From Othello:

Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then, must you speak
Of one that lov’d not wisely but too well;
Of one not easily jealous, but, being wrought,
Perplex’d in the extreme;

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

To augur the noble general as known ex-football player, we only meant to go to that unusual eye-opening nexus moment when O.J. Simpson kept to the text to fume “If I did this, it was because I loved her.”

This isn’t really a Six Degrees game, but does anyone remember Dan Quayle?

I’ve been thinking about the office of the Vice President and the men who have held it in my lifetime, such as George HW Bush, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney. Whatever you may think of their politics or behavior, these were some serious dudes who brought a lot to the table in experience and gravitas.

Is it really possible, then, that we had a lightweight like Dan Quayle in the VP slot for four years? Was he really a heartbeat away from the presidency? Did we all just imagine it? All I remember is him spelling potato with an E, and feuding with Murphy Brown, who happened to be a fictional character from a sitcom. Was that really our VP?

Hey, come to think of it, why isn’t he running for president? It should be about time for him. If Nixon could have a comeback, anybody could. Besides, Quayle is someone you’d like to have a beer with, and that’s all that really matters. Plus, this time, he’d have Fox News on his side. Wouldn’t it be cool if Al Gore and Dan Quayle were the nominees? They could have a rematch of the 1992 VP debate, my favorite political debate EVER.

I don’t know how many degrees it would take to link Dan Quayle to Sir Francis Bacon, but the two men have a lot in common. Each was a politician. Each was an Aquarius. Bacon said “Knowledge is power.” Quayle said “What a waste it is to lose one’s mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.” Bacon published The Advancement of Learning. Quayle insisted “We’re going to have the best-educated American people in the world.” Bacon developed the scientific method. Quayle observed “Mars is essentially in the same orbit… Mars is somewhat the same distance from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe.”

Ah yes, I remember one other thing. At the time, we were all horrified that a hardcore conservative simpleton with no empathy might possibly become the president, embarrass the nation with his constant misstatements, bulldog a right-wing agenda, and lead us to perpetual war. How silly we all were back then.

In game’s mimic heroic, I’m solids Platonic;
I make picnic foods cubic, not spheric or conic;
I’m a comic demonic, who might be ironic;
And a job-picking tactic to search electronic.

Who am I?

UPDATE: Riddle solved by Lee. See comments for answer.

I’ve been meaning to respond to this for some time:

Besides, in Rosse’s speech, the true hero of the battle in Fife is unnamed, referred to only as “Bellona’s bridegroom.”

But, wait – Fife. Fife is an important place in the play. Why? Because Macduff is the Thane of Fife.

Which means that it is Macduff who has captured Cawdor, turned back the Norwayan king, and won not only the battle but a huge sum of ransom from the enemy forces.

He’s talking about Macbeth, and if you read the scene in question, you’ll see two men, each of whom describes a battle. The first was fought by Macbeth. The second was fought by “Bellona’s bridegroom,” a reference to Mars, the Roman god of war. The question is – Is Bellona’s bridegroom meant to refer to Macbeth? Conventional wisdom says yes, but the Master of Verona says no, and his argument is worth reading. But let’s take a closer look.

I can see where, looking strictly at the text, you can make a case that Bellona’s bridegroom can’t be Macbeth. But assuming it’s Macduff is a bit of an overreach, and I think it would be a good time to revisit the distinction between a strong production concept and a close textual analysis. It seems to me there are three possibilities:

1. The two men are describing the same battle. It would not be unusual for Shakespeare, having written two accounts of the same battle, to have used them both. If Macdonwald is the Thane of Cawdor and the Norwayan lord refers to Norway himself, the two descriptions could be of the same battle. This seems unlikely, but I wanted to throw it out there all the same.

2. The two men are describing different battles, and Bellona’s bridegroom is Macbeth. This is troubling, for the reasons described by the Master of Verona. Also, Bellona’s bridegroom is described as having personally confronted Cawdor, and in the next scene, Macbeth seems unaware that anything is amiss with the wayward Thane:

By Sinel’s death I know I am Thane of Glamis;
But how of Cawdor? the Thane of Cawdor lives,
A prosperous gentleman;

So if Bellona’s bridegroom really is Macbeth, whether we have one battle or two, Shakespeare’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

3. The two men are describing different battles, and Bellona’s bridegroom is not Macbeth. This makes sense dramatically, if the purpose of the scene was to show how Macbeth becomes the Thane of Cawdor. The description of the second battle shows how the title of Cawdor becomes available and the first battle demonstrates Macbeth’s deserving of it. It also would explain how Macbeth is unaware of Cawdor’s defeat. But then who is Bellona’s bridegroom? I like the idea that it’s Macduff, and it may have been Shakespeare’s intention, but it’s not in the text. Neither is there any textual strife between Macduff and Duncan. But it’s a brilliant production concept, and I think it would work well on stage.

So none of the solutions turn out to be particularly satisfying. My guess (and a guess it is) is that there were two battles and Bellona’s bridegroom is Macbeth. I think Shakespeare just didn’t notice or didn’t care about the errors and inconsistencies. Those who wish to argue that a genius of Shakespeare’s caliber would never make such an error need only to look at the opening moments of the original version of the scene in question, where Shakespeare clearly indicates a “bleeding Captain” in the stage directions, but when Duncan asks “What bloody man is this?”, Malcolm replies:

This is the Sergeant…

Clearly, we are putting way more thought into this than Shakespeare did.

I can’t think of a good Conundrum today, so you get an extra bonus Shakespeare Anagram.

From Romeo and Juliet:

O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father, and refuse thy name;
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

Your name alone is my enemy.

Every other thing is of a powerful centerfold model that a hot babe would turn wanton for or rot.

Lo, be thou here more!

How long do you think it will be before science is able to develop a computer sophisticated enough to emulate the complexity of the human mind, and what would be the ramifications of such a computer?

Via the Shakespeare Geek, I see where Teller from Penn & Teller is doing Macbeth. It’s opening in New Jersey in mid-January, and will be at the Folger in Washington throughout March.

I hope I get a chance to check that out!

From The Winter’s Tale:

Exit, pursued by a bear.

Shift around the letters, and it becomes:

“A Ursa? Bye!” (But expired.)

I joined Shakespeare in love without knowing someday
That an actress in Princess and Devil would play,
As she’s sharing her name with me, and has a way
Of rephrasing that phrase as my husband might say.

Who am I?

UPDATE: Riddle solved by DeLisa. See comments for answer.