“Shakespeherian” or “Shakespearean”: To Be or Not to Be Obscurely Clever

Posted 3 March, 2008 in Uncategorized |

I’m on the horns of a dilemma.

First off, let me extend my sincerest thanks to the good folks at the CBC for inviting Alex Good and your humble correspondent to participate in last week’s online chat around Canada Reads. I had a good time and, if my site stats are any indication, people were paying attention, which is encouraging.

And herein lies the genesis of my problem. Kimberly Walsh of the CBC was kind enough to link the coverage from this site on the Canada Reads 2008 Facebook group page. Towards the end of last week, I had occasion to chat with a buddy of mine, who is a senior editor in the Canadian publishing industry. Seems a bunch of publishing types had come across the posts via the Facebook page, and pretty much all of them thought that the name of my blog had been misspelled.

This is a fairly common occurrence. The default is to assume that “Shakespeherian” is incorrect and to fall back on the more common spelling “Shakespearean” (or “Shakespearian,” depending). This is one reason why the URL for this site is my name, and not the name of the blog (although people do have a tendency to get this wrong, too: I’ve had letters from family members addressed to “Stephen Beatty”).

Point being, there seems to be some fairly widespread confusion about the provenance of this blog’s title. In the sage words of my publishing buddy, “No one gets it.”

First things first. The title of this blog is NOT misspelled. It comes from the “Game of Chess” section of T.S. Eliot’s modernist poem, “The Waste Land”: “But / O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag — / It’s so elegant / So intelligent.” Now, I recognize that this is a rather obscure reference, but when I was selecting the blog’s name I wanted something appropriately literary, and Eliot’s phrase seemed to fit the bill nicely.

But, I’m disturbed that “no one gets it.” I’ve sent out résumés with the blog’s title on them; how many editors, not spotting the reference, have passed me over because they assumed that I was careless in proofreading, or that I simply didn’t know how to spell the word “Shakespearean”?

So, my question is: Do I stick with the obscurely literary title and suffer the slings and arrows that come my way as a result, or do I rename this monster something more accessible? Thoughts?

UPDATE: Thank you all for your kind words. The votes are in and the opinion (notwithstanding that of M. Pound — il miglior fabbro) is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the blog’s title as it is. So, the title stays.

13 comments to ““Shakespeherian” or “Shakespearean”: To Be or Not to Be Obscurely Clever”

Alex, March 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm:

• Oh you have to keep it. And you should also insist that everyone get the tune right.

Kerry, March 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm:

• I got it, and my extraordinary abilities don’t extend towards spotting poetic references. So I think you’re fine.

Jack, March 3rd, 2008 at 10:03 pm:

• Steven,

  Keep it as is. If the pedants who think you’ve misspelled are bad, the pedants who will think you’ve misquoted will be worse.

  Thanks,
  A Publishing Type (but not an editor).

Corey Redekop, March 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am:

• Nah, keep it. I never got the reference, but I assumed you weren’t making a spelling mistake.

  Speaking of which, my Internet Explorer info bar shows your site as “That Shakespeherian Rag.”

Claire, March 4th, 2008 at 10:34 am:

• It depends on your objective. If this blog is an elaborate resume, change it (your audience has spoken).

  If this blog is the perfect diversion for distracted writers, leave it (I googled to find the answer, I enjoyed finding the answer).

Panic, March 4th, 2008 at 10:41 am:

• As with Corey, I didn’t know the reference. I just figured you knew something I didn’t about alternate spellings, since you’re a brighter bulb than I.

Aaron, March 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am:

• You should suffer the slings and arrows. I first came to this blog because of the title and after reading the content promptly added it to my blog roll.

Brenda Schmidt, March 4th, 2008 at 12:26 pm:

• I’ve read the “The Waste Land,” and more than once, but didn’t get the reference. I didn’t think it was an error, though I didn’t invest any time figuring out why you had spelled it that way. I think you should stick with it.

Ezra Pound, March 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm:

• I got the reference.

  But I’d still cut it. (I almost did!)

Steven W. Beattie, March 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm:

• HA!

patricia, March 4th, 2008 at 5:46 pm:

• I’m like Panic. I didn’t know the reference either, but I had enough sense to know that since it was coming from you, it was obviously something esoteric and clever, and of course, literary.

  It would be a shame to change it now. Perhaps on your correspondence to other editors, etc., you can place the reference to the quote somewhere? Though that may of course annoy those who understand the literary reference, and then they’ll just think you’re a condescending prat…

Zachariah Wells, March 4th, 2008 at 8:47 pm:

• Got it. Keep it. Changing it would be lame. Yes, I’m one of those pedants.

B., March 5th, 2008 at 12:51 am:

• I admit, I did a bit of searching, and then I got it. Keep it! Give others the chance to google (or wiki, or whatever the kids are doing these days) and learn.

Your comment:

Name (required)

Mail (requried)

Website

Security code (Required)*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code