Well, I’m off to the Shakespeare Teacher conference. I’m very excited about attending, but it means that I may have to step away from the blog for a few days. I’ll post when I can, but I’ll probably be more interested in blogging about the conference than in keeping up with my regular features.

But what if I could leave behind just one post that combines all of my regular features for the week? Why, we’d just have to call that a Shakespeare Teacher Special Feature! Here’s how it breaks down:

• I. Please find below eight brand-new riddles. This should more than satisfy fans of the Thursday Morning Riddle. Each answer will be one word. Please tell us which number you’re solving and your one-word answer.
• II. Once the riddles have been solved, place the eight one-word answers in the Venn Diagram below, using the numbers as guides. This will be your Conundrum. Can you guess the rules? Venn diagram explanation and sample here.
• III. The answer to Circle A (Riddles 1,3,5,7) will be a place. To stand in for the fact vs. fiction Headline Game, can you name three fictional television shows (of at least four seasons each) that are set in this real-life place?
• IV. The answer to Circle B (Riddles 2,3,6,7) will be a question. This is the Question of the Week. Once the games are done, feel free to discuss this question in the comments below. I have already registered my opinion elsewhere on the blog.
• V. The answer to Circle C (Riddles 7,4,6,5) will be a historical person. I was able to link this person to Sir Francis Bacon in four degrees, though that shouldn’t stop you from posting a longer response, or looking for a shorter one. Entries will be accepted until midnight on Thursday, March 22.

Use the comments section below to register any and all answers, discussion, and comments. I won’t be around much the next couple of days to moderate this, so please work together. If someone posts an answer you think is right, go ahead and say so and offer some words of encouragement. Also, feel free to pass this along to anyone you think may be interested. Here is the direct link.

If this is all too overwhelming or confusing, then just enjoy these eight riddles, and I’ll be back soon to talk about something simple, like Shakespeare.

The Riddles:

1. I act Maynard G. Krebs, and I Gilligan feign;
I’m the Mile High hub; leaving on a jet plane;
With the dinosaurs gone, I’m the last to remain;
And peppers, ham, onions, and eggs I contain.

2. I’m a weave, or the shirt type for which it is known;
I’m the college of Thatcher and William Gladstone;
I’m an unabridged lexicon, standing alone;
And I’m also the clay that preserves a fish bone.

3. I was first worn by Chaplin before his divorce;
I’m a race to be run by a three-year-old horse;
When in cars, I’m a wreck; when on skates, I use force;
And the kids on their soap boxes follow my course.

4. I’m the former first lady of all New York State;
A Nobel-winning chemist who won for a date;
A survivor on Lost with too sudden a fate;
And an ex-Cheney aide who is now an inmate.

5. A brigade made of Wolverines served my command,
When the Sioux and Cheyenne boldy tried to expand.
But the Little Big Horn didn’t go quite as planned,
When I stood up to Sitting Bull – that’s my last stand.

6. If you’re bringing me home, it can be quite a slog;
You can link me to Hoffman or to Skip the Dog;
I’m a fried strip of meat from the gut of a hog;
And a regular feature right here on the blog.

7. I am not Robert Browning, but captured his soul;
I am Stanton, and Hurley, and Taylor, and Dole;
Though I lost that which Shakespeare in Love from me stole;
It was won back by Helen for playing my role.

8. Both the lion and lamb are my two weather guides;
I’m the music of Sousa; the steps it provides;
When in basketball, madness; in history, strides;
In the middle, a novel; Beware of the Ides!

Who are we? 

UPDATE: Riddles 1-6 and 8 solved by Andrew.  Riddle 7 solved by DeLisa.  Circles B and C solved by Annalisa.  See comments for all answers. 

If you were a dogged – even obsessed – journalist, driven by a deeply-held passion for the truth, what present-day news story would be consuming your days and keeping you awake nights?

What are you listening to right now?

I don’t mean right this second, unless you happen to be listening to something interesting as you read this. Right now, I happen to be listening to a playlist I created in iTunes. Playing now is a song called “Daydream in Blue,” by I Monster. I heard it on an episode of Hustle (an excellent BBC series starring Adrian Lester that’s been replayed on AMC), and I downloaded it from the Apple Music Store. And now it’s over, and I’m listening to “I’ll Take You There” by the Staple Singers.

So “right now” is a tricky term. But in general, what have you been listening to lately? Is it a new album by a familiar artist? Is it an old favorite you haven’t listened to in a while? An audiobook of the newest Harry Potter? The Black Eyed Peas? A podcast on the Byzantine Empire? The Beatles? Chopin? The New York Times? The Dixie Chicks?

What are you listening to right now?

Last week, I posted a response to a blogger named Cesario who listed her ten unpopular opinions about Shakespeare. I registered my opinions for nine of them, but had only a non-committal response for her suggestion that Shakespeare was “probably Catholic” by saying there’s no way to know for sure. Well, of course there’s no way to know for sure. That’s why she called it an opinion, Shakespeare Teacher.

First, let me provide some quick background. In the early 16th century, England, like most of Europe, was a Catholic nation. During the Protestant Reformation, Henry VIII had a break with the Pope, partially over the question of whether he could divorce Catherine of Arragon (hint), and created instead the Anglican Church. After his death, his young son Edward VI and his advisors moved the country more solidly Protestant. After his death, came Queen Mary I.

Mary was of Spanish descent, and Spain was still solidly a Catholic country. She was the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Arragon, and was married to the King of Spain (hint). She converted the country back to being Catholic, polarizing the country even further. Elizabeth inherited this strife and brought back the Anglican Church, but tried to implement the via media, or “middle way,” a compromise that made nobody happy. But this was the world that Shakespeare was born into, so if his family was Catholic, they would have had good reason to hide it. But lack of evidence alone isn’t proof either way.

I just did a Google search for “Was Shakespeare Catholic?” and the more interesting results can be found here and here. Both articles conclude that there’s no way to know for sure. So let me ask your opinion.

In your opinion, was Shakespeare Catholic?

Well, it’s Oscar week once again. If you have any opinions about which of the nominees are going to win, which ones you’d like to win, or who should have been nominated that wasn’t, feel free to post them here. But that’s not the Question of the Week.

This year, the ad campaign for the Oscars centers around great movie lines. I may not agree with all of their choices, but I love the idea.

What are your favorite lines from the movies? What movies are they from? Which lines made you smile in the theatre, and which lines made you gasp? Which lines do you find yourself quoting when just the right situation arises, and which lines do you quote for no reason at all? Which of your favorite lines are from your favorite movies, and which of your favorite lines are from movies that were otherwise ordinary? Which lines are so famous that they are even larger than the movies themselves, and which lines bring us back to their original movies again and again?

My personal favorite may be this one, from Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) in The Silence of the Lambs:

A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

How about you?

What’s your favorite line from a movie?

We live in strange times. The Dixie Chicks won five Grammys last night. Remember when they were untouchables because they dared to express doubt about the war, and the president who was bringing us to it? But now that the war is going badly, the Dixie Chicks are okay again.

Were last night’s awards all about the music? Or were the awards as much for their anti-war stance? Natalie Maines herself said “I think people are using their freedom of speech with all these awards. We get the message.”

If it was for their anti-war stance, does this mark a turning point in the nation’s conception of anti-war protesters? Or are the people who initially shunned them a different demographic than those who award the Grammys?

If this is a shift, in line with the Democratic takeover of Congress in November, what could this mean for the candidates for Democratic nominee for president in 2008? Republican? For the general election?

And where did the shift begin? I think the war going badly is certainly the main factor, but in my opinion the catalyst was Hurricane Katrina. That was botched so badly, and with such dire consequences, that even the expert spinmasters were powerless. Seasoned journalists who pride themselves on dispassionate analysis were screaming into the cameras. And that was when the people realized that the emperor had no clothes.

So where does that leave us now? With the Question of the Week:

What changes do you see in the collective national mood over the past two years and how might it affect the political landscape over the next two years.

I was talking to some colleagues about the upcoming Get Smart movie, and I had to be honest. I don’t have very high hopes.

I was a big fan of the television series, and the movie will have a hard time living up to that. I think Steve Carrell and Anne Hathaway are both good casting choices, both for talent and for box office appeal, but without the creative team from the series (Buck Henry, Mel Brooks), I worry that the movie might seem derivative.

It’s not easy to make a good movie from a television series, and it seems like Hollywood doesn’t even try anymore. They just want to hijack the brand identity of a vague, but pleasant memory to create another mediocre blockbuster. Look at all of the terrible TV show-based movies that have come out in the last ten years or so. But people recognize the name, and so they go to see the movie, expecting to relive their memories of watching those shows from long ago.

In some cases, television shows do make good movies. South Park made for a much better movie than anyone had a right to expect. But that was from the same creative team that did the show, so let’s put that aside for a moment. I did enjoy the first Mission: Impossible movie on its own terms, but as an action/adventure movie, not as a faithful adaptation of one of my favorite shows. If you hold it to that standard, the movie failed. The hero wasn’t even part of the original series. The villain was the hero of the original series. What’s up with that? I have to confess that I enjoyed the Brady Bunch Movie a great deal, but that was a parody, so I don’t know if we can count that.

It seems even more difficult to turn a movie into a successful TV series. Of course, M*A*S*H and The Odd Couple come to mind. I’ve never seen Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I’ve heard good things.

What makes a successful adaptation from television to movie? Should the goal be to reach out to established fans from a previous generation, or to redefine the essential elements of the original for an audience of a new age? Can a movie that has a beginning, middle, and end, really be extended into a television series without compromising its integrity? Or does the film remain immune to whatever experimentation happens on the small screen?

And some shows that I remember from childhood as being of very high quality are almost unwatchable to me now. If a film were to be made of one of those shows, it might be considered charitable to rework it.

But I digress. On to the Question of the Week:

What, in your opinion, have been successful crossovers between film and television (in either direction), and what lessons do these successes have to teach those who would follow?

There’s a popular movement in education today that stresses “authentic” experiences as being the most valuable. I adhere to this philosophy myself. There are some experiences that are difficult to have in the classroom. I studied Shakespeare in the classroom, but learned what I really needed to know on the stage. I studied education in the classroom, but learned what I really needed to know in – well, okay, the classroom, but not as a student.

Some subjects we learn in school have always been practical classes – opportunities for authentic practice of the subject being learned. Music, art, and gym come to mind. Most drama classes have a practical component. But did you take a driver’s education class in high school? Did it prepare you for the road? When was the last time you reviewed your notes from that sex education class you took in junior high?

There is a limit to what can be learned in the classroom. But we still have classrooms, and I haven’t heard any arguments for eliminating them. So there must be something going on there that we find valuable.

What’s the most important thing you learned in the classroom? Was it how to read? Long division? How to be a good citizen? How the inside of a frog is configured?

I think the most important thing I learned as a student in a classroom was how to trust my own instincts. I know this sounds like something best learned in practice, but for me, it happened over the course of a number of practical classes under the guidance of experienced and compassionate teachers.

How about you?

What’s the most important thing you learned as a student in a classroom?

I have on occasion been called unpatriotic.

This is, of course, a highly offensive charge. The integrity of one’s patriotism is a precious jewel that must be protected. Someone who is unpatriotic is a non-person. Someone who is unpatriotic is a potential terrorist. Someone who is unpatriotic should be detained for questioning.

But lately, I’ve been questioning the idea of patriotism. What is it, actually? Love for one’s country? Okay. And then what?

I believe in American values. I love the philosophy that all people are created equal. I love the idea of a melting pot of cultures. I love living in a country that is ruled by the majority will of the people, while still protecting the rights of the minority and the individual. Does that make me patriotic?

I think America sometimes does bad things in the world and I think we should stop. I think our current leadership is reckless and irresponsible when yielding American power. I think that we have made a lot of progress in securing the rights for all of our people, but we still have a considerable way to go. Does that make me unpatriotic?

I was against the Iraq War. Did that make me unpatriotic? I’m still against it. Does that make me patriotic?

Does being patriotic mean valuing American lives over lives of non-Americans? If so, is patriotism really something to be respected and admired? Does patriotism for people in other countries mean valuing the lives of their countrymen over Americans? If so, is patriotism still something to be respected and admired?

I would hate to think that something as important and cherished as patriotism was only admirable within one’s own country. That would make it shallow and meaningless, and patriotism is much too important for that. Who do we want to be patriotic? Can patriotism be criticized in those whose nations have committed horrible atrocities in the past? What about when we’ve been that nation?

Are these light and airy questions of no consequence, asked by a sheltered academic who takes for granted the comfortable freedoms provided by his country? Or do our answers to these questions affect our policies – who we allow to cross our borders, what standards we apply to the decision to go to war, how we structure international trade, how we respond to human suffering abroad – making them of the utmost importance?

And does even asking these questions make me unpatriotic? Or is asking difficult questions in a democratic society highly patriotic?

So with all of that in mind, the Question of the Week is this:

What does patriotism mean to you?

Another new feature, though I think it actually started with last week’s posting, Optimism.

I’m sure I’ll go back to cribbing questions from The Edge Foundation pretty soon, but I was inspired by this website that lets you send an e-mail to yourself in the future. Believe me, my future self no more wants to hear from me than I want to hear from the kid I used to be. Give me a website that lets me send an e-mail to my past self, and I’m there.

Until such a website exists, I will offer that service here, though I cannot guarantee delivery. But if we post our responses in this thread, we just might learn something new about each other and the human condition.

And I’m not talking about time travel science fiction ideas like “Bet on the Red Sox to win the 2004 World Series” or “Warn everyone about 9/11.” You can’t divulge information about the future for your past self to act on. But you can send an e-mail, and expect it to be accepted as authentic. So…

If you could send an e-mail to yourself in the past, how far back would you send it, and what would you want to say?