Skip to main content

Planning for the Inevitable?

I came across an interesting article about Stratford, Ontario in the Toronto Star. The article, which appeared on June 19, 2010, is entitled "Arts meets high-tech in the new Stratford"

The article is about how Stratford is trying to diversify its economy by welcoming "high-tech". This involves creating a satellite campus for the University of Waterloo, rigging the entire city for wi-fi (although it may not actually be free) and setting up "a 60-acre section of land with services to meet the needs of upstart technology companies".

The mayor, Dan Mathieson, recognizes that Stratford cannot survive solely on its tourist industry (the theater) since restaurants, hotels, and stores don't do much business in the wintertime.

Mathieson is quoted as saying, "We have to be grounded in three or four camps really to survive as a community" He also feels that if the new school and new industry brings in younger people the stores and restaurants will adapt to the needs of the new market. As he says, "You can only sell so many busts of William Shakespeare"

I applaud the effort Stratford is making. I hope that the "other Stratford" in England is listening. In the future, when "Stratford Will" is "dethroned" (as I hope to see in my lifetime), it will become quite difficult to sell busts of William Shakespeare (unless they are rebranded as busts of "that funny bald guy formerly known as the Bard of Avon")

Actually, of course, tourism in Stratford (either one) will continue even after Edward deVere is recognized as the true author, but things WILL be different and a little advance planning for diversity and other economic opportunities is always good.

The future awaits.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was King Richard III a Control Freak? Science News ... from universities, journals, and other research organizations   Mar. 4, 2013 — University of Leicester psychologists believe Richard III was not a psychopath -- but he may have had control freak tendencies. University of Leicester psychologists have made an analysis of Richard III's character -- aiming to get to the man behind the bones. Professor Mark Lansdale, Head of the University's School of Psychology, and forensic psychologist Dr Julian Boon have put together a psychological analysis of Richard III based on the consensus among historians relating to Richard's experiences and actions. They found that, while there was no evidence for Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III as a psychopath, he may have had "intolerance to uncertainty syndrome" -- which may have manifested in control freak tendencies. The academics presented their findings on Saturday, March 2 at the University

What's a popp'rin' pear?

James Wheaton reported yesterday in the Jackson Citizen Patriot that the Michigan Shakespeare Festival high school tour of Romeo and Juliet was criticized for inappropriate content -- " So me take issue with sexual innuendoes in Michigan Shakespeare Festival’s High School Tour performances of ‘Romeo & Juliet’" : Western [High School] parent Rosie Crowley said she was upset when she heard students laughing about sexual content in the play afterwards. Her son didn’t attend the performance Tuesday because of another commitment, she said.  “I think the theater company should have left out any references that were rated R,” Crowley said. “I would say that I’ve read Shakespeare, and what I was told from the students, I’ve never read anything that bad.”  She said she objected to scenes that involved pelvic thrusting and breast touching and to a line in which Mercutio makes suggestive comments to Romeo after looking up the skirt of a female. The problem with cutting out the naug

Winkler lights the match

by Linda Theil When asked by an interviewer why all the experts disagree with her on the legitimacy of the Shakespeare authorship question, journalist and author Elizabeth Winkler  calmly replied, "You've asked the wrong experts." * With that simple declaration Winkler exploded the topic of Shakespearean authorship forever. Anti-Stratfordians need no smoking gun, no convincing narrative, no reason who, how, when, or why because within the works lies the unassailable argument: Shakespeare's knowledge. Ask the lawyers. Ask the psychologists. Ask the librarians. Ask the historians. Ask the dramaturges. Ask the mathematicians. Ask the Greek scholars. Ask the physicists. Ask the astronomers. Ask the courtiers. Ask the bibliophiles. Ask the Italians. Ask the French. Ask the Russians. Ask the English. Ask everyone. Current academic agreement on a bevy of Shakespearean collaborators springs from an unspoken awareness of how much assistance the Stratfordian presumptive would h