Reviewed by:

• Shakespeare and Latinidad ed. by Trevor Boffone and Carla Della Gatta
• Matthieu Chapman (bio)

“There is little need,” Ruben Espinosa has observed, “for others to tell a marginalized individual how to connect with Shakespeare, but there is a pressing need to listen when that individual explains what makes him or her connect and why that happens.” This quote, which Katherine Gillen and Adrianna M. Santos cite in their contribution to Shakespeare and Latinidad, offers a concise and incisive methodology for how to engage with the essays, performance reviews and reflections, and interviews contained within the volume. So often as scholars and artists, we dive head first into the hows—how to answer a question, how to stage a play, how to fix an issue—without giving thorough consideration of what exactly we are dealing with or why we need the problem solved. Edited by Carla Della Gatta and Trevor Boffone, Shakespeare and Latinidad brings together a community of scholars, theorists, practitioners, and activists to encourage us to slow down on the how and truly listen to the whats and whys that brought the diverse ensemble to Shakespeare.

And I say community full-throatedly. Because of the vast diversity of Latinx peoples and cultures, “Latinidad” as a framework for engaging with Shakespeare is itself rife with contradictions and pitfalls. Della Gatta and Boffone acknowledge as much in their introduction, and offer specific definitions for Latinx, Latinidad, and Latinx Shakespeare to frame the discussion clearly and elegantly for the reader: “Latinx is the gender-non-binary term for people from a shared colonial heritage of the Americas who reside in the United States; ‘Latinidad’ is Latinx culture,” and Latinx Shakespeare are “productions where Latinidad is integrated into Shakespearean stories and plays so that they are made Latinx.” The word “productions” in their definition is important—Theatre Departments, while still producing and performing Shakespeare’s plays, have largely ceded the study of Shakespeare within academia to English and Literature Departments. As such, using “productions” in their definition signals that this book engages far more with the tools of the former—performance review, artistic processes, and pedagogy—rather than those of the latter—deep textual analysis, theory, and literary criticism.

With the framework for discussion clearly articulated, Della Gatta and Boffone divide the book into four sections. Part one, “Shakespeare in the US Latinx Borderlands,” consists of performance reviews that each in their own way engage with the question of what makes a Shakespeare play Latinx. Part two, “Making Shakespeare Latinx,” recounts methods for appropriating Shakespeare’s work to empower Latinx practitioners and students. Part three. “Shakespeare in Latinx Classrooms and Communities,” turns activism and pedagogical lenses [End Page 339] onto the topic. Lastly, Part four, “Translating Shakespeare in Ashland,” engages with the Play On! Shakespeare initiative, which began at Oregon Shakespeare Festival.

Among the many successes of the book is how the methodologies and contents of each section engage with the overall structure. For instance, Part three fully embraces the classroom community ethos in the content. Roxanne Schroeder-Arce’s “Shakespeare With, For, and By Latinx Youth: Assumptions, Access, and Assets,” while being a solo-authored piece, uses a collection of interviews with youths as case studies for how to explore Shakespeare with and for Latinx youths. In “Celebrating Flippancy: Latinas in Miami Talk Back to Shakespeare,” James M. Sutton collects the words of seven Latina alumnae of Florida International University on their experiences learning Shakespeare as Latinx students. The next chapter is a dialogo between Jose Cruz Gonzalez and David Lozano, two artist-activists, titled “On Making Shakespeare Relevant to Latinx Communities.” Even the two solo-authored pieces in the section—“Romeo y Julieta: A Spanish Language Shakespeare in the Park” by Daphne Sicre, and “Politics, Poetry, and Popular Music: Remixing Neruda’s Romeo y Julieta” by Jerry Ruiz—are positioned to create a dialogue between two experiences performing different adaptations of Romeo and Juliet—a cut down version of Pablo Neruda’s 1964 Romeo y Julieta and Angel-Lui Pujante’s 1993...

审核人：

• 莎士比亚和拉丁尼达编。特雷弗·博福内和卡拉·德拉·加塔
• 马修·查普曼（简历）

“几乎不需要”，鲁本·埃斯皮诺萨（Ruben Espinosa）观察到，“让其他人告诉被边缘化的人如何与莎士比亚建立联系，但是当那个人解释是什么让他或她联系起来以及为什么会发生这种情况时，迫切需要倾听。” 凯瑟琳·吉伦 (Katherine Gillen) 和阿德里安娜 M. 桑托斯 (Adrianna M. Santos) 在他们对莎士比亚和拉丁尼达(Shakespeare and Latinidad) 的贡献中引用了这句话，它提供了一种简明而精辟的方法论，说明如何参与书中包含的文章、绩效评估和反思以及采访。作为学者和艺术家，我们常常一头扎进“如何”——如何回答问题、如何上演戏剧、如何解决问题——却没有彻底考虑什么正是我们正在处理或为什么我们需要解决问题。由 Carla Della Gatta 和 Trevor Boffone 编辑，Shakespeare and Latinidad汇集了一个由学者、理论家、从业者和活动家组成的社区，鼓励我们放慢脚步，真正倾听为莎士比亚带来多元化合奏的原因和原因。

我全力以赴地说社区。由于拉丁民族和文化的巨大多样性，“Latinidad”作为与莎士比亚互动的框架本身就充满了矛盾和陷阱。Della Gatta 和 Boffone 在他们的引言中承认了这一点，并为拉丁语、拉丁语和拉丁语莎士比亚提供了具体定义，以便为读者清晰而优雅地构建讨论：“拉丁语是居住在美国的来自美洲共同殖民遗产的人的性别非二元术语；'Latinidad' 是拉丁文化”，而拉丁莎士比亚则是“将拉丁文化融入莎士比亚故事和戏剧的作品，从而使它们成为拉丁文化。” 其定义中的“作品”一词很重要——戏剧系在制作和表演莎士比亚戏剧的同时，很大程度上已将学术界对莎士比亚的研究拱手让给了英语系和文学系。因此，在其定义中使用“作品”表明本书更多地使用了前者的工具——表演评论、艺术过程和教学法——而不是后者——深入的文本分析、理论和文学批评。

Della Gatta 和 Boffone 明确阐述了讨论框架，将本书分为四个部分。第一部分，“美国拉丁裔边境的莎士比亚”，由绩效评估组成，每个人都以自己的方式探讨是什么让莎士比亚扮演拉丁裔的问题。第二部分，“让莎士比亚成为拉丁语”，讲述了挪用莎士比亚作品以增强拉丁语从业者和学生的方法。第三部分。“拉丁裔课堂和社区中的莎士比亚”，将激进主义和教学视角[End Page 339]转入主题。最后，第四部分“在阿什兰翻译莎士比亚”与Play On！莎士比亚倡议，始于俄勒冈莎士比亚节。

这本书的许多成功之处在于每个部分的方法和内容如何与整体结构相结合。例如，第三部分在内容中充分体现了课堂社区精神。Roxanne Schroeder-Arce 的“与、为和由拉丁裔青年合作的莎士比亚：假设、访问和资产”虽然是独奏，但使用对青年的采访集作为案例研究，以探讨如何与拉丁裔一起探索莎士比亚和为拉丁裔而创作青年。在“庆祝轻率：迈阿密的拉丁裔回到莎士比亚”中，James M. Sutton 收集了佛罗里达国际大学的七位拉丁裔校友关于他们作为拉丁裔学生学习莎士比亚的经历的话。下一章是对话两位艺术家活动家 Jose Cruz Gonzalez 和 David Lozano 之间的题为“让莎士比亚与拉丁裔社区相关”。甚至该部分中的两首独奏作品——Daphne Sicre 的“罗密欧与朱丽叶：公园里的西班牙语莎士比亚”和杰里·鲁伊斯的“政治、诗歌和流行音乐：聂鲁达的罗密欧与朱丽叶的混音” ——也被定位在对罗密欧与朱丽叶的不同改编的两种体验之间建立对话——巴勃罗·聂鲁达 1964 年的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》和安吉尔-路易·普詹特 1993 年的缩减版……