If it wasn't for the body of work attributed to him, there would be very little evidence that he even existed.

M.Ted, there are several books around that pull together the substantial evidence of Shakespeare's existence, to save you having to do do the legwork for yourself. Try, for instance, "The Genius of Shakespeare" by Jonathan Bate. I think you will be surprised.

Lonesome, I've seen about 12 professional Shakespeare productions in the past three or four years, and I don't think a single one of them was in what could be described as posh voices. Here in the UK at least, there has been a sea-change away from the Olivier era, led by companies such as the Northern Broadsides. The Broadsides deliver Shakespeare vigorously in rich and authentically Yorkshire voices.

Lighter enthuses about Branagh's Hamlet, but I'd go for Baz Luhrman's Romeo & Juliet, which really pushed the boundaries with stunning effect. As for the rest of that post from Lighter - I couldn't disagree more.

My daughter Sorcha (White tiger at Mudcat) switched on to Shakespeare when she was 10, from watching "Shakespeare in Love." That was followed up with "Romeo & Juliet" at Regent's Park open-air theatre in London, and a further six plays, including four productions by the RSC. She is glued to the performances and understands them as easily as she understands Harry Potter.

For Much Ado at the Globe last year she elected to be a "groundling" and leaned on the stage apron in pouring rain all night. A chap in the covered seating kept popping down into the arena (audience perambulation is encouraged at the Globe) to ask Sorcha who was who on stage - eventually making the spendid suggestion that the characters should sport their names like footballers.

Peace, that line about Cs and Us and Ts may not appear in high-school editions, whatever they are (in the UK, standard texts are used for the national curriculum) but neither does it appear in the Quarto or First Folio. Hamlet does however refer to "country matters" in the scene you were describing. I'd be astonished if that was considered too strong for US kids, though the allusion is obviously bawdy.