To e- or not to e-? Disposing of Schlockspeare in the Age of Digital Media
  • Richard Burt


On the cover of the December 2000 issue of Time Digital devoted to electronic publishing, Shakespeare stands clutching a copy of Hamlet and, with eyebrows arched, eyes wide open, and lips pursed, peers intently over the shoulder of a young woman at the e-book she is holding. The woman smiles in amusement at the reader.


Popular Culture Mass Culture Comic Book Free Enterprise Star Trek 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Works Cited

  1. Aagesen, Colleen and Margie Blumberg. 1999. Shakespeare for Kids: His Life and Times. Chicago: Chicago Review Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. 1972. The Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. by John Cumming. New York: Herder & Herder.Google Scholar
  3. Adorno, Theodor. 1991. The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture. Ed. by J. M. Bernstein. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, Richard. 2001. “Branagh Shelves Two New Films as ‘Bard Boom’ Ends.” The Evening Standard (London). January 31:4.Google Scholar
  5. Alikiki . 1999. William Shakespeare and the Globe. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  6. Allies, Jennifer. Unpublished. “‘Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet’: A Study in Bard Management.”Google Scholar
  7. Anderegg, Michael. 1999. Orson Welles, Shakespeare and Popular Culture. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, Jack. 2000. “Romeo Is on the Streets. But Where’s Juliet?” September 28, section E: 5.Google Scholar
  9. Anon(a) . 1997. William Shakespeare Quotations. Norwich: Jarrold.Google Scholar
  10. Anon(b) . Shakespeare in Love: The Love Poetry of Shakespeare. New York: Miramax Books/Hyperion.Google Scholar
  11. Anon(c) . 2001. “Parting from Bard Is Such Sweet Sorrow for Branagh.” February 1.Google Scholar
  12. Babha, Homi K. 1986. “Signs Taken for Wonders: Questions of Ambivalence and Authority under a Tree Outside Delhi, May 1817.” In “Race,” Writing, and Difference. Ed. by Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 163–84.Google Scholar
  13. Bender, Michael. All the Worlds a Stage: William Shakespeare, a Pop-Up Biography. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.Google Scholar
  14. Berubé, Michael. 1994. Public Access: Literary Theory and American Cultural Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  15. Blackwood, Gary L. 2000. Shakespeares Scribe. New York: Dutton Books.Google Scholar
  16. —. 1998. The Shakespeare Stealer. London: Puffin Books.Google Scholar
  17. Bloom, Alan. 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Boose, Lynda E. and Richard Burt. 1997. “Totally Clueless: Shakespeare Goes Hollywood in the 1990s.” In Shakespeare, the Movie: Popularizing on Film, TV, and Video. Ed. by Lynda E. Boose and Richard Burt. New York: Routledge, 8–22.Google Scholar
  19. Bristol, Michael. 1997. Big-Time Shakespeare. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Browne, Ray B. 1960. “Shakespeare in American Vaudeville and Negro Minstrelsy.” American Quarterly. 12: 374–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Burdett, Lois. 2000. Hamlet for Kids. New York: Firefly Books.Google Scholar
  22. Burt, Richard. [1998]1999. Unspeakable ShaXXXspeares: Queer Theory and American Kiddie Culture. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  23. —. 2000. “Shakespeare in Love and the End of the Shakespearean: Academic and Mass Culture Constructions of Literary Authorship.” In Shakespeare, Film, Fin-de-Siecle. Ed. by Mark Burnett and Ramona Wray London: Macmillan, 203–31.Google Scholar
  24. —. 2001. “T(e)en Things I Hate About Girlene Shakesploitation Flicks in the Late 1990s, or, Not So Fast Times at Shakespeare High.” In Spectacular Shakespeare: Critical Theory and Popular Cinema. Ed. by Lisa Stārks and Courtney Lehmann. NJ: Farleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 205–232.Google Scholar
  25. —. 2002. “Slammin’ Shakespeare In Acc(id)ents Yet Unknown: Liveness, Cinem(edi)a, and Racial Dis-integration.” Ed. by Barbara Hodgdon. Forthcoming in Shakespeare Quarterly 53: 2 (Summer). Special issue on Shakespeare and film.Google Scholar
  26. —. 2003. “Bardcore: Liveness and the Tactile Technologies of Unspeakable ShaXXXsporns.” Forthcoming in Shakespeare, the Movie II: Popularizing the Plays on Film, TV, and Video. 2nd. rev. and expanded ed. Ed. by Richard Burt and Lynda Boose. New York and London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  27. Butler, Judith P. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Castaldo, Annalisa. Unpublished. “‘No more yielding than a dream’: The Construction of Shakespeare in The Sandman. ”Google Scholar
  29. Cartmell, Deborah. 2000. Interpreting Shakespeare on Screen. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  30. Collins, Kris. 1996. “White Washing the Black-A-Moor: Othello, Negro Minstrelsy and Parodies of Blackness.” Journal of American Culture 19 (Fall): 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cooper, Susan. 1999. King of Shadows. New York: Margaret K. McElrerry Books.Google Scholar
  32. Darnton, Robert. 1999. “The New Age of the Book.” New York Review of Books. March 18. 19990318005F.
  33. de Lauretis, Teresa 1987. Technologies of Gender: Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Desmet, Cristy and Robert Sawyer, eds. 2000. Shakespeare and Appropriation. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Dionne, Craig. 1995. “Shakespeare in Popular Culture: Gender and High-Brow Culture in America.” Genre 38 (Winter): 385–412.Google Scholar
  36. Doyle, John and Ray Lischner. 1999. Shakespeare for Dummies. New York: IDG Books.Google Scholar
  37. Dunn, Alan. 2000. “The Bard and Dope: Was this such Stuff as Dreams Were Made on?” Independent on Sunday. November 5.
  38. Eagelton, Terry. 1988. “Afterword.” In The Shakespeare Myth. Ed. by Graham Holderness. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  39. Evans, Malcolm. 1989. Signifying Nothing: Truths True Contents in Shakespeare’s Text. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  40. Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  41. Folkerth, Wes. Unpublished. “Roll Over Shakespeare: Bardolatry Meets Beatlemania in the Spring of 1964.”Google Scholar
  42. Frecerro, Carla. 1999. Popular Culture: An Introduction. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ganeri, Anita. 1999. The Young Persons Guide to Shakespeare. London: Pavilion Books.Google Scholar
  44. Gates, Jr., Henry Louis. 1988. The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  45. Halpern, Richard. 1997. “That Shakespeherian Mob: Mass Culture and the Literary Public Sphere.” In Shakespeare Among the Moderns. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 51–113.Google Scholar
  46. Harries, Martin. 2000. Scare Quotes from Shakespeare: Marx, Keynes, and the Language of Reenchantment. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hawkes, Terence. 1992. “Bardbiz.” In Meaning by Shakespeare. New York and London: Routledge, 141–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hearst, Andrew. 2001. “The Pound of Flesh.” Lingua Franca. September, 11:6, 8–9.Google Scholar
  49. Hebidge, Dick. 1979. Sub-Culture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  50. Hedrick, Don and Bryan Reynolds, eds. 2000. Shakespeare Without Class: Misappropriations of Cultural Capital. New York: Palgravef.Google Scholar
  51. Hodgson, Barbara. 1999. The Shakespeare Trade: Performances and Appropriations. Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  52. Holderness, Graham. 1994. “Radical Potentiality and Institutional Closure: Shakespeare in Film and Television.” In Dollimore and Sinfield 1994, 206–225.Google Scholar
  53. —. ed. 1988. The Shakespeare Myth. Manchester, U.K.: Manchester Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  54. hooks, bell. 1992. Black Looks: Race and Representation. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  55. —. 1990. Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  56. Howard, Jean and Scott Shershow, eds. 2000. Marxist Shakespeares. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Huyssen, Andreas. 1986. After the Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture, Postmodernism. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Johns, Ian. 2001. “Liked that? Then Try This … Movies with Literary Inspiration.” Times (London), February 1, features.Google Scholar
  59. Keevak, Michael. 2001. Sexual Shakespeare. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  60. Langley, Andrew. 2000. Treasure Chests: Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Age. London: Quarto Children’s Books.Google Scholar
  61. Levine, Lawrence. 1988. Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  62. Linton, David. Unpublished essay. “Shakespeare in Heat: Two Pornographic Adaptations of A Midsummer Nights Dream.” Google Scholar
  63. Lister, David. 2001. “Is This a Slump We See before Us? Ken Calls Off New Shakespeare.” The Independent (London), January 31, 76: 84.Google Scholar
  64. MacDonald, Joyce. 1994. “Acting Black: Othello, Othello Burlesques, and the Performance of Blackness.” Theatre Journal 46: 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Martin, Malia. 2000. Much Ado About Love. New York: Avon Romance.Google Scholar
  66. Mcentee, John. 2001. “Ken’s Labour’s Lost on the Bard.” The Express (London). January 30: 39.Google Scholar
  67. Midgette, Anne. 2000. “The Bard’s Hip-Hop Foot Soldier: Choreographer Rennie Harris Blends Shakespeare With Rap in a Modern Take on Romeo and Juliet. ” Los Angeles Times. September 17: 7.Google Scholar
  68. Novy, Marianne, ed. 1999. Transforming Shakespeare: Contemporary Women’s Re-Visions in Literature and Performance. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  69. Osborne, Laurie. 1999. “Romancing the Bard.” In Shakespeare and Appropriation. Edited by Christy Desmet and Robert Sawyer. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. — 2000. “Sweet, Savage Shakespeare.” In Shakespeare Without Class. Edited by Don Hedrick and Bryan Reynolds. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  71. —. 2002. “Clip Art: Theorizing the Shakespearean Film Clip.” Special issue on Shakespeare and film. Ed. by Barbara Hodgdon. Forthcoming in Shakespeare Quarterly, 53: 2 (Summer).Google Scholar
  72. Penley, Constance. 1997. NASA / Trek: Popular Science in America. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  73. Pipher, Mary. 1994. Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Lives of Adolescent Girls. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  74. Perret, Marion. Unpublished. “Speaking Pictures: How Comics Books Challenge Critical Thinking.”Google Scholar
  75. Pollack, William S. With Todd Shuster. 2000. Real Boys Voices. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  76. Readings, Bill. 1997. The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  77. Riddens, Geoffrey. Unpublished. “Dreadful Trade! Shakespeare and Advertising.”Google Scholar
  78. Roca, Octavio. 2000. “Where Art Thou, Juliet?: Hip-Hop Romeo Lacks a Leading Lady.” San Francisco Chronicle. August 13, C7.Google Scholar
  79. Ross. Andrew. 1989. No Respect: Intellectuals and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  80. Rothwell, Kenneth and Fracoise Meltzer. 1990. Shakespeare on Screen. An International Filmography and Videography. New York and London : Neal-Schuman Publishers.Google Scholar
  81. Royster, Francesca. 1999. “Cleopatra as Diva: African-American Women and Shakespearean Tactics.” In Novy, ed. 1999, 103–125.Google Scholar
  82. Rozakis, Laurie. 1999. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Shakespeare. New York: Alpha Books.Google Scholar
  83. Sinfield, Alan. 1992. Faultlines: Cultural Materialism and the Politics of Dissident Reading. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.Google Scholar
  84. Stanley, Dane and Peter Vennema. 1992. Bard of Avon: The Story of William Shakespeare. New York: Morrow Junior Books.Google Scholar
  85. Strinati, Dominic. 1995. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  86. Talbott, Frederic. 1994. Shakespeare on Leadership—Timeless Wisdom for Daily Challenges. Thomas Nelson Publishers.Google Scholar
  87. Taylor, Gary. 1994. “Bardicide.” In Shakespeare and Cultural Traditions: The Selected Proceedings of the International Shakespeare Association World Congress, Tokyo, 1991. Ed. by Tetsuo Kishi, Roger Pringle, and Stanley Wells. Newark: Univ. of Delaware Press, 333–49.Google Scholar
  88. Toropov, Brandon. 1997. Shakespeare for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing.Google Scholar
  89. Toropov, Brandon. 1997. Shakespeare for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing.Google Scholar
  90. Traub, James. 2000. “On Line U.” New York Times Sunday Magazine. November 19
  91. Uricchio, William and Roberta E. Pearson. 1993. Reframing Culture: The Case of the Vitagraph Quality Films. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wallace, Michelle. 1990. Invisibility Blues. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  93. Weiberg, George, ed. 1991. Shakespeare on Love: Quotations from the Plays and Poems. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  94. Wertham, Fredric. 1954. Seduction of the Innocent: The Influence of Comics on Todays Youth. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
  95. Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  96. Žižek, Slavoj. 2000. The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Films and Videos Cited

  1. Bartkowak, Andrezj, dir. 2000. Romeo Must Die. USA. Warner Bros. Sound, col., 115 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  2. Burnett, Robert Meyer, dir. 1999. Free Enterprise. USA. Mindfire. Sound, col., 109 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  3. Cadro, Steve, dir. 2000. Midsummers Night Dream. Hungary. Cadro Films. Sound, col., 90 mins. Video.Google Scholar
  4. Canterbury. Stuart, dir. In the Flesh. USA. VCA Films. Sound, col., 110 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  5. —. 2000. A Midsummer Night s Cream. USA. Adam & Eve Productions. Sound, col., 90 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  6. Capra, Frank, dir. 1946. Its a Wonderful Life. USA. New Live Films. Sound, col., 130 mins.Google Scholar
  7. DaCosta, Morton, dir. 1962. The Music Man. USA. Liberty Films. Sound, col., 130 mins.Google Scholar
  8. Lee, Spike, dir. 2000. Bamboozled. USA. New Line Films. Sound, col., 135 mins.Google Scholar
  9. Madden, Jr. John. 1998. Shakespeare in Love. USA. Miramax. Sound, col., 118 mins.Google Scholar
  10. Pacino, Al, dir. 1996. Looking for Richard. USA. Twentieth Century Fox. Sound, col., 118 mins.Google Scholar
  11. Savant, Ren, dir. West Side. USA. Dream Team. Sound, col., 180 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  12. —. 2000. Shakespeare Revealed. USA. Vivid. Sound, col., 96 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  13. Wayans, Keene, dir. 2000. Scary Movie. USA. Dimension Films. Sound, col., 88 Mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar
  14. Whitakker, Forrest, dir. 1995. Waiting to Exhale. USA. Twentieth Century Fox. Sound, col., 126 mins. DVD edition.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Richard Burt 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Burt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations