When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state, And trouble deThis is my favourite Shakespeare sonnet:
Sonnet 29
When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state, And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, And look upon myself and curse my fate, Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, Featured like him, like him with friends possessed, Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope, With what I most enjoy contented least; Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, Haply I think on thee, and then my state, (Like to the lark at break of day arising From sullen earth) sings hymns at heaven’s gate; For thy sweet love remembered such wealth brings That then I scorn to change my state with kings.
The poetry is beautiful. It is so sad and full of melancholy, as the speaker laments his place in life and the greed of the state. He is poor and miserable whilst Kings exist in luxury and splendour. Heaven doesn’t answer. God doesn’t care. The speaker is depressed as a lack of money is associated with a complete lack in richness of feeling and attitude. Emotional bankruptcy is the feeling the sonnet captures with such splendour. And I love it.
But then, to make it better, it reverses in on itself in the final few lines. The speaker remembers his love and conquers his jealously. He remembers his love for his “state” which is a pun on the idea of nation. He remembers his love for his king and his lord and realises that such wealth will not bring the fulfilment he seeks. In these few lines is a powerful journey, a journey of discovery and truth. It’s an incredible piece of writing.
And here's a version of it sung by the very talented Rufus Wainwright: Sonnet 29
[image]
So that’s my favourite sonnet and there’s many beautiful examples in here of how incredible poetry can be. Simply put, it doesn’t really get any better than this.
I was at Shakespeare’s Globe in London yesterday watching this play and it was fab! I then came home and read it (got to love the literary life!)
The bI was at Shakespeare’s Globe in London yesterday watching this play and it was fab! I then came home and read it (got to love the literary life!)
The best thing about the performance was the fact that Orlando was played by a woman who was less that five feet tall and Rosalind was played by a man was way over six feet tall. Needless to say, this lead to many comic moments. Here’s some shots of the performance:
[image] -Orlando & Rosalind
[image]
They only had to stand next to each other on the stage for the audience to burst out laughing.
The play displays much of what Shakespeare does best. There are explorations into gender politics and sexuality because of the layers added into the play; there are men playing female characters who then in turn pretend to be men, which makes it even more complex. As with most of his comedies, I find the magic of the work is lost on the page. These are plays that are meant to be performed!
Unlike many of Shakespeare’s plays, even the comedies, this was very light and breezy. Nobody died. Nobody suffered. And the ending was a mass matchmaking that only left me feeling warm inside. It’s an entertaining piece to watch, though once you’ve got your head round the plot it won’t make you think any further.
It is a funny piece, but not quite as good as Twelfth Night and I think it suffered a little with a background cast of pretty standard Shakespearean characters rather than standout personalities.
Certainly not his best comedy, though it is still quite fun!
I saw an absolutely brilliant version of this play today at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. It was Mexican themed, full of dancing, gunshots, high raciI saw an absolutely brilliant version of this play today at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. It was Mexican themed, full of dancing, gunshots, high racing emotions and many moments of farcical humour. All in all, it was a great production of an imperfect play.
If I’m ever critical of Shakespeare’s works it’s because I know how excellent Shakespeare can be. The Tempest is one of the best things ever written in the English language. Similarly, Richard II is pure poetry, beautiful and powerful, but it is so unimpressive on the stage. At least, I’ve never seen a decent live version of it. There’s not much room for spectacle in the play. But here’s the tricky thing about Shakespeare, some of his plays are excellent to read and some of them are not. Some are perfect stage pieces, but boring on the page. Some manage to succeed in both realms, but not many. Much Ado About Nothing is a play that is meant to be performed. Like Twelfth Night (and all the comedies) the real genius of the writing does not come through until it is seen in action.
Much Ado About Nothing has a simple plot and it’s built around two central characters, Beatrix and Benedict. Everybody else involved are mere plot devices crafted by Shakespeare. Hero, Claudio and Don Pedro, though playing major parts in the action, don’t really have much in the way of personality or inner-conflict. They are simply there to play off the two central characters against each other, and play each other they most certainly do. A relationship built on mutual hate sounds like an odd concept, but an apt one. Both Beatrix and Benedict have sworn never to marry, so when they finally stumble across their counterparts they are annoyed and in absolute denial about their own feelings.
It’s easy for the audience to spot such a thing, and seeing the characters slowly realise it is wonderful to behold. It leads to many brilliant comedy moments, moments the version I watched was very quick to capitalise on. It was mischievous, witty and a very good piece of fun. The entire cast nailed it. Again, this is a play that really needs to be seen. If you find yourself in London this summer, I certainly recommend going to watch it. If not you could always try the DVD when it is eventually released if you’re really keen.
This is Sir John Falstaff’s play; it was a chance for Shakespeare to pad out one of his most popular characters and give him another comic moment. AndThis is Sir John Falstaff’s play; it was a chance for Shakespeare to pad out one of his most popular characters and give him another comic moment. And he failed completely.
So when Shakespeare wrote this he focused on this one character, and as a result the rest of the play suffered. The cast were all mere plot devices, a means for Falstaff to arrive at his destination (the dénouement) in the woods wearing his antlers. They don’t seem to have the same level of personality or depth that is often attributed to Shakespeare’s characters. The wives of Windsor are rather absent for most of the play, surprisingly. Falstaff’s wooing of them had very little stage time. We see the letter he sent to them both, but little else. As you can probably tell, I didn’t really this. I have very few good things to say about it if any.
Scholars argue that there is much of Shakespeare in this play. Indeed, things such as his application for a coat of arms in his personal life, his desire to move up the social ladder and his love of Ovid’s works. But this is also true for many of Shakespeare’s plays. For example, the rape scene in Titus Andronicus is lifted form Ovid. Not a bad thing of course, but I don’t think it’s enough to make this play worthy of note. Shakespeare was an entertainer, and this is one of his least entertaining plays. The fact that he adapted parts of Ovid doesn’t change this.
It’s also one of his least popular plays, and I really can see why. The plot was rather dull and most of it was in prose rather than verse, so it wasn’t overly pleasant to read either. This isn’t a play I will read again in the future.
Next on my Shakespeare list is A Midsummer’s Night Dream. I’m looking forward to reading it, hopefully it will make me forget about this one!...more
I’ve read it dozens of times and watched various versions of it over the years. Unfortunately, I’ve not The Tempest is my favourite Shakespeare play.
I’ve read it dozens of times and watched various versions of it over the years. Unfortunately, I’ve not seen it live yet. One day I’ll see it live at Shakespeare's Globe in London. There’s so much to take from this play, and Atwood’s interpretation completely blew my mind. The way she took one of the lines made me consider this in a completely new light.
“This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine”
Caliban, the seed of the Hag, could be Prospero’s son?
How interesting, I’ve never even considered this before! There’s a very convincing, though of course inconclusive, argument made by one of the characters in here to suggest this.
But I digress. This is far from the main point. This book is about a man called Felix, and he was the artistic director of a major theatre house until his assistant betrayed him and orchestrated a coup leaving Felix stranded in isolation. Sound familiar? Felix is our Prospero and he wants some revenge. So many years after he is disgraced he gets his opportunity. He stages his own version of The Tempest, using prison inmates that he teaches, to get back at those that wronged him. It is marvellously clever. He takes on the role of Prospero in the play, and he also becomes him in his real life.
What does this tell us about the story? Shakespeare wrote some truly brilliant narratives, and they really are timeless. Here one has been used in a modern setting to tell us a story that has happened and will happen again. I hesitate to generalise, but one thing I’ve learnt from reading a fair bit of Shakespeare is that his characters are real. They could be real. They are easily to identify with and the stories they have are easily seen in later works and in people’s actual lives. The point is Shakespeare was a very perceptive man, across his body of work he captured much of the human condition.
So Atwood has recreated The Tempest here and it’s beautiful. She has crafted all the themes of the Tempest into the form of this man’s life. And, ironically, he knows he is living The Tempest. He starts to actually become like Prospero. He becomes unhinged and can only taste that singular bitter pill known as revenge; it is literally all that animates him and it almost drives him too far into the depths of obsessive despair, though he has the power to come back. We all do. Very much in the tradition of the play, Felix comes back to himself.
I really don’t buy the irony. Here is a play by a very young Shakespeare trying to appeal to the masses; here is a play that purposely appeals to the I really don’t buy the irony. Here is a play by a very young Shakespeare trying to appeal to the masses; here is a play that purposely appeals to the misogynistic beliefs of its early audiences, and I really don’t like it.
This is what should have happened at the end:
Katherine:
I’m a Shrew; I’m a woman who stands up For herself and for her sisters alike I have a voice; I will not be tamed by Men who think themselves overlords!
Instead we have a rather meek speech in which a broken woman who has been deprived of sleep and food agrees to live under her husband’s thumb. Some may call this the comedy element, but I just can’t see it in that light. I didn’t find anything funny about the situation. Thankfully, Shakespeare learnt to do much better. ...more
Be bloody, bold, and resolute. Laugh to scorn The power of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth.
Poor old Macbeth. You were doomed from the verBe bloody, bold, and resolute. Laugh to scorn The power of man, for none of woman born Shall harm Macbeth.
Poor old Macbeth. You were doomed from the very first act. Your mistake was believing in hearsay, prophecy and half-truths. You were an excellent Thane, noble and strong. But you were never meant to be King. You should never have told your wife about the witches, that way the fires of your ambition would never have been fanned.
You only committed in halves to the witches advice. You needed to go the full way or not at all. For you are bloody. Your butcher’s work in King Duncan’s tent saw to that. Your soldier’s work on the battlefield also saw to that. You weren’t afraid to get your hands dirty and in this you were bold and daring, but none would ever call one such as you resolute. Your conscience got the better of you, it made you weak and vulnerable, and because of this you failed. Your rule failed. Your sword arm failed. You needed to go the full way or not at all.
Desperation, paranoia and butchery are what followed your indecisiveness. You killed those that could have been loyal; you killed those that could have remained friends. And it was your doom. You created your own haunting, your own end. You listened to the advice of the witches when you should have followed your own path, your own mind. Their words killed you. Your faith in them killed you. Macduff was defeated at your feet, but your fear conquered you. Their words unmanned you.
Macbeth! Macbeth! Macbeth! Beware Macduff. Beware the thane of Fife. Dismiss me. Enough.
How hard it must be to fight an enemy you admire; how hard it must be to realise your enemy is a stronger, and perhaps more worthy, man than your son,How hard it must be to fight an enemy you admire; how hard it must be to realise your enemy is a stronger, and perhaps more worthy, man than your son, and how great it must be to realise that you are such a hypocritical fool, and that your son is more than you ever dreamed. But first, you must lament your heir to your advisors, clearly a great move:
Yea, there thou mak’st me sad and mak’st me sin In envy that my Lord Northumberland Should be the father to so blest a son— A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue, Amongst a grove the very straightest plant, Who is sweet Fortune’s minion and her pride— Whilst I, by looking on the praise of him See riot and dishonor stain the brow Of my young Harry. O, that it could be proved That some night-tripping fairy had exchanged In cradle clothes our children where they lay, And called mine Percy, his Plantagenet!
[image]
Henry Bolingbroke is a man with daemons. He won his crown on the back of a rebellion, and here he is many years later crushing a rebellion himself. There’s some irony in here. Shakespeare does love to point out a good hypocrite. In the rebellious Hotspur King Henry clearly sees part of himself, and in his son he sees a foe he vanquished many years before. The ineffectual Richard II has come to haunt he him; he doesn’t want to see England fall under such negligent rule ever again. So he is a man most divided. The choice he makes is the only one he could make. He puts his faith in his son and because of this the young Henry meets the challenge with vigour and character I’d argue he didn’t even know he possessed.
The young Henry, Hal to his friends, doesn’t take life too seriously. He spends his days drinking, pranking and bantering with an old knight named Sir John Fallstaff, and this lead to some of the best moments of the play. The two in a metatheatrical moment, a mini play within a play, act out a scene of King and Prince. Fallstaff rather hilariously, whilst pretending to be Henry IV, gives young Hal some advice about his drunken friend:
No, my good lord, banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins, but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant being, as he is, old Jack Falstaff, Banish not him thy Harry’s company, Banish not him thy Harry’s company. Banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.
[image]
Thus history becomes part comedy, and Shakespeare as always demonstrates how versatile a dramatist he was. Language becomes a clear distinction between the high born characters and the low. This is no Richard II where commoners are spouting out verse. In here there is a clear distinction between who is educated and who isn’t. The commoners speak in prose. The lord’s in verse. Young Hal can do a little bit of both. He has the ability to bond with the lowborn and the high born because of this, which is just a slight foreshadowing of the loyalty he will command one day. A good King knows how to communicate with his subjects not just the other rulers of the land, just a bit of subtlety from the bard.
Honour as well becomes a subject of much contention. What is honour? Is it personal integrity or is it loyalty to your King, and perhaps those you love. Indeed, honour becomes a subjective principle, one that means different things to each individual. For the King it is his need to protect his realm, for Hotspur it is personal integrity, and for Hal it is duty. Fallstaff’s honour, which is something easily debatable, is his love for his prince. His dialogue speaks otherwise, but his actions, though a little bit stupid, felt rather devoted at points even if they were also self-serving.
As with all of Shakespeare’s plays, watching a good version really helps. I like to read the play once, go watch an adaption, and then read the play again. It just adds another level to it. I did quite like this play, but I much preferred Richard II. The language in that play was pure poetry, and I much prefer tragedy to comedy. ...more
So after yesterday’s post it seems only fair to reveal what my hidden quotes were. Everything in bold is a Shakespeare quote. I did say they were hiddSo after yesterday’s post it seems only fair to reveal what my hidden quotes were. Everything in bold is a Shakespeare quote. I did say they were hidden. Perhaps even in plain sight! (Don't hate me when you read the first one)
(1)“There’s Rosemary. That’s for remembrance.”
[image]
It’s the 400th anniversary since Shakespeare’s death! I just had to post something Shakespeare related on this day of all days. I mean can you blame me? Shakespeare’s just awesome. Also to liven things up a bit, I’ve discretely layered my review with Shakespeare phrases. Can you spot any? Some are obvious, but I don’t think you’ll find them all. There are thirteen in total.
So here goes.
This is the most unscholarly scholarly book I’ve ever read. It’s witty, supremely entertaining, and no less informative than a standard biography. It’s also quite concise; there’s no waffle:(2) brevity is the soul of wit. (3)It’s the best of both worlds really. I really enjoyed this, and I learnt a great deal about the Bard in the process. (4)It’s the be-all and the end-all of Shakespeare biographies really. In (5)one fell swoop Burgess provides a great level of detail about Shakespeare’s background; it provides a great level of detail about the man himself and the time in which he wrote. Burgess isn’t bias; he just provides as much information as possible. He starts from the beginning, from Shakespeare’s (6)flaming youth, (7)to his death bed where he breathed his last.
The chapters are organised for easy reference. It really is a good little book. In case you didn’t know, Anthony Burgess is the author of the famous A Clockwork Orange. So there’s going to be some skill in the writing. I tend to find biographies dry and boring; however, this was almost uplifting in places. (8)And that’s the naked truth.
[image]
My edition is the beautiful folio society one. The only way I could justify buying more of these lovely, and expensive, books was if they were university related, so I was very pleased to find this. Even if I’m no longer studying Shakespeare! (9)There's the rub.But who cares? Despite finishing with this a university, I think I will always be studying Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s verses are (10) as swift as a shadow, and his plays are (11)such stuff as dreams are made on. His writing, his legacy, is everlasting. (12)In my heart of heartsI can tell you that there will never be a day when Shakespeare’s words aren’t relevant to the world. All people have to do is open their ears and hear them. (13)That’s the short and the long of it.
I love the Globe. It’s such a fantastic place. Have I said that before somewhere? I’ll probably end up saying it again.
The atmosphere is wonderful; tI love the Globe. It’s such a fantastic place. Have I said that before somewhere? I’ll probably end up saying it again.
The atmosphere is wonderful; the open-top roof spells dramatic freedom; the towering wooden beams speak of the grandeur of Shakespeare’s work, and the incense, the incense is everything. I can’t get enough of the place; I wish I could go more often. But, I suppose, going once a year will make it feel even more special. I’m digressing a bit here, but, again, it has to be said: the Globe is amazing.
[image]
[image]
This book is a historical chronicling of the globe. It’s a good overview text of its history, but nothing is delivered in any great detail. It’s a solid spring board piece: a book that leads to more in depth research from other authors. I found the parts on the Essex Rebellion to be quite helpful; they led me to other authors such as Burgress and Shapiro, who handle the facts in a more focused way. It was a good starting point for my university essay, as it had a few quotes from historical figures of the Elizabethan age.
The thing that I liked most about this book was that it followed the Globe’s history until the present age. Books like this have a tendency to stop when Shakespeare died. At least, that’s what I found in my reading. So, it was really quite informative to read a book that followed the Globe from its origins to its current state however brief it was. It’s a good, solid, overview book which I found to be a great introduction to the topic. ...more
I really didn’t expect to like this. Most comedy is wasted on me, but Shakespearean comedy is just so damn funny. Reading this play is only half the pI really didn’t expect to like this. Most comedy is wasted on me, but Shakespearean comedy is just so damn funny. Reading this play is only half the picture. I think this is a play that really must be seen in performance as well. I watched a DvD version of the recent globe production and I was practically rolling on my living room floor with laughter. It had an all-male cast, which just made it even better. Mark Rylance as Olivia was just pure comic genius, and Stephen Fry as Malvolio was just awkward and hilarious. It was simply amazing.
[image]
[image]
The scene with the yellow stockings was just perfect. Malvolio is in love with Olivia, and as a joke several knights play a trick on him. Olivia detests the colour yellow, so they tell him she loves it and that it makes her weak at the knees. As a consequence, Malvolio gets himself a nice big pair of yellow stocking and brandishes them in her presence. She is disgusted with them, and him; she then tells him to go to bed, which he misinterprets as “let’s go to bed together.” So, he tries his luck and ends up in a rather amusing looking prison cell. That’s only one small aspect of the plot, but arguably one of the funniest. I couldn’t think of a better Malvolio that Stephen Fry; he came across as pedantic, arrogant and horny. It’s a rather funny combination.
[image]
Love is a fickly and awkward thing. It is often won by accident and happenchance. All sought after love in this is denied, and all accidental love is pursued and granted. Viola/Cesario falls in love with Orsino whilst trying to persuade Olivia to love Orsino, which results in Olivia falling in love with Viola/Ceasrio. It’s a complicated, and ironic, love triangle, which is only resolved by it gaining another edge and becoming a love square. Sebastian, Viola’s brother, comes along which Olivia mistakes for Viola; she “saves” him from a group of knights and declares her love to him. Sebastian is confused and bewildered because he’s never seen this woman before in his life; she swoons over him and claims him as hers. It’s all very funny and a little bit of a headache if you’ve never read this. Mistaken identity is the reason for all of this. Viola is pretending to be a man, which makes her look just like her brother, and leads to the comic confusion.
This may sound complex, but it’s not. It’s perhaps one of the easiest of Shakespeare’s plays to follow, if you struggle with that sort of thing. The all-male cast of the globe production made the gender divides even stranger. There was a man acting a female character who was pretending to be a man. It was all so good. Olivia was melodramatic and ridiculously exaggerated as a female, which made the production so ludicrously entertaining. If you’ve got a spare few hours, and your're in need of a good laugh, I recommend watching it.
Well, I’m an English literature student and I absolutely love Shakespeare’s plays. This is nothing unusual or exciting. Most English student’s live foWell, I’m an English literature student and I absolutely love Shakespeare’s plays. This is nothing unusual or exciting. Most English student’s live for Shakespeare. So far I’ve enjoyed reading, and studying, everything of his that’s popped up on the reading list until this came along. My reaction surprised me most of all, I never expected to find something of Shakespeare’s that I not only dislike, but also detest. This is also one of his most revered plays, and it’s also considered one of his greatest tragedies. So I’m somewhat dumfounded at my reaction. This play was frustrating, annoying and damn right revolting.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: ‘who has the right to actually criticise this masterpiece?’ Well no one does. Objectively speaking it is, of course, a work of sheer brilliance. But, that doesn’t mean I have to like it or enjoy reading it. Today I sat through three hours of my lecturer praising this and calling it one of Shakespeare’s most important plays because it marked an important change within his career as dramatist and development as a writer. That’s all well and good, I can see that; and I appreciate that. However, Hamlet is one of the most idiotic and self-obsessed characters in creation. His inaction defines him as a tragic character, but to my mind that’s just silly. He caused his own death and the death of everyone in the play; yes, again, this makes his inaction tragic but it was also completely self-defeating; it boarded upon the absurd. The man needed a slap and a reality check, I just find him so unbearably frustrating.
I’m not arguing against the play’s literary merit, so please don’t get defensive with me in the comments section. It is an iconic piece of literature; it can’t be denied. However, I am going to lay down three points of reasoning as to why I disliked it so.
1. A crap idea for revenge
[image]
Hamlet’s revenge makes no sense; it is completely illogical. His uncle has killed his farther; he has personally murdered his own brother by pouring poison into his ear. This man, Claudius, has no empathy; he has no conscience. If a man can so callously kill his own brother, then, surely, logically speaking, trying to appeal to his sense of regret is almost pointless. He’s murdered his brother and has taken his place. He’s filled that role; he doesn’t care who he’s killed in the process. But, yet, somehow, this cold hearted man is deeply affected by his deed that is manifested in Hamlet's mock play. The idea for revenge shouldn’t have worked, but it did. Claudius admits his guild, in prayer, and sets Hamlet into a more crazed state. How is this revenge?
2. Hamlet is a fool
[image]
Hamlet needed to step and truly consider his situation; yes, he does this in five soliloquies, but he never considered one angle; he never considers that his inaction could lead to a worse result that acting directly. He stages a play for the King to get revenge after much indecisiveness. The most direct action of revenge would have been to simply run the King through with a sword in the throne room or to poison him in kind. This would have made him a murderer, so it was off the table. He could have clenched his fists, and grinded his teeth, and just got on with the situation. But, to do so would be to ignore his father’s spirits’ request for revenge. So he could not really go down either route, but to do neither is worse than simply ignoring one. It leads to the bloodbath that is the final scene, which forced his hand. On a character level, I think of Hamlet as a coward who, ultimately, causes his own fate. This isn’t why I dislike him; he makes the play a tragedy, but it’s the illogical nature of his actions that condemns him in my estimation. He has two roads before him, and instead of taking either he forces a third road that is more detrimental than either.
3. He is too self-obsessed
[image]
Hamlet barely considers anyone else. To his mind, his uncle marrying his mother is incest. In renaissance England this was as bad as full blown incest. Claudius and Gertrude were only in-laws: siblings by marriage. So by today’s standards it’s not that immoral. Regardless, though Hamlet doesn’t consider how his mother feels about this. He is repulsed by the notion, but she could be in love or she could be in the more likely eventuality of a forced marriage. Hamlet doesn’t consider her feelings; he is just repulsed by the idea of their marriage rather than the emotions and bond that may or may not be involved. This doesn’t make him a bad person, but, when considered with my other two points, I think it make him somewhat idiotic, selfish and frustrating.
I simply dislike this play because I’m practically repulsed by its “tragic hero.” I recognise that this is an unpopular opinion, and I cannot help but think that I should have liked the play. But, Hamlet just infuriates me far too much for me to overlook my dissatisfaction with him and admire the play's formal features. I just cannot personally like it. ...more
I’ve read this four times now, and I’ve seen three different versions of it too, yet one thing remains certain throughout, this can be interpreted in I’ve read this four times now, and I’ve seen three different versions of it too, yet one thing remains certain throughout, this can be interpreted in so many different ways.
Shakespeare’s wonderful like that; he’ll write a line or a piece of verse that can be taken in so many ways, ultimately, changing the meaning of the play depending on how it is read or adapted. Indeed, Shakespeare doesn’t judge his characters. Instead he portrays them how they may have perceived themselves. To Richard’s mind he is the undisputed mortal representative of God’s will on earth; he simply cannot be wrong in his actions. Comparatively, Henry Bolingbroke is a man taking back his confiscated fortune and birth right. When the crown comes into play it becomes incredibly difficult to perceive who the victim of the play is. Is it the usurped King? Or is it the unjustly banished Duke? Shakespeare leaves it up to the audience to decide and fight it out.
"You may my glories and my state depose, But not my griefs; still am I king of those."
[image]
Personally, I think both characters play a little bit of the victim and a little bit of the tyranniser. They corner themselves into a situation in which every decision is a morally questionable one; this is not something that could easily be resolved. Richard could not simply welcome Bolingbroke with open arms, to do so would be to admit that he was himself wrong. A King could never do that nor could he go down without some semblance of a fight or display of himself being usurped. Richard is a boy King; his body grew but his mind never fully developed to the realities of the world. His decisions are rash, unfair and at times almost random. He doesn’t fully register the consequences of his actions. That’s what comes of a mind-set that perceives itself as a conduit’s of God’s divine will. He is God’s chosen King; therefore, he cannot be disobeyed. So, when he banishes his cousin, and steals his fortune, it doesn’t matter to him. There’s no injustice to it in his mind. It is simply the will of the King and of God.
Conversely, Bolingbroke faces down the King and usurps his throne. He claims to have entered England for the purposes of reclaiming his fortune and nothing more. But, somehow, he ends up with his cousin’s crown on his head. When Richard returns to the Irish war he finds that all his most powerful nobles are behind his enemies cause. He is destitute, but he is still the King of England. Everybody recognises this, even Bolingbroke. In his wrath he delivers his most monumental speech and his most devastating. He calls upon the armies of heaven to vanquish this usurper. Nothing happens. Thus, Richard believes that God has abandoned him so he willingly gives the crown to Bolingbroke but, not without his final display of victimisation. Bolingbroke still claims not to want the crown, though England wants him to have it. So, he takes the throne and becomes Henry IV.
"For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground And tell sad stories of the death of kings; How some have been deposed; some slain in war, Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed; Some poison'd by their wives: some sleeping kill'd; All murder'd: for within the hollow crown That rounds the mortal temples of a king Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits, Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp, Allowing him a breath, a little scene, To monarchize, be fear'd and kill with looks, Infusing him with self and vain conceit, As if this flesh which walls about our life, Were brass impregnable, and humour'd thus Comes at the last and with a little pin Bores through his castle wall, and farewell king!
[image]
[image]
Now this is where the multifaceted nature of the play comes into question. Who is the victim of the work? Is there a villain? The answer generally depends on your perception of the divine right of Kings, and the production you hold in your heart. I cannot form a definitive answer for my own mind, so I cannot argue either way. There isn’t a straightforward answer to this. History aside, both men make mistakes within the plays action. But, who is to blame? The tragic elements of the work are in Richard’s favour, but his cousin is only after his birth right. Through their conflict both men are backed into a corner in which only one can escape.
Damn, I love this play. I might go read it again; it is pure poetry! ...more
I struggled with this, big time. But, when I read it for a second time I began to see how it all fit together. Then I went for a third attempt, and saI struggled with this, big time. But, when I read it for a second time I began to see how it all fit together. Then I went for a third attempt, and saw something else entirely. There are always different layers of meaning in Shakespeare’s work, and it’s always quite hard to make a solid interpretation. Someone out there will argue against what you are saying, and rightly so because who is to say where the true meaning of a piece of literature is? Not me, that’s for sure, all I can do is try to form my own lasting impression of a work.
And the impression this formed on me was quite solid, to my mind. The evidence resides in the title of the play and its origins. Measure for Measure implies that what you give, you take back. If you exact a judgement or a sense of justice then you, too, are susceptible to that same force. Indeed, this quote from the bible evidently inspired this remarkable play:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with that judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure you meet, it shall be measured unto you again." (Matthew Chapter 7: Verse2)
[image]
Angelo is given the Duke of Vienna’s political powers whilst he supposedly goes on holiday to Poland. He immediately attempts to restore order to the city. But, he becomes a hypocrite: he is too worthy of judgement. ...more
I think this book would be of most use to those that haven’t read much Shakespeare. There is a short summary of each play and a breakdown of each act I think this book would be of most use to those that haven’t read much Shakespeare. There is a short summary of each play and a breakdown of each act along with its accompanying scenes. This would be a good thing to go through prior to reading a play; it may help the reader to understand the basics of the plot on an initial and fast reading if they struggle with the language.
A basic introduction to the Bard
[image]
That being said though, this book offers little to those that have studied some of the plays deeply and on an academic level. In here is some shortened down, almost verbatim, repeating’s of a few more in depth explanations that I’ve read in other works. I’m not saying that this book has copied, but what I am saying is that this book has taken someone else’s interpretation, simplified it, and made it approachable. There presented in a concise manner that provides a good place to start when researching the plays or all the information you need if you just want to know the very basics.
I found little to gain in the sections on the plays I’ve studied at university or read myself. However, in the sections on the plays I’ve not read, I found an okay introduction to them. Before I read anymore Shakespeare’s plays in the future, I will, again, read the introductions in here. So, that way, I’ll have an idea of what I’m reading before I go to read it. This will make understanding the play much easier. But, I do think, introductions equally as good could be found on numerous websites or, better yet, the introductions in the oxford and penguin paper back classics would send these ones away in shame.
Friendly Layout
[image]
I liked the layout because it is simple and easy to approach. Each play has its own timeline. This, again, is handy if you’ve not read the work in detail or have found parts of it confusing. It’s even good to serve as a reminder for what actually happened if you read a play a while back. But, the chances are, if you bought a book about Shakespeare’s work it wasn’t because you found it confusing; it was most likely because you wanted to explore the work in more detail. So, this book, and its layout would be quite useless.
Overall, this book is worth trying if you want an introduction to his plays before reading them. And by introduction, I mean a simple explanation of what actually happens in the play rather than an in depth discussion of themes and motives. I found this helpful somewhat, but it was very limited in its scope and practicality. It’s more of a summary of each play than anything else. I suppose, if anything, this book would be incredibly helpful for young readers or those taking their English GCSEs.
I saw this at Shakespeare’s Globe in London last summer, and was absolutely amazed at the brutal brilliance of the production. The actor who played TiI saw this at Shakespeare’s Globe in London last summer, and was absolutely amazed at the brutal brilliance of the production. The actor who played Titus was superb; he captured Titus’s decent into madness perfectly by evoking a character that started out as strong and fearless to one who ended up unhinged and brutal. It is no wonder though that Titus fell into depravity because his house, and name, has been torn apart by revenge. Consequently, he embraces revenge, causing his madness, because his daughter was brutalised upon to inflict wounds upon him.
Lots of bloody violence
[image]
Now this is a play that would have appealed to both the masses and the gentry of the Renaissance era. The play is violent, and I mean violent. There is something like fifteen deaths, a whole bunch of decapitations and one incredibly cruel rape. For theatre this is a very high toll. Thus, the Renaissance common folk would have been entertained because they had a taste for bloody spectacle. Moreover, the play retains the popular revenge theme through the sophistication of its plot, which would have appealed to more educated audience. In addition, it was delivered in the most eloquent of styles: Shakespearean Iambic Pentameter. Thus, the gentry too would have been entertained.
This is quite a feat in itself to write a play to appeal to audiences both high and low. However, in spite of this, this is commonly regarded as Shakespeare’s worse play. Some people even go as far to argue that because it is so poor, in their opinion, that he couldn’t of wrote it. I disagree with this assessment. I really enjoyed the play, but I must say it is a play that is performed better than it is read. This was written for the stage not the page.
Brutal revenge plot
[image]
The plot begins with Titus returning to Rome as a victor of a successful campaign over the barbarous Goths. He has brought back their royalty, in chains, as his prize. He executes the eldest prince to appease the citizens of Rome. The Queen of the Goths, Tamora, swears revenge; she later seduces the new Emperor and embarks upon a quest that seeks the ruination of the house of Andronicus, which breeds more revenge. This time it is the hearts of the remaining members of the house of Andronicus.
Whilst Renaissance Tragedy was not meant to be didactical (used as a learning tool) like Greek Tragedy, I think a lot can be taken from revenge Tragedy. This may have been only staged to entertain, but it demonstrates the detrimental effects of revenge. If you revenge the death of a love one, whether justly or unjustly, it creates more revenge in the hearts of those you have revenged upon. This creates a vicious cycle that will only end with everyone dead. Indeed, revenge is something to be considered most carefully.
Overall, this is a great play. I don’t care what the critics say because this play is both entertaining and intellectual. The revenge theme keeps the reader/audience entertained whilst the creation of Titus’s fall from grace keeps the play sophisticated enough to merit the study of it. I do think if you’re a reader that hates Shakespeare, god forbid, then this is a play that may peak your interest. ...more
Sean Barrs
>
Books:
shakespeare
(23)
Loading...
