Taxonomy and Shakespeare Stuff

So, with this as an example, a quote from Measure for Measure, corrected, the question came up, what to call someone who is less than scholar, but more than casual fan?

What are we?

In the spirit of the “Golden Era” of personal computers, when they were clunky boxes with TV-set/CRT-monitor attached? We were, at the time, Apple Fan Boys, mutating to take over the world. Apple had a clearly superior — at the time — OS, and we were the few, the valiant, the obnoxious ardent outlaws.

Anymore, Apple is, like, Number 2 in the market, so, yeah, we don’t count, not like that anymore. We’re no longer a tiny minority.

“Aficionado” came to mind, as an adequate term to express my devotion, but lack of serious scholarly attributes. That would work. Perchance.

More than a passing fan, less than a studied, serious scholar. Not an actor or teacher who depends on the texts for a real livelihood, that would make me a fan?

At one time, Apple did breed a certain brand of fanatic, and that included me, as I made a decent wage from that gig, for a while — supported my writing habit while “Fishing Guide to the Stars” and even astrofish.net were but nascent, even unborn ideas.

The passage inserted by an editor at the time, about me thinking I was Shakespeare in past life, that stemmed from a marked propensity to quote passages from Shakespeare to illustrate a point. I did tend to use the less common plays, even then.

Taxonomy and Shakespeare Stuff

At one point in recent memory, I was toying with a website name, “Shakespeare Fucking Matters,” or a similar title. By now, the site idea and name are lost. I don’t need to be building anymore sites that have a short attention span.

Besides, a cursory search yielded a new, favorite RSS read, Shakespeare Geek, which scratches my intellectual itch for material that falls between the cracks. Some academic material is too stiff, and, well, too cloaked in academic material, footnotes, research, or, in the case of Shakespeare, pretty much supposition as there is scant evidence about his life available.

So I am kind of a Shakespeare Freak, but I don’t get too carried away with it. Depends on what play I most recently listened to, and where I stand with any of the material.

Then there are days when it doesn’t matter much. Still, more than passing hobby, but only a casual academic interest. How is that defined?

Taxonomy and Shakespeare Stuff

Some time back, in the last year? There was an adjustment to the accepted Shakespeare Canon — Marlowe was given partial credit for the Henry VI plays. Not a far-fetched idea, either, as it fits.

It’s silly academic tidbits like that I find interesting, but not always of great value; although, it does show how the process probably worked, back then.

For more than two decades I’ve been using quotes grabbed out of the body of work attributed to Shakespeare. In part, because there were going to be no more plays written, so it would easy to stay on top of the material. Then, too, as one rather religious buddy pointed out, Shakespeare is the largest secular canon to quote, as there no way to prove — one way or another — about the religion of the author. Can’t offend anyone, pulling quotes from Shakespeare.

I have, but it’s a special talent I’ve got.

Still the term, secular canon makes sense.

The final piece of the puzzle, to make a long story even longer? Shakespeare’s works repeatedly refers to astrological elements. Mars, and Mercury, and the Dragon’s Head, and so forth. All in there, sometimes not even veiled, as astrological allusions.

So, I have no term for what I am. Shakespeare nerd? Shakespeare Geek is already taken and the author, much respect, but way geekier than I am. Obviously knows more. So, that leaves me where, aficionado? Fan Boy? Not much of a scholar, just an appreciative audience member.

So what is the term?