Starr's words came back to hit me in the frontal lobe like a boomerang of quintessential insight, informing of something that was indeed pertinent and significant, because in high school, preoccupied as my mind was with thoughts and imaginings of how to win glory on the gridiron, or baseball diamond, the imperative of writing well was well and truly the furthest thing from my mind. And so it was that Mr. Starr's repeated mantra, entering into my brain, rattling around and to some extent resonating such that I could eventually come to recognize good writing, never fully lit that quintessential neuronic lightbulb that connects insight to practical application, such that would move me to try to wrench words from thin air and wrestle good writing from any kind of life endeavor - be it comic strips, nifty novels or even elaborately storyboarded movie scripts.
It was only after I understood, entering as I did upon a professional career in the real-world workforce that depended upon good writing to bring home the bacon, that Mr. Starr's mantra transformed itself into a hallmark of my thinking and a work ethic that undergirded my writing philosophy. Mr. Starr's mantra, insidiously but gratefully, had somehow become my own. I use it to squeeze and leverage from my mind every last drop of what all of we as writers must ALWAYS try to make manifest in any good piece of writing - be it copywriting for a marketing brochure, a clever or witty blurb for an ad campaign, a pithily positioned propaganda piece for the president in the corporate annual report, or even the 100-word article you're asked to contribute - with your byline - to the next issue of your local 4-H newsletter circular.
Now let's be perfectly frank and practical about the matter. "Clear thinking" is often a rare commodity in today's frenzied, rush-to-get-it-done world. It's not something that comes easily - or even naturally, for that matter - to everyone. And that, sadly, is perhaps the most compelling explanation as to why so many aspiring writers - or self-proclaimed Pulitzer prize winner wannabes - have their hopes of fame and fortune dashed on the ruddy rocks of reality.
Think about it. How many of your friends, associates, family members, or cohorts at work try their hand at writing a simple memo - only to have it torn into confetti-sized shredlets by its creator in total frustration? The answer for the most part is that the writer is not able, for whatever reason, to engage the mind and apply logical, lucid thought processes to the writing prowess, which at a MINIMUM is what is required to reduce thoughts, data and ideas into words, or even sentences and more - resulting in tangibly intelligible, coherent, and fluent communication that resonates as intended with others.
My suggestion? If you aspire to be a writer - of any kind whatsoever - sift, sort and examine very closely what the greats of the past and our own times have done - and are doing - to make their works, genius or not, readily accessible to the vast masses, and with a power to last with a clear message that resonates as intended over time. It's only with clear thinking that the neurons can engage and align to channel your thoughts and communicable information in ways that make it accessible and intelligible to others, and very often the insight you need as to how best to accomplish this task resides in your mind alone. Not even "imitation" or boilerplate "templates" can be of any aid in helping you to find the "holy grail's" quintessential ingredient: your own voice and platform - for delivery and receipt of a message - not just intelligibly and coherently, but also just as it was intended by you to be received by your audience.
Don't chase the "holy grail" of writing as if it were some latter-day windmill in the sky. Be brutally honest with yourself, and that means being brutally practical. Accept your shortcomings as a clear thinker, if it's your writing that suffers as a result, and exercise your mind in all ways that will enable you to sharpen your neuronal activity, attenuate the thought processes, and become a clear thinker with a clear and coherent message worthy of the time, resources, attention and energy you'll expect others to invest in reading and digesting - and hopefully even being moved to action - by what you have to share with the power of written word.
An interview with Zephyrus, the god it was whom the ancient Greeks believed was responsible for orchestrating, directing and masterfully choreographing those ceaseless winds of change that thousands today face in the buffering context of adapting to the ceaseless churn and change in terms of what many organizations must do to grease the skids, so to speak, for globally integrated cross-functional teams, international country assignments, globally matrixed but virtual teams and groups, and so on, and so forth...
How to meet the challenge of global team management
A company competing globally with multiple worldwide locations and geographically dispersed teams (GDTs) must find ways to facilitate communication and motivation among team members. Equally important is finding ways to use new information technologies to realize global objectives.
In contrast to the traditional cross-functional project team, the challenge today is to assemble new product development staff into GDTs that can develop products that meet globally-consistent needs. Because these people rarely if ever meet face-to-face, and usually are from different cultures and speak different languages, using new technologies alone does not answer the question as to how best achieve satisfactory global team performance.
As much current research indicates, the principal problem facing these companies is how to more effectively manage people, especially GDTs. Digital Equipment Corporation is often used to illustrate how many companies are attempting to leverage new technology in harmony with other strategies to overcome problems related to GDTs. Lessons learned about managing a GDT is the focus of much corporate research, which is but one part of a series of ongoing studies.
To develop new products, Digital early on adopted cross-functional teams. But to address Telecom's global needs, which dealt with creating new worldwide technical standards, the cross-functional teams could not effectively implement global systems that catered to local markets worldwide. This led to a "pony express" manager approach whereby team members remained in their locations while the leader traveled to visit them. Both approaches involved face-to-face meetings between team members and the team leader, which helped to build trust, maintain support, and foster collaborative personal relationships. An advantage of the pony express manager approach is that relocations are unnecessary and avoid disruptions in personal lives, but a disadvantage is that, in addition to being costly, the manager spends insufficient time with team members.
Several key findings were that:
- Team members need some source of motivation to establish a common "global" priority more compelling than their "local" task priority. - A "global network of peers" is the strongest source of individual motivation. - The desire to "perform well" in front of other members of the network has the strongest impact on each person's behavior and actions. - It is prudent to gradually increase "risk" among team members within the network to give everyone time to feel "safe" about sharing information.
The role of the GDT manager is to create, manage, and maintain a "level electronic playing field" where all team members have the same computer skills and knowledge. Deliberate decisions must be made about which technologies to use because the benefits of a particular technology must be traded off with each member's familiarity with it.
Some of the recommendations and conclusions to emerge are that managing communications through high technology devices (such as audio, video, and computer conferencing) should be introduced on a trial and error basis. Also, carefully managing the meeting structure can encourage participation among team members.
Because the role of the GDT manager is far more complex than that of the traditional manager, they need to interact with the individual's network in a manner that leverages the motivational influence of the network on each team member. At the same time they must establish and manage an electronic workplace based on multiple telecommunications systems and tools that support the needs of the GDT, and reflect the readiness of each member to use these tools.
In the final analysis, effectively managing a GDT must embrace networks as a primary supporting resource to build trust, to gain commitment by linking personal priorities and values with individual work assignments, and to establish the difference between "safe" and "risky" work to create a supporting environment.
...or a presentation of "Shock and Awe: A Perspective on the Death Penalty Debate"
Though the data I reference here is now a tad dated, it retains enough validity to underscore in red the extent to which I and others have been surprised to learn about the true scope and dimension of the death penalty debate. For one thing, I was greatly surprised to learn that - at the end of 2004 - there were as many as 3,314 prisoners awaiting their fate on death row in U.S. prisons, after they'd, of course, been sentenced to death.
What the data published in the voluminous reports issued year after year by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics do not tell, however, is that these death row inmates - plus all who preceded and will most certainly follow them - are at the crux of one of America's most bitterly controversial and hotly contested public policy debates.
Based on research and long years of experience, public policy discussion and debate nowadays has generally come to place a laser-beam singular emphasis on the relative merits of deterrence and, by logical extension, whether or not the death penalty succeeds in this singular and admittedly very important respect.
Advocates who oppose the death penalty feel that, under the U.S. Constitution, this sanction is considered in itself to be cruel and unusual punishment. The U.S. Supreme Court has already largely rebutted that notion, however, as shown by the decision handed down in the case of Furman vs. Georgia. The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (NCADP), which sided with advocacy groups, conveyed the position that, "While the court ruled that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, it emphasized that it was only illegal in the way it was then administered." That decision went on to set the precedent for the capital punishment statutes now found in 39 U.S. states.
In the NCADP's position statement it is noteworthy to point out that the author, Michael Manville, continued his argument against capital punishment with a reiteration of an important point that has great significance concerning the death penalty. He explained that, "The death penalty has never been illegal in America and, despite recent controversy over its effectiveness, does not appear to be headed for extinction here anytime soon." He also pointed out in the same comments that, "This sets our country well apart from the rest of the industrialized world, which the latter half of the twentieth century not just divesting itself of capital punishment, but loudly calling for the rest of the planet to do the same." Something in Manville's even-handed and non-emotive comments certainly tend to compel each one of us to pay much closer attention to this debate, and to try to sift, sort and more closely examine the issue from its numerous, diverse, controversial, and perhaps most novel perspectives.
No one of rational mind would argue that the United States has been anything but the global standard-bearer of western ideals, at least insofar as the US has asserted itself as the unquestioned leader of the free world. As such, many argue, should it not be America's place and dutiful role to invoke freedom as an international standard? By logical extension, if it is our duty and moral obligation to be the leader of the free and the home of the brave - the leader among leaders of the free and democratic international community, why then, it is poignantly asked, are we in the company of other countries known for similarly harsh persecution of criminals? It's a matter that give pause for thought, and it's one that Manville illustrates in comments that go to the heart of the matter:
"Our esteemed company in the practice of state death includes such human rights luminaries as the Sudan, Kuwait, China, and republics of the former Soviet Union." Considering Manville's blistering critique, we are compelled to logically ask, compared to these countries, when and what types of "sate death" methods used in the U.S. are thought to be inhumane?
In an article published in 2005 by the University of Alaska's Justice Center, it is related that the States and the Federal government are authorized to use five methods of execution, including:
- lethal injection - electrocution - the gas chamber - firing squad, and - hanging
Of these practices, only three states currently authorize the firing squad and hanging, five employ lethal gas chambers, 11 take part in electrocution, and 35 exercise lethal injection. One could surmise that, although state governments rely on lethal injection as a humane practice, none of the methods currently authorized by law have a deterrent affect on crime. If that is true, then we must surely be asking ourselves why on earth are these practices still around?
One reason may be that the victims who have had the life of a loved one taken away are so angry at the perpetrator that, to get any sense of justice, their closure only comes when the criminal is executed under a sentence of death. The question we may want to ponder is, why can there not be viable alternatives to serve justice besides the death sentence? Further, if there are no viable alternatives and what we currently have are the only agreed upon methods, how can these be enhanced or modified to have a greater deterrent affect?
Many come away from reading Robert Johnson's "This Man Has Expired: Witness to an Execution" feeling depressed, saddened, and emotionally drained. Some say they felt as if they had actually been witness to the execution described in the story. Johnson relates the intensity of what it is like to witness an execution in very vivid and graphic terms. For example, he gives the reader a stark backdrop against which to witness the scene of death through the guise of an interview with a correctional officer, who states, "A lot of em die in their minds before they go to the chair. By the time they walk to the chair they have already faced it. Such a reality most people can't understand."
That's what sparked for me a major lightbulb moment, and by extension - because it may perhaps do so for many other people as well is - we come to what, admittedly, inspired and compelled me to contribute this thought piece to Helium. The point is this: What if there were a way to have inmates actually view this horrific scene for themselves?
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional only in cases where it is incorrectly carried out. Advocates who oppose that decision continue with their fight to have the death penalty abolished. It is the opinion of many that, if the criminal justice system continues to use the death penalty as a form of deterrence, better ways should be found to bring the practice into alignment and compliance with our laws. If inmates could bear witness to the horrible experience which others have only read about and seen in their mind's eye, it is argued, they would then be able to see where their own actions would ultimately lead them.
The bottom line to be hoped for on all sides of the debate, in my humble opinion, is that such a measure could bring greatly reduced recidivism and, ultimately, justification for abolition of the death penalty - precisely because criminals themselves will then be able to confront the heinous nature of their crimes, show contrition for such heinous and inhuman acts, and work to rehabilitate themselves as a result of their actions.
Like all ideas, it's just another contribution to the public policy debate stewpot - but one that I heartily hope will gain some bipartisan recognition from lawmakers and judicial reform advocates on all sides and from all stripes (pardon the pun) of the political spectrum.
There are countless people for whom I'd give my eye teeth to interview, but William Shakespeare is who I'd most like to engage in a 60-minute téte-a téte.
Okay. My choice is a relatively easy one to make, chiefly because uniqueness of his universal name recognition and a magnetic persona that, for this individual, combine such that his renown has been sustained over the centuries, and even today he's known to the vast majority of mankind throughout the world – and not only among the first world, the literate and the educated, the wealthy, or the Internet-connected. What's more, Shakespeare's name and infamous contributions to the march and progress of human achievement rise so high to the heavens that-when either his name or legacy of works alone are invoked - in seemingly whatever context - people are inspired and moved with such a profound sense of wonderment and awe that we immediately confide to ourselves with precision the reasons why the great bard himself stands head and shoulders above anyone else as the person most deserving of an hour-long interview.
Yes indeed - I'm preparing in my mind even now for this forthcoming prime-time interview with William Shakespeare, the great man who many choose to affectionately call "Bill", as if he were a personal acquaintance, intimate friend, former English teacher or professor, or even a familiar, down-to-earth next door neighbor from whom one might ask for a few writing tips.
Now having said that, I'll admit that the very thoughts of my having an opportunity to meet and greet - never mind interview - one of the greatest minds of any age of this world is exciting beyond words. Shakespeare would immediately grasp this and understand completely my apparent loss for words, mere mortal and novice writer that I am, and precisely because he was one to never be at a loss for words, I'd of course be all the more perfervid and perplexed in my heart-pounding moment of tongue-twisted angst to have intelligible discourse with him.
One of the first things I'd put out there to Mr. Shakespeare for comment is his take on the so-called decline - or outright nihilistic destruction, as many who constitute the language police, guardians of the grammar grail and other such self-proclaimed standard-bearers of the English language might say - of our mother tongue. Now to my mind that's something everyone who speaks English will have an interest in learning about from the perspective of the man who was arguably the world's first and most gifted "great communicator" (one can speculate that, when Bonzo did actually go to bed, Ronald Reagan as once and future politician actually studied Shakespeare under the covers with a flashlight). And especially so because we can speculate that he'd certainly have something to say about all the hackneyed things we hear and read nowadays - from "yo, bro" and "hey, ho" to other common vulgar colloquialisms, song lyrics, movie scripts, and the like - the good, the ugly and the bad, and for better or worse - such as "analog nerd", "way cool" or perhaps the ubiquitous "sweet deal".
My guess is that it's the connotation of these clipped quips that likely would have been anathema to the royals, gentrified lords and ladies, patrons of the arts, and generally well-heeled circles that Shakespeare undoubtedly moved around in. So what do YOU think of all this trash-talking, netherheaded nonsense, Mr. Shakespeare?
This'll sure prove itself to be a lively and spirited warm-up topic for me to toss out there to Bill, even before we plunge into the in-depth interview questions that will be carefully woven and laced together so that all kinds of creative juices start flowing, and with all sorts of edgy and pun-filled repartee from the pre-eminent master of the art and craft.
My interview with Mr. Shakespeare would definitely explore the great sweep of social, political and economic issues that mark our modern times, from the phenomenon of 21st century ideoclash - the mammoth ideological clashes that divide and conquer us, and not just culturally - best exemplified perhaps not only by global terrorism and Islamic extremism, but also the persistent and pervasive problem of worldwide hunger, which in turn drives and exacerbates much of the turbulence, strife and troubles that inevitably result from such a deplorable state of human affairs all over the globe.
Knowing that the word "globe" will have special meaning and significance to Mr. Shakespeare, I'd of course pay homage to "The Globe" as well as the great latter-day virtues of Broadway, Covent Garden and theater generally, so near and dear to Bill's heart (and bank account, no doubt), and I'd then forthrightly dive into the deep end by asking for his candid assessment, analysis and considered opinion on all of the aforementioned weighty world issues.
Yes - I'd of course have prepared a full laundry list of supplemental follow-up questions, as well as fresh questions designed to elicit the most from this man in the least amount of time. Geepers, Bill - can you believe the program directors? They've given me just one miserly hour for this historic interview with you - and that's assuming, of course, no bothersome commercial breaks or other "sponsor message" interruptions.
Sorry, Bill - that's just the bitter pill and the way it goes in the 21st century fast lane.
The tongue-in-cheek tone I've adopted here should in no way beguile you away from the erstwhile and tremendously important take-away value that this interview with Shakespeare can have for everyone, whether you're a Shakespeare fan or not.
Of signal importance is that the world's knowledge bank will be handsomely enriched by advancing our understanding of how best to create the specific language required to frame and articulate matters under discussion in our own times, as well as how best to define with specificity the nomenclature of all that's on the table in such discussions. How? By listening to and analyzing what the great bard himself has to say, and HOW he says it, weighing in on these many matters. And why is this important enough for anyone to bother about? Because most of us are dizzy and reeling from the pace of accelerating change in our world, and frustrated with a language that, though accessible to and easily understood by all, lags far behind the whiz-bang of technology and spoondoolicks of lifestyle that have become the hallmarks of our modern times. What Shakespeare can help us to do is to rethink our language, reengineer it so that it works for everyone - in an individual as well as a socially collective sense - to deal with and overcome the challenges in our increasingly tech-centric lives, which in turn can help to make ours a better world to live in. After all, not all the tea in China can - and certainly not any single thing in the plethora of technologies and other marvelous marvels produced by our advanced "modern" civilization - changes the fact that it'll always be the human intellect, our minds - and of course the interpersonal relations and human transactions among and between us, which transform our thoughts into words, drive our deeds into actions, and all of which gives form, substance and meaning to the universe all around us.
Would you agree with this hypothesis, Mr. Shakespeare?
Shifting gears, Mr. Shakespeare, what exactly do you think about this spiderless thing called the World Wide Web, the Internet, the notion that today's world is actually once again flat, cell phones, electricity, the French Revolution, women's lib, internal combustion engines, man's lunar landings, Rock 'n Roll, heavy metal, heavy water, and all the other things you've been briefed in on as just some of mankind's developments, innovations and achievements since your death in 1616?
Yes, you're right, Helium reader. I may be getting ahead of myself here with all these nitty-gritty details of the interview, my approach and positioning, and some of the potential questions that I'd hope to ask and hope to have answered - even before I've convinced you, dear Helium reader, that Shakespeare should rightly be given top billing on tonight's program, sitting up there on the couch, right alongside yours truly, the anchor, seated in the chair that marks my place as the show's host - replete with jazzy glass table, coffee mugs and all the rest.
What am I referring, Helium reader? Well, for starters, you may very well know that there's swirling shades of scandal surrounding the authenticity of Bill's authorship. There are many who throughout the ages have bequeathed to us lingering arguments, doubts and hand-wringing - chiefly among scholars, literary pundits and other "experts" of all such stripes and affiliations - about whether Shakespeare really was the author of the works that history has attributed to him as his own, authentic, original creations.
The point here is clear - and quite salacious. If it can indeed be proven that the great bard had "heavily borrowed" or simply stolen from his contemporaries - if he committed what lawyers today call intellectual property theft by plagiarizing or outright "pinching" the work of others - then we'd have to re-write the history books, re-publish the plays and sonnets under the sobriquet of "anonymous" or some such thing, and undertake the gargantuan task of revising anything and everything that's come down to us, however remote and in whatever way rework all that is referenced, indexed, annotated, or otherwise linked to Shakespeare.
Who knows? You may very well find yourself watching the celebrity interview episode equivalent of the "Jerry Springer Show". Let's face it, folks - whom among us hasn't at least occasionally enjoyed watching a celebrity squirm under close scrutiny, the glare of the overhead stage lights, and the tantalizingly live, rapid-fire questioning?
To my mind, such a potentially scintillating moment with Mr. Shakespeare - one where something that "bleeds" will definitely prove the old saw by immediately "leading" to a feeding frenzy of sharks, piranhas and hyenas gathered like a pack of parasitic paparazzi bent on pursuit of lurid headlines that'll inevitably be splashed across all the network and cable TV news, radio, TV talking head programs, newspaper and magazine mastheads, not to mention the newsstand tabloids, and so on. Deep in your heart, Helium reader, you KNOW this sad fact of modern life to be true. And long ago, when he was busily writing away on a play, be it in London, or maybe scribing away at home alongside his wife, Anne, in his native Stratford, Shakespeare also knew very well, perhaps more than anyone who has ever lived, all that one needs to be know about this peculiarity of the feeding frenzy desire that resides in the human soul.
While there's no reason for us to actually suspect Shakespeare of any literary skullduggery, such persistent questions about the authenticity of his attributed works DOES tantalize the imagination, urge us on to learn more about this mysterious man, and come to know something of his genius by examining his personal and private life - his passions and interests, as well as his moments of personal tragedy, grief and despair - such as the heartbreak and suffering he must have undergone when his son, Hamnet, died at such a tender young age, denying him the chance to see his son become a grown man in his own right, at his side, which would have surely had a significant influence upon his great father's life and subsequent literary work.
It's all of this that constitutes the grist, pithy content and "riveting stuff" of great reporting, and especially so where celebrity interviews with greatness such as Shakespeare are concerned. In this respect, I'd therefore strive in our interview to get at the gist of something else about Shakespeare.
I'd hope to discover what it was that made his creative mind tick - much like the Curious Georges among us who are relentless about wanting to pop open minds as if they were a precision-crafted Swiss watch, and doing so just for the thrill of having that chance to carefully sift and examine what others have not, cannot or simply don't want to examine - scrutinizing all details of the mechanism to see how it all so seamlessly comes together to create great craftsmanship, if not outright perfection in its genius.
I'd hope in my interview to reveal to the world, for the first time, how it came to be that this man, at a level of genius beyond anyone's reckoning, was able to transform, invent or otherwise so cleverly cobble together the nuts and bolts of the English language of his day in ways that re-made it into something entirely new and original.
How was it possible for a man who'd never attended university to hone his mind and writing skill to such magnificence that he flawlessly - and certainly mellifluously - manipulated his contemporary speech into entirely new words, phrases and other linguistic innovations?
No one has the authoritative answers to any of these questions, and that's chiefly because Shakespeare left behind no diaries, logbooks, notebooks and letters, or anything else that could usefully give us clues and insights on the many matters we yearn to have clarified and known. This is but one very good reason why it's really high time for this interview, Mr. Shakespeare.
You may be rightfully asking yourself as you read this, Helium reader - at least given that you've elected to read this far at all - how it is that a "country boy" from England's rural interior develop the skill that allowed him to convey to us his deepest thoughts, observations and conclusions about the human condition with such appeal, conviction, authenticity and accuracy that they still reach out to, resonate and connect with people of all creeds, colors, languages and nationalities-right down to the present day?
What specifically was it - or if not one thing, then what multiple variables, factors and ingredients - combined to endow Shakespeare with such majesty of the mind?
Where along the way in his travels and travails, reading and discourse, as well as more abstracted highways and by-ways of thought process in his mind can we find evidence for what molded and shaped his keen insight and raw reasoning abilities to penetrate the darkest corners of the human psyche, expose the gut-level dynamics of the human soul, and cast such brilliant light of understanding for us on everything from individual pursuit of the heights of happiness, beautification and love, to the terrifying and haunted hallows of revenge, murder, and the rest of the seven deadly sins we've come to know and relate to so well as the harbingers of all evil that has pockmarked and otherwise marred the human condition for all ages, creating for many the very pits of hell they so desperately sought to sidestep, but which - by circumstance, fate or by unwitting will by volition - they've inevitably fallen into?
It may be helpful in trying to convince you that my interview with Bill is a "must-see" event, and so I proffer up an analogy to make the point that Shakespeare really is to mankind's intellectual prowess and pursuit of understanding and knowledge of the human psyche what a sumo wrestler is to his domain of expertise - at least in terms of sheer size, weight and physical dimension in that particular sporting endeavor. Shakespeare the man is one who rises to a height such that he cannot help but cast a forbidding shadow over all that lay below him - metaphorically speaking, of course - which is not unlike the sumo wrestler who looms equally large, in a strict physical sense, on the stage of his own prowess.
This is so not only because of Shakespeare's prodigious output of plays and sonnets, but also because he made fundamentally significant and lasting changes to the world in ways that continue to echo and reverberate all around us, touching almost every dimension of our lives, whether we're aware of it or not. Whom among us has not used (or tried to use) Shakespearian quotes, expressions and the like to add spice to or otherwise liven up our speech and writing, if only to be seen as an educated, informed, well read actor on the stage of the reality we must live in, or perhaps to convince someone, a potential wife or husband perhaps, of good socio-economic status and well-groomed breeding?
Now you should know that, in my humble opinion, what we know of Shakespeare suggests that he'll be a reluctant guest and an unwilling participant in any onstage, on-air or "for-the-record" print reporting interview for which I'd have the temerity, pluck and courage to propose to him. We can deduce this in only the most speculative of ways from what historical and scholarly records there are available to us, which indicate that Bill was known by his contemporaries to be a rather unassuming, self-effacing and quite simple fellow who never forgot his rural English roots and relatively humble country village origins. Unlike many greats who have an ego more expansive than the total volume of helium to be found in Jupiter, it seems that Shakespeare felt no compunction at all about feeding his own - at least not unless it served to earn him a living, care for and feed his family, and promote his many theater company and other business interests.
There's another point that needs to made, which is the fact that even randomly selected high school students from anywhere around the world are certain to have heard of and understand the weighty contextual significance bound up with the name "Shakespeare". It's a fact that tells us that Bill has not only managed to transcend space and time by retaining a popularity and public profile as prominent today as it was in Elizabethan times, but he's also managed to transcend the vast spaces of geography that girdle the globe and, even before the telegraph and radio made their appearance, pierced through the seemingly insurmountable physical barriers that had hitherto separated vast numbers of the world's population centers from one another, which had inhibited the free and fluid flow of literature across land and sea. In addition to all of the language barriers that took time for humankind to bring down, especially with the proliferation of translations of his work into all of the world's major languages, one must admit that Shakespeare's lasting appeal is a stupendously remarkable achievement that is a marvel in its own right.
More than being just another talented playwright who could craftily create compelling literature, Shakespeare went one better than anyone who either preceded or who has followed him by manifesting absolute perfection in application of a creative skill that marks for him a peerless place among the all-time luminaries of literature. Few would argue that Bill ranks at the top of the charts and is considered to be the best of the best because his number-one ranking is based on his having been the most imaginative, creative, prolific, compelling and original-and, crucially, to have withstood the test of time. It is in these ways that Bill has rightfully earned his moniker as the greatest playwright and dramatist of all time.
Of course this in and of itself doesn't even touch on or mention his unequaled command of the English language. It's Shakespeare's contributions to the English speaking world, and to the wider community of mankind, that his greatness can best be understood as so much more far-reaching in scope than his literary accomplishments alone. He not only managed to single-handedly transform the English language into one that would forever be dynamic, ever more hungrily pursuing assimilation of so many thousands of loan words and phrases from other languages into its lexicon-but he also, with his wholesale creation of new words, phrases, idiomatic expressions, and sentence constructions, gave new shades of meaning, connotation, depth and dimension across the entire spectrum of our inextricably linked linguistic and literary English-language landscapes.
Shakespeare is my hands-down, number-one choice for a one-hour interview. In my humble opinion, he stands out as the greatest intellectual giant the world has ever known, though one that continues to lurk in the shadows because we know so precious little about him. He is, as was Hippocrates long before him, one of history's most mysterious and baffling enigmas. Millions have read his works, seen his plays and discussed his significance in so many diverse contexts such that - great or small - most of humankind has been touched and influenced by the mind of this remarkable man. In our times, in fact, we've even been privileged by technologies that have allowed us to enjoy Shakespeare's works on the big screen at the box office, on a small screen at home using VHS or DVD player, and even online with access to countless popular Internet movie download sites. Many of us even went to see "Shakespeare in Love" a few years ago, and did so without necessarily knowing much if anything at all about the man's private life or personal affairs, which should have prompted us to ask, either before going into the cinema or exiting after the film, exactly what or whom it was that the great bard was actually enamored with. We remain clueless-bereft of any information at all-despite the nifty drama and perfervid acting performances that marked this film as one worth seeing for its sheer entertainment value, and sadly nothing more.
What we do know about Bill is apparent to us by examining his propensity for productive literary output, measured by the prodigious number of plays and sonnets he created over the course of his career. We also know that Shakespeare richly deserves his place as the undisputed all-time master of drama, and pre-eminent playwright-for no one with whom I've ever discussed him has denied that he's the greatest of his craft who ever lived.
Sure - all of that is fine and dandy, but we're still left holding an empty bag on answers as to who William Shakespeare really was as the man? How can the millions who've been touched by his genius reach out and get to know Bill, for better or ill?
All we really have in terms of the brass tacks of hard facts, unequivocal documentation and authoritative evidence-about his actual private, personal life-is what has been preserved in a litany of manuscripts, church records, official government documents, business transaction archives, historical records, the Washington, DC-based Shakespeare Society, and the like. But what do we have that's tangible and substantive in a way that sheds light on or tells us something we DON"T know about the 3-D color, heartbeat and pulse of this extraordinary man? How did his brilliant mind come to encompass such an encyclopedic knowledge of the world, and all of it executed in his works with such a razor sharp insight into the psychology, peculiarities and idiosyncracies of the human condition? Just exactly HOW did he manage to produce so many masterpieces—a million words or so of pure literary magic, which is a Herculean intellectual task by any measure? And just exactly HOW did he live, love, work and socialize, never mind all of the millions of other salacious details that would help to give us some pithy insights into the "real" Shakespeare's heart, mind and soul?
It's really high time for an interview, Bill...please open my card, and you'll straightaway see, that mine is a plain but polite plaintive plea - oh, and Bill, remember to R.S.V.P., about that interview...can it be or not be?
Just your garden variety, middle aged, happy-go-lucky professional looking for ways to live life to the fullest - with all the ups and downs, roundabouts and scoutabouts - while making friends and doing good along the way.
Posts
