"A Shakespeare play does not say; it offers a series of juxtapositions and contrasts which illuminate each other." -Bruce King
This text is trying to t"A Shakespeare play does not say; it offers a series of juxtapositions and contrasts which illuminate each other." -Bruce King
This text is trying to talk about how people talk about Coriolanus, one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. The first half of the book draws mostly on contrasts between different commentators across the years on how the play should be read. The second half of the text is the author's own analysis.
If King offers a conclusion, it's in the quote above: there isn't one. There's no Marxist reading of the play because there's no reading of the play. There's too much contrast and blank space for a proper reading to emerge.
If that's the case, it takes a while to get there. The text can be a bit scattershot, taking stabs at different features of the play without necessarily unifying the picture. The sheer variety of commentators that King references is hard to keep straight and seems not to be terribly important since the second half of the book is his corrections of them.
The text has a very niche audience: people who love this play and want to read about other people who care about it a lot. In that respect, it's successful. You'll get that. But some of the readings are so cursory that it doesn't feel like you're really getting at what these various authors are trying to say. While parts of King's interpretation are compelling, separating them from his commentaries on other commentaries isn't as straightforward as you'd think.
Mostly it made me want to read Coriolanus again, which isn't really a bad thing. ...more
The parameters for reading this book fruitfully are pretty narrow. Van Doren has an essay of variable length for each of Shakespeare's plays (excludinThe parameters for reading this book fruitfully are pretty narrow. Van Doren has an essay of variable length for each of Shakespeare's plays (excluding, to no one's dismay, Two Noble Kinsmen). The challenge is that each essay depends on minimally-explained allusions not just to the play in question, but also to the rest of Shakespeare's corpus and the preceding essays in the book.
As such, in order to feel engaged with Van Doren's text the reader should have already read most or all of Shakespeare's plays. Additionally, because Van Doren does so much quoting with so little context, it is best if the reader has read the play in question quite recently or retains it in a deeper part of themselves.
So in order to feel like you're following properly, the reader should have previously read all the plays and currently be reading the plays again, stopping after each to reflect with Van Doren.
Now, frankly, that sounds like a fine time. But it's a lot of pressure to put on one book that is as much a reference as anything. There are many moments where Van Doren shines, particularly in the plays that shine for him; I found myself underlining and nodding along throughout his section on Hamlet (have I ever written something so pretentious?). But when the plays drag for him he drags the reader with him. Extended quotations after which Van Doren writes, in effect, "Now you see how dumb that quote was, right?" do not inspire much page turning.
I am glad I own this, and I do imagine I'll revisit it in small doses as I revisit the plays over the years. But as a standalone book read in sequence, it can get a bit bumpy. ...more
It's about Hamlet, but only because Hamlet is familiar. Hamlet is the lens through which the author enables the reader to analyze plays in a distinct,It's about Hamlet, but only because Hamlet is familiar. Hamlet is the lens through which the author enables the reader to analyze plays in a distinct, systematic way. I appreciated the tools described here that helped me differentiate theater analysis from literature analysis, something I haven't really thought about specifically. This is a short, memorable collection of approaches to seeing plays the way the playwright saw them and (critically for the author) translating them into performance.
Anyone who reads or watches plays regularly could benefit from this one. And it's short enough that even if you don't love it, it won't be a slog. Plus, it has a pretty good reading list (which is only half Shakespeare). ...more
Not an in-depth biography by any means, the book seeks to show what visual evidence exists for Shakespeare’s life and tries to present it in context. Not an in-depth biography by any means, the book seeks to show what visual evidence exists for Shakespeare’s life and tries to present it in context. It does not dive deep, and it does not seek to theorize. The closest it comes is in bringing up some of the most popular theories about Shakespeare and dismissing them as being impossible to determine one way or the other. The aims are few, but it achieves them well. ...more
The jailer’s daughter plot really drags down the play overall. Pretty empty and kind of pointlessly heartless. I quite enjoyed the Palamon and Arcite The jailer’s daughter plot really drags down the play overall. Pretty empty and kind of pointlessly heartless. I quite enjoyed the Palamon and Arcite scenes, and Emilia’s plight is an interesting one to reflect on, but there is a lot of padding out the page count beside that. ...more
The plot is, put simply, insane. Reading a summary, one will rightly doubt how this could come off as anything but confusing and pointless. That said,The plot is, put simply, insane. Reading a summary, one will rightly doubt how this could come off as anything but confusing and pointless. That said, it holds together pretty well and has a classic Shakespeare reconciliation, though it takes much of the fifth act to untangle the many secrets and deceptions that fueled the plot. ...more
This line, whispered at the end of Coriolanus' bombastic monologue in Act 3 always stuck out to me. After beJuly 21, 2021 "There is a world elsewhere."
This line, whispered at the end of Coriolanus' bombastic monologue in Act 3 always stuck out to me. After being loved, misunderstood, and reviled, he lashes out at everyone who ever knew him. And then he, the old soldier, resolves to fade away. I found the line a hopeful one, that there are always new worlds even if your old one has fallen apart. It's the kind of line you tattoo on your upper arm.
On re-reading the play, however, it seems like there isn't a world elsewhere at all. For one, Coriolanus could go anywhere in the world and he goes directly to Rome's greatest enemy. He doesn't want a new world at all; he wants to stay in the world he understands. The Volsces are, for him, the great Other with Aufidius being his reflection on the other side. Or so he thinks.
Coriolanus tries to start over, but he is the same. And mirroring the first set of events is feared, loved, lauded, called a traitor, and judged. There isn't a world elsewhere; there is one world and he has one way of being in it. He is called virtuous, but his virtue is inflexible. He cannot compromise.
And sometimes that's great. But as much at Brutus and Sicinius are framed as villains, they're right about one thing: Coriolanus wouldn't be a good leader. He's a good soldier, but he feels that he deserves more. He doesn't want to be praised, but he knows he's better than other people. He cannot accept the idea that his ambitions should be smaller because he's not big enough for them.
On this reading, I decided to also read Plutarch's narrative Coriolanus. This was interesting as it was also Shakespeare's primary source. It's enjoyable to read his sources because you can see how much he does to streamline the plot as well as to add layers to the characters. Plutarch summarizes Coriolanus' fundamental flaw in this way: "Coriolanus' pride forbade him to pay attentions to those who could have promoted his advancement, and yet his love of distinction made him feel hurt and angry when he was disregarded."
In many ways, there is no hero and no villain in this play. Coriolanus plays both roles. His contradictory, never-satisfiable character is at war with itself. Everyone else is pulled into his orbit. And he has no idea why. Perhaps the saddest element to the play is that Coriolanus dies confused. Even as he has pulled everyone into his orbit, he has no idea how they got there or why it has gone wrong.
I love the play because I think we can all find something in poor Caius Martius to empathize with. He's as magnificent and loathsome as we are.
___________________________ December 23, 2018 This one takes a bit to get into. It's not clear until about the third act exactly what the narrative focus is supposed to be. If you can get to that point, however, the play rewards its reader with a complex conflict that has enough material to yield several interpretations. Coriolanus himself is not likable but its not clear whether he is as noble as he's made to be, nor is it clear whether his antagonists are as villainous.
Ultimately, I should also recognize how, for many of Shakespeare's works, my reaction is more personal than analytical. This has established itself as one of my favorite "military plays," along with Troilus and Cressida. Eschewing the sometime-triumphalism of Henry V, the focus here is on a veteran who is unable to reassimilate into civilian society. He resents, above all, his service being commodified by his family and friends, utilized as a means to others' ends rather than as an end unto itself. He is endlessly pressured to show off his scars and brag about his patriotism, something he refuses to do, ultimately resenting the praise of a society for whom warfare is an inconceivable fantasy.
I never fought the way Coriolanus did, nor do I bear his scars, but I do know something about being a veteran who resents other people trying to simplify and celebrate his military career in a way that feel inauthentic. I also understand his frustration that when he actually expresses his feelings about his service and society, the same people that praised his service see him as an enemy. When forced to leave his home, he is unable to start anew. Instead, he finds another society where he can become a soldier again, where he can seek the kind of life he lost. I know something of the pressure to recreate the military experience wherever you go afterward, hoping that it will be different this time, understanding that you can't recreate the past but trying anyway.
I loved reading, and hope to reread, Coriolanus because it spoke to the permanent disconnect between the experience of the military and the attempt to discuss the experience of the military. So much always gets lost in translation and creates resentment on both sides. Sometimes, there's enough there to make things go tragically wrong and it's hard to tell if anyone is the good guy. This is that kind of story, and it certainly deserves more attention than it gets....more
Any time you can laugh out loud at a 400 year-old book, it's doing something quite right. Any time you can laugh out loud at a 400 year-old book, it's doing something quite right. ...more
A true 2.5. It’s one of the weirder Shakespeare plays as he almost certainly didn’t write all of it. Whether he collaborated with another author or upA true 2.5. It’s one of the weirder Shakespeare plays as he almost certainly didn’t write all of it. Whether he collaborated with another author or updated an existing manuscript, there’s a clear distinction between the first half and Chorus parts with Shakespeare’s contributions toward the end.
The plot is very silly and the reader would be excused for ignoring the details (gladiatorial combat resulting in a wedding, off-stage deaths by lightning, main characters just disappearing for decades at a time without little attempt at explanation). The highlights occur mainly in the resolutions of Act 5, moments of greatness that belie the stupidity of the conflicts that they resolve.
It also must be said that the play doesn’t drag. Though the action can be abrupt and unclear, it is propulsive, so the reader won’t feel lost or bored. There isn’t a ton of characterization; everyone just sort of does things. But ultimately I can’t count it among the lower tiers of his work, even if he only wrote half of it. ...more
It's a pretty straightforward play, but there's something to the turn Timon takes when his friends turn on him. It's not much, but it's readable and tIt's a pretty straightforward play, but there's something to the turn Timon takes when his friends turn on him. It's not much, but it's readable and the monologues are interesting. The B plot with the rebellion is pretty forced and its conclusion doesn't make a ton of sense. One some level, though, the disconnect between making friendships due to one's generosity that fall apart when that generosity is absent is a universal tale. I think this one might work better as an adaptation than with a straight treatment, as the core of the story is interesting, while there are issues and dragging bits in the play itself. ...more
Manages to balance a lean plot without embracing the simply sweet or saccharine. There is enough meat and human nature here to make the characters belManages to balance a lean plot without embracing the simply sweet or saccharine. There is enough meat and human nature here to make the characters believable, but not wholly wretched either. It's an ambiguous comedy. Its lack of renown is probably due to the central coupling. Bertram is a tool and Helena loves him anyway, and there's not a ton of resolution to that. Still, I thought it flowed well and what it lacks in depth, it makes up for in clarity and honest expression of (mostly) human characters. ...more
There are some interesting dialogues, particularly those between Isabella and Angelo. It's relatively straightforward, but there isn't a ton to keep yThere are some interesting dialogues, particularly those between Isabella and Angelo. It's relatively straightforward, but there isn't a ton to keep you coming back. I wonder if this is one that works considerably better when staged, as it seems to rely a lot on repartee and the gimmicks of the various tricks that the Duke plays on the rest of the cast. ...more
7/17/20 I read this play again, my the third time in two years. I read it over the course of five weeks, one act per week, along with three others and 7/17/20 I read this play again, my the third time in two years. I read it over the course of five weeks, one act per week, along with three others and we had a mid-pandemic book club online.
The reason I wanted to read it with other people was to ask whether I was nuts for liking this play so much. No one else seems to. It's a commonly dismissed Shakespeare tragedy, rarely read and even more rarely performed. So why do I keep wanting to read it?
Reading it one act at a time actually elevated the play overall in my estimation. The alternating between Greek and Trojan camps can feel haphazard, but when you slow down you start seeing parallels.
I won't go into everything, but it was shocking how much I saw in this reading regarding self-assessment versus public assessment. Most characters are ignorant of the disconnect. Ajax, for example, thinks he's Greece's greatest warrior while all his peers think he's a gullible buffoon. Cressida seems uniquely aware of the burden of being a woman who must manage her inner desires with a public persona and the need for security. The complexity of her dilemma and its overlap with the narrative around Helen was really striking.
Even Hector's self-image is mismatched with his perception. He thinks of himself as a sporting gentleman. His family thinks of him as their only hope. Achilles thinks of him as a naive fool, and his resentment over Hector's superiority leads him to a cynical end game.
Perhaps the most off-putting thing about this play for Shakespeare fans is its cynicism. Love is transactional, temporary, and circumstantial. Honor is calculated and is maintained only by idiots. Patriotic causes are public relations deceptions that create false narratives for more brutal adventures. Doing the wrong thing is only wrong if you admit that it's wrong.
This isn't Romeo and Juliet's love story and the guilt borne by these warring princes seems to slide off them in a way it never did for Macbeth. Do we love those stories because they tell us the way we hope to feel while this one reminds us more of what we actually see?
I will admit, that I was uniquely bothered on this reading by the closing monologue from Patroclus. It leaves a bitter tase in the mouth, like Shakespeare is taunting his audience and trivializing what has preceded it. In my mind, the play ends with Troilus' final monologue, before Patroclus entered. If the play were one page shorter, then, I'd really have no complaints. I like it more than ever.
12/28/19 I read this play again, while vacationing in northern Wisconsin, mid-blizzard. I also read it having actually read The Iliad following my first time with this play.
In revisiting the play with more context, I can see that Shakespeare had very little interest in adapting the story. Rather he used familiar characters and a few key events (Achilles’ refusal to fight, the deaths of Patroclus and Hector) to tell his own story.
The question I found Shakespeare asking this time was “who gets to tell the story?” In The Iliad we read about god-like Achilles defeating Hector in single combat. In this play, Achilles ambushes Hector in a moment of vulnerability and has his men kill him, then takes credit for a single-handed victory.
I was, once again, struck by Troilus’ interpretation of Cressida’s imprisonment. When she protests that she can’t give her love to Greek Diomedes, he steals the token of her commitment to Troilus and threatens her with violence or contempt. When she accedes to his pressure, Troilus can only see it as her (and all women) being unfaithful by nature, rather than seeing her trying to protect herself in a situation where she is powerless, a situation she was put in precisely because she was seen as inherently less valuable than a male politician.
So Achilles tells the story of his strength and Troilus tells the story of Cressida’s unfaithfulness. And the play ends with Pandarus bemoaning his fate as a pimp, meaning that he believed Troilus’ accusations and sees his initial plans to aid the work of love being sullied by Cressida’s actions.
The Iliad tells a story, but who told that story? And why? What story was left untold in its telling? And which narratives do we choice to believe because they are simple and plausible?
Once again, I find the play worth revisiting and worth a wider readership. So at least I’m consistent on that front. _____________________________ 6/9/18 I am not certain why this play, so often ignored in Shakespeare's canon, so connected with me. I read it on the train, traveling from Indiana to Chicago, then home to Des Moines. I read it weeks after leaving the military, my look-I'm-free beard still fresh on my face. I read it expecting a story about Troilus and Cressida.
On its surface, perhaps what I liked most was its description of the timeless archetypes, literary and lived, of an army in the field. I did not find the personalities cynical or daring; I found them lifelike and honest. This is a story about warrior elitism and the internecine conflict that plagues any organization formed on the basis of conflict.
It's also a story about women, despite how few of them appear in these pages. In the same play, young Troilus' heart is captured by fair Cressida, then later the government trades her in exchange for a hostage. When she dares to have a conversation where she fails to attack a powerful man in the enemy camp, Troilus believes her to be a whore instead of sympathizing with the difficult mental calculus of someone being held against their will in a camp full of men without women.
Even Helen is discussed in a way that treats her less as human than as an embodiment of honor or beauty or prestige. When Hector reasons that she should be returned to the Greeks, it is clear she has no agency over her own fate. And if she tried to protect herself, even to object anything, what would happen? Someone like Troilus would call her a whore and reject her in disgust.
This is an interesting, revisionist reading of several chapters in the Iliad, but familiarity with that work is not essential. The characters define themselves. I will need to sit with the ideas in the book further to see if I can decide whether its disinterest in honor is a good thing or bad. But it's certainly a worthy ride and is probably the most unexpected, pleasant surprise I've encountered in my slow march through Shakespeare's works....more
A much more well rounded and distinct comedy that many. Minimal random divergences outside the primary plots (wacky twin romances, and whimsical forgeA much more well rounded and distinct comedy that many. Minimal random divergences outside the primary plots (wacky twin romances, and whimsical forgery), so it proceeds quickly. Toby and his crew, particularly, are unique, as is the thoroughness of the cross-dressing plot. ...more
One of the better histories so far, I think. The play is known mostly for Harry's monologues, and justifiably so. He remains the most interesting charOne of the better histories so far, I think. The play is known mostly for Harry's monologues, and justifiably so. He remains the most interesting character, just as he was in Henry IV part 2. It still suffers from some of the tonal whiplash of the last two Henrys, but less so. The most dramatic departure is the proposal scene at the end. While it's great as a standalone scene, and perhaps even necessary for the mores of the period (?), it is totally out of keeping with the rest of the text. Still, Harry is a sufficiently well-developed and unique character and deserves attention....more
The twists and turns are fun without being too predictable. The characterization of the the women in this one seems much more generous than some of hiThe twists and turns are fun without being too predictable. The characterization of the the women in this one seems much more generous than some of his earlier work. I think this is one that suffers more than others for being read rather than performed; I imagine this one can really shine with good chemistry on stage. ...more
Loading...
