Experiment #3 - Crowdsourcing Faux Shakespeare

I have long been fascinated with the idea of crowdsourcing. See the video below for a brief explanation.


Crowdsourcing is effective partially because when people have diversity of thought, they can look at something with fresh eyes and a different perspective. That's the reason we peer review, that's the reason we have group workshopping in our writing classes, and that's the reason private companies have been able to put people on the moon, fix our toothpaste and stop our orange juice from going brown at less than 1/10th the cost of what it previously would have been (see the X Prize foundation for more on that). 
I tried a couple ways of experimenting with connecting people through an open call previously, first by asking people to add their thoughts to a wiki I set up. I think this failed largely because it was too much work, and wikis are too difficult to edit (especially for one who is unfamiliar with wikis). A few people contributed, but most people weren't sure of what they should contribute or how.
Since that was too much work I asked people to comment on/critique a later soliloquoy of the faux Shakespearian character William the Conqueror. A lot of people read the post, and a few people commented, but they were cut off from participation -- they could only say, "I like this" or "I don't like this."
I'm an entrepreneur, and in my spare time I and some other BYU students have been working on a project called GrassWire, which we hope will help crowdsource journalism, lowering the barriers to entry for would-be journalists yet keeping high quality due to crowdsourced editing/fact checking. Our theory is that if one person takes ownership for and provides the original content for a news article, others will edit and/or fact check as they read, and from their suggestions the original author can improve their article. It takes crowdsourcing to a new level, and basically creates a virtual, mass-oriented workshopping for each article.
So what if we combined the concepts of collaboration/crowdsourcing and social validation and turned them into group creation?
In other words, what if I wrote something for our faux Shakespeare play, and instead of just posting it on the blog I put it in a Google Doc (a format familiar to all), and asked the same social network that got over 100 views to the last soliloquy in 24 hours? I would be able to revert back to originals if I didn't like changes, and the diversity of thinking and creativity would make the sections that may be hard for any individual better; for some it will just click. 
I'll write something, and see how much better everyone working together can make it.
E Pluribus Unum.

Traditional VO/SOT/VO

I'll be honest, I'm a bit confused as to what we're supposed to do with the movie, but here's a crack at it.

Most everyone else that's doing it has applied something from their major or their hobby, be it Chloe dancing or Kent fighting, etc.

So I'm a Communications major (with an emphasis in Advertising, like Kent), and as a prerequisite media writing class we had a unit on broadcast journalism and how to write a package or VO/SOT/VO (Voice-over, sound on tape, voice-over).

An excellent example of that is this (warning: explicit language at about the 20 second mark).


So I decided that (along with other blogging) I'll write a VO/SOT/VO for a potential Shakespeare report (although I'm not in the group telling the story of how it came about, it should help a bit). We could easily prepare it as if it were a real newscast, even with something as simple as iMovie.

Social Validation

So I posted on Facebook (about 800 friends) and tweeted to my Twitter followers (200+) to critique my blog post. This is what happened to my stats.

I had 110 page views in the last 24 hours. I've had 419 all-time.

Not as many people commented as I would have hoped (but I can't blame them, I wouldn't have either), but it's started some discussions among friends (unfortunately not on social media, so I can't show you those). I'll keep you updated.

Battle of Hastings Speech - "Come With Me" Clause

Here she is. See the previous post for some of the patterns we wanted to follow. The scene: This time the Norwegians are still across the border, and have to decide to cross, and to "burn the boats" as it were. Look for the appeals to regret, God and victory, as well as lines similar to those found in Julius Caesar. I also put in a couple of sayings that we could have hypothetically taken from Shakespeare (like we did the rest of the English language) that we don't know the origin of with surety.

Here is the first clause, the "Come with me or go home" clause. More to come later. It takes forever to write this stuff. Shakespeare is a wizard.

To sink or swim? To cross or shrink? To Him
Whose hands of dust and self created life,
Invisible may be, yet with us still,
To Him declare retreat, in coward's prayer.
I shall not hear't; shan't the knowledge bear,
Nor glimpse of caitiff see, nor tim'rous hear;
The death before the bout, preludious knell!
To sit ashore in shame; defeat across
Innoble brow forever stamp'd. 'Tis not
my cup to drink, if thine speak now. To run
And live? Impossible, if still be life.
Return to wife or child, to craft or trade
with yearning to forget the fruitless day;
The day thou might'st have made the cross.
So be we valiant? Be we errant fools
By trusting God who formed us of this soil?
'Tis better still to die on yonder isle
Than doubting live, unknowing 'twixt the two.

The Battle of Hastings Speech

I've blogged a lot about "the sizzle vs. the steak," or what it takes to create a pump-up speech, and I think I have what it takes to make a great speech boiled down to a few elements. So here's what we need for a great speech before the Battle of Hastings.

1. A great motive. The normans weren't fighting to win England, they were fighting for something greater. Something higher that William could appeal to.

Possible motives:

• God/religion
• Country/nationalism
• Justice (did England wrong Norway somehow?)

2. A "go home" clause. This doesn't have to be sincere. You're already there, are you really going to go home? No, but William needs to give this as an option to the soldiers. "You can go back to Normandy if you want" (but can you really?) "If not, we will fight really hard and totally win." He would say it a little more eloquently, but that's the idea. Each person dismisses the first option in their mind, so whatever you say in the second half they see as their only option.

3. "I'm in" clause. Here William shows his dedication. This is where he is the first to publicly declare after the ultimatum that he will go into battle. This establishes him as the undeniable leader.

4. The difficulty clause. If it's all highs and no lows you're setting yourself up for an ankle-breaking crossover. If you don't know the negative you can't understand the positive.

5. The second ultimatum. We win or we die, no turning back, this is it.

6. All together now!

Now to turn all that into iambic pentameter... that blog post might take a while.

Shakespearian Crossover

This sounds like a conversation I would have with my mom.

LONGAVILLE: I beseech you, a word: what is she in the white?
BOYET: A woman sometimes, an' you saw her in the light.
LONGAVILLE: Perchance light in the light. I desire her name.
BOYET: She hath but one for herself; to desire that were a shame.
LONGAVILLE: Pray you, sir, whose daughter?
BOYET: Her mother's, I have heard.
LONGAVILLE: God's blessing on your beard!

"God's blessing on your beard" must be the Shakespearian equivalent of, "And whose car do you drive? Do you want it taken away?"

The thing that is shocking about these few lines is how literal they are. Indeed, Shakespeare is known for his figurative language. So the reason this contrast works so well, is because we have been primed to wait for such figurative speech.

That's what Allen Iverson said about his crossover. How does it happen that he always breaks ankles when he drives to the basket? It's a phenomenon sports analysts studied, until they came out with a study that I can't find for the life of me, but it works like a charm.

In the first half, Iverson would fake one way. He has a great crossover, so you have to really get a jump on it to stop him. He would go right to left and he'd get you. He'd go right to left and he'd just barely get you. He'd go right to left and you'd be inches away.

And then he'd start right, fake left and go right. You were ready this time. You were jumping to his left. You were going to stuff him. But he went the other way. And your ankles were broken.

See if people are jumping the gun a little bit in these clips, and you'll see why Shakespeare speaking literally seems so sharp. Watch the first clip - Jordan wants Iverson to go to his left (Jordan's right) and he jumps that way in anticipation... twice. Pay attention to how the defenders are jumping before Iverson is crossing over.

William the Bastard Conqueror

Thought from yesterday (since I didn't have time to write it down). When talking with Chloe about William the Conqueror we threw out a few potential personalities for our William the Conqueror. You don't really want to do another Henry V. Trying to imitate that without copying/plagiarizing too much would be difficult. So, what if... William the Conqueror the antithesis or foil of Henry V? So, we have the valiant Henry V.

It seems from reading the play that Shakespeare would have us remember Henry V as a hero. We can see the responsibility weighing down on Henry, that he is not the one who wants to take france for the sake of his own power or glory, and he at times bemoans the fact that he isn't a common man, and that he has to act to bring justice to those under him.

But now, we will have William the Conqueror.

William the Conqueror, while just as hard of a worker and just as determined as Henry, does not have as pure of motives.

But his men don't know that.

He wants to take over England because it's a big, rich, powerful country. He is friendly to his troops not because he respects and reveres them or because he wants the best for them, but because he sees them as pawns. He wants to manipulate them into doing his will, yet when the defining moment arises will always choose his own comfort and the selfish option over helping out his troops and subordinates.

But he can pretend like he's being Henry V-like. 

He conquered at Battle of Hastings. He changed England. He was dominant. But after he had won the victory, what if it all caught up with him? True, this sounds more like a tragedy, but it's just a thought.

H eis said to have died because he fell off his horse. It sounds like the truth could have been twisted a bit.

He died when invading France by "falling off his horse."

Francesco's Soliloquy

From Sarah's blog post about characters

Francesco- son of the Doge/Duke of Venice, and a member of Venice's Council of Ten. Completely fascinated with Western expansion and anything involving the New World.  Secretly fears his sister, Filippa, although he puts on a good facade to hide it when she's around.  Wants to exile her when his father passes and he becomes the Doge/Duke of Venice.

The following is Francesco's soliloquy about the new world and his desire for the unknown that it represents, having been reprimanded for not sleeping during the night and thereby not acting in his position as future Duke.

My heart hath followed sun as it did set.
Expectest thou that I should sleep the night?
Expect I then that thou shouldst sprout a tail
Should I inform the press thou art a cur.

And eyes attached to heart as always are,
When poor man glimpses sight of purse not own'd,
Or beggar, fete, yet lacking bid from hosts,
Thou sayest, "Do not think!" by this, "Don't want."

Allow one dream to kill the other kind?
Tho treason, blaspheme, sacrelige be vile,
What thou suggestest, worst of all the evil
Tripe that spewest forth from tongue or tooth.


(It goes on, but I'll have to finish later).

The Hokey Pokey - Shakespeare Style

O proud left foot, that ventures quick within
Then soon upon a backward journey lithe.
Anon, once more the gesture, then begin:
Command sinistral pedestal to writhe.
Commence thou then the fervid Hokey-Poke,
A mad gyration, hips in wanton swirl.
To spin! A wilde release from Heavens yoke.
Blessed dervish! Surely canst go, girl.
The Hoke, the poke -- banish now thy doubt
Verily, I say, 'tis what it's all about.

 -- by "William Shakespeare"

Sizzle, not the Steak

I used to work at sales in a software company.  I was awful at it.

I truly believed in the software we had to offer. It was much better than our competitors. It would allow a small business plug into a catalog of millions of product, so they would immediately have something to sell online.

I would go into all of the details of the quality of products, the pricing, the number, the type of code used, etc. etc. etc. And I would barely make quota.

Then there were Jess and Brynn and Greg. They would knock it out of the park every week (unless they broke up with someone). I remember when Greg listened to me on a call once, and I asked him what I was doing wrong.

"You're selling the steak."
"...OK?"
"You need to sell the sizzle."

He was right. I was talking about the "steak" -- the software. I talked about what it was made out of, what it looked like, how it acted, and how it compared. What I needed to talk about was the "sizzle." How you could be successful, you could have your own business, you could have a passive income... all of this was true. It was what you could do with the software, not what the software was. It's hard to sell software, it's easy to sell the American dream.

Shakespeare understood this. Henry V understood this.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger; Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage; Then lend the eye a terrible aspect; Let pry through the portage of the head Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it As fearfully as doth a galled rock O'erhang and jutty his confounded base, Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean. Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full height. On, on, you noblest English. Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument: Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you. Be copy now to men of grosser blood, And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman, Whose limbs were made in England, show us here The mettle of your pasture; let us swear That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not; For there is none of you so mean and base, That hath not noble lustre in your eyes. I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start. The game's afoot: Follow your spirit, and upon this charge Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!' Henry V wasn't selling a hard-fought victory. He was selling glory. He was selling strength. He was selling honor. The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much To mitigate the justice of thy plea; Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there. Portia isn't defending Antonio (or Antonia, depending on the version), she was selling mercy. How different is it to say, "Antonio should go free" vs. saying, "Mercy is an admirable quality?" Sizzle, not steak.