Close Reading Questions
for As You Like It, Acts I and II
Answer TWO of the
following in a short paragraph each (a few sentences). Be as specific as possible and quote the
play whenever possible. The goal of
these questions it to help you think through the play and see connections you
can discuss in class and write about later.
You don’t need answers as much as observations, and feel free to ask
questions within your answers—I don’t expect anyone to ‘get it’ on a first read
(if indeed we ever get Shakespeare!).
You will get full credit for these questions as long as you offer
thoughtful, engaged responses that reply to the text—don’t just give me vague,
restating-the-question type responses.
I’ll ask you to try again!
QUESTIONS (answer any TWO)
In As You Like It,
few of the main characters speak much blank verse, opting instead for
prose. Note how often Rosalind and
Celia speak prose to one another, though both are extremely witty, learned members
of the court. Why do you think
Shakespeare did this? What does prose
allow us to see/hear that might be important for their subject matter,
characters, or relationship? Focus on a
specific scene that you can examine in this light.
2. Discuss the character
of Jacques: what is he doing in this play?
He seems quite at odds with most of the other characters, and though he
occasionally adds to the comedy, he seems quite unwilling to do so. Nevertheless, he has one of the most famous
speeches in the play, the “All the world’s a stage” speech (II.7). How does he complicate what might be a very
simple, conventional play, and what do we learn from him?
3. So much of
Shakespeare’s humor in this play is based on elaborate puns, at times obscure
without the aid of footnotes. Focus on
a specific ‘comic’ scene (a few lines) and discuss how an actor might make this
‘speak’ without the use of footnotes.
In other words, how do you translate this for an audience so that we
get/hear the puns that we might otherwise miss (or be confused by) when
reading?
2. Jaques is my favorite character in the play. He has a lot of profound things to say, but is surrounded by people who can’t understand him. He’s witty, milady depressed, and the only character that seems to realize the ridiculousness of his situation. Jaques, at least to me, is the true touchstone of the play. Audiences tend to get caught up in narratives and start accepting the illogical and ridiculousness of a storyline as long as it is internally consistent—Jaques is the inconsistency. He is the player taking of the mask and reminding the audience that it’s all an act.
ReplyDeleteThis does not mean that the events in As You Like It are meaningless however. I think Jaques is meant to remind the audience of the ridiculousness of their own lives by pointing out the ridiculousness of the play.
4. One of the most obvious differences between the movie and the actual text I noticed was the circumstances surrounding Duke Senior’s exile. The actual text makes the old duke’s forest wanderings seem like a summer vacation. He is able to keep his loyal lords, with no consequence to them, and “live like the old Robin Hood of England.” As You Like It has the potential for tragedy, but Shakespeare always seems to cut the narrative before it does. The duke is not killed, Rosalind is let go, etc.
Further, Shakespeare makes sure that even the profound things said are said with an air of comedy. Touchstone mixes moral lessons with sexual puns and crude imagery. Even the secrecy of Rosalind’s sex is punned—using him and his where we would expect her and hers.
4. I feel like the mood of play is established enough as a comedy by the first two acts. For example, in R+J or Hamlet, everything is over the top dramatic, and the comedic reliefs come from outside sources, like two random people in the market square who don't know how to read. But in "As You Like It" the main characters help to set the comedic mood of the play by using witty funny dialogue. for example, in Act 1 Scene 2, Celia and Rosalind have witty conversations with a clown back and forth, and the clown says "The more pity that fools may not speak wisely what wise men do foolishly" (10). In many instances throughout the first two acts characters set the mood of the play as light and comedic with their dialogue. Yes people are being banished and such, but don't things like that happen in modern comedies? Modern comedies can center on a breakup, or even a death in the family, and it is still funny (if done correctly).
ReplyDelete2. Jaques seems to be the person in the play that looks at everyone and face palms. I feel like he is the dark teenager at the family thanksgiving dinner who none of the family members understand. He has all these profound thoughts, though he is depressed and somewhat of a tortured soul. Like ArkhamA said above, he is the only person in the play to see the people and their actions as ludicrous. This is a clever addition to the play that Shakespeare included, it let's the audience know, no you are not crazy for thinking all this shit is normal, look! here's another semi-normal person who sees these people as crazy as well!
-Tori W.
1. I think that in the case of Celia and Rosalind, conversing in prose gives the audience a sense of the familiarity and intimacy of their relationship. For example in Act I Scene II, Rosalind says " Dear Celia, i show more mirth than i am mistress of, and would you yet were merrier? Unless you could teach me to forget a banished father, you must not learn me how to remember any extraordinary pleasure" (8). In this passage, I can "hear" or "feel" that they are close. It could almost be taken as they have a relationship that is not based on pretenses or positions in society. Rather, they do not use blank verse with each other, because they can confide their true thoughts and feelings to each other. I also think that prose is used in this way, because they may be speaking about topics that they would not normally address with others. This brings back the image of this shared intimate friendship that they have. I do not believe that Rosalind would have addressed her feelings about being separated from her father to anyone but Celia.
ReplyDelete2. I think Jacques is a form of "center" for the other characters in the play. The other characters seem to act based on the emotions of the moment, and to take their situation lightly. Jacques seems to carry the weight of the darker aspects of the play. For example, there is a scene where he is sympathizing with the fate of the deer that they hunt. While most of the other characters seem to be living as free spirits, he sees that they (like Duke Frederick) are driving these creatures from their home and robbing them of their life. Although the duke and the nobles that fled with him are relatively safe, they have still lost the life that they were accustomed to. I think that one of the themes of this play is identity. Jacques speech comparing life to a play completely encompasses this theme. He recognizes that just as their situation changes, so they change. He is a reminder that this is not simply a play about becoming free spirits and living in the woods. He is the only character that seems to be truly contemplating what is happening. In some ways, he seems completely out of place. However, his presence is needed to balance out the craziness of all the different parts of the plot.
-Cayla O
2. Jacques, for me at least, seems like the character that Shakespeare “speaks” through the most in this play. He is the most obvious outlier and one of the few who seems to not have any preoccupation with love, whether romantic or familial. We don’t really even know that much about him, only that he is the melancholy one in the group of Robin Hood’s Merry Men. His speech on the world being a stage and the seven acts of life seemed very much like what the Shakespeare in my head would say. I don’t know when he wrote this, but I would guess it was later in life. At the very least we learn from him that the joy of falling in love and doing crazy things for it is just one act of our own play, eventually we will move on and like the older shepherd we will forget the thousands of things we have done.
ReplyDelete4. Robert and I discussed this a little bit after the showing of the film and we think that the play might be Shakespeare’s response to someone or several individuals calling his plays too dark. Maybe he got a review claiming that he always killed off the characters. I don’t know, obviously, but that would explain the title “As you like it” as kind of a snide commentary. I’m not sure if you can really tell that the play is going to be a comedy in the beginning. In someone else’s play I would say that the witty commentary between Ceila and Rosalind gives it away, but Shakespeare is almost always witty. For me it seemed like the play couldn’t be dark because it compared an exiled man to Robin Hood, who is a happy childhood figure now, but he might not have had the same significance then.
1) Speaking in prose rather than verse is more informal. In the case of Rosalind and Celia, it underscores their close relationship as friends as well as cousins. In Act 1 Scene 3, the two girls plot their escape to live with Rosalind's father after the Duke banishes her from the kingdom (I don't understand his reason for this; it seems random, but maybe that's because it's Shakespeare.) Celia is determined to go with her cousin into exile because as she says in lines 67-68: "And wheresoe'er we went, like Juno's swans,/Still we went coupled and inseparable." These characters are of one spirit in a sense, and one would not speak formally to one so close.
ReplyDelete3) In Act 2 Scene 7 Orlando enters the domain of Duke Senior with his sword drawn. In line 91 Jacques makes a pun referring to a cock. To signify the various meanings of how this word could be interpreted, he could look at his plate then at Orlando with raised eyebrows alluding to the intruder's attitude. He could have fixed his eyes pointedly on a certain section of Orlando's anatomy as he spoke. His eyes might even stray between Orlando's sword (possibly a phallic symbol) and Orlando's crotch. As a comic relief actor, he might use exaggerated winks at the audience to make the pun more pronounced or elbowed the person sitting next to him to let the audience know a joke of some sort has been made.
Lisa Edge
ReplyDelete1. Perhaps, Shakespeare did this to emulate that our private demeanor (prose) and public face (verse) are not one and the same. The public face before nobles and for example: when in the presence of the Duke is different (more formal to show respect) than what might be used in the bed chamber of two cousins (girl talk does not have to be formal), which would be much less formal as seen in SCENE III. What do you think? Do we today use a public face as well? Think of how you act in the presence of a friend vs. a co-worker /professor/ parent.
A room in the palace.
Enter CELIA and ROSALIND
CELIA
Why, cousin! why, Rosalind! Cupid have mercy! not a word?
ROSALIND
Not one to throw at a dog.
2. Jacques is contradicting everything societal. He is at odds with everyone’s acceptance of societal norms. In his speech the world is a stage, we (they) the actors he questions why are we only acting out parts written by another contently instead why can we not write our own destiny? Accepting life as it is according to societal norms makes him unhappy. He wants freedom to say and do what he wants, to be free of the constraints held to him by courtly rules or societal norms. I think we learn that in order to be happy we must be ourselves. When I think of Jacques I think of raising a teenager moping in a dark room, listening to depressing music (wallowing in self-pity for freedom), and acting out for the freedom to do, say, and act as they please.
1. I believe that the Rosalind and Celia spoke to one another in prose because it demonstrated the level of intimacy between them. The relationship they had was not falsified in any manner, and was completely open and honest. Rosalind hid her true identity from the man she was supposedly in love with so she could play with his emotions. However, she never tried to hide anything from Celia, not when she was running away, or how she would disguise herself as a man. I suppose I could compare their relationship to that of my relationship with my twin sister. We shared everything from a bedroom to a a best friend. We never tried to hide anything or present something in such a manner as to distract from our true purpose, mainly because we knew each other well enough to call the other out or it. Those two ladies have fewer secrets than my sister and I do.
ReplyDelete2. When I think of Shakespeare I always remember his tragedies first. It's what I expect of him. To me, Jaques might seem out of place in this play, but he does not seem out of place in the context of Shakespeare. To me it feels like Jaques offers a reality to the play that Shakespeare is known for. In high school, my peers talked a lot about how he recreated life on the stage, and yet, he didn't. This seems to be an example of Shakespeare's reminder that life is not all funny jokes.
Catherine Melton
2- I believe Jaques is there to add that level of drama that Shakespeare can not go without in his comedies. Jaques tries to keep good humor but he is wildly depressed. We've seen a bit in these two acts, but not as much as at the end. He seems to pull the play back to reality.It's like "look, everyone is in love and life is perfect". However, Jaques desends into the forrest to continue to be depressed and a deep thinker who is amused at happiness.
ReplyDelete4- Rosalind and Ceila really mark down that this is a comedy. They are real and you see the humor they share from the begining. However, without having seen the film, I'm not sure I would know how funny it is simply from the text. Several puns I had to reread but I laughed in class at the film right off the bat. Shakespeare reads dryer to me, but I've always loved his plays when I've traveled to watch them. This question caused me to really think about what makes something funny to me. It's not that there is not depressing event. The humor is the response to the events. I'd like to be banished if I could have as much fun as these dukes.
2. The character of Jacques did not fit into the play to me but somehow the scheme of the story it worked. Jacques is the bystander taking in everything around him without saying anything. He has so much to say and that he could easily; however, people do not understand him for he is different from them. I felt that Jacques was the one character that was not like the rest for he never seems on board with everything. So far his character is continuing to be melancholy but with a touch of wit.
ReplyDelete4. I felt that the mood of the play was a comedy form the beginning. Nothing in “As You Like It” seems to be over the top or over dramatic. I felt like Shakespeare did not try and disguise much when it came to the presence of comedy in this play. He wanted people to laugh at the puns once they understood them and thought about what was just said. Even though this play also focuses on characters being banished along with planned killings the humor still seems to shine through the holes of the tragedy wall.
-Kayci Snider
2. Jacques is a very plain-spoken man. He speaks of the simpler things in more realistic terms, contrasting Duke Senior, who seems very enchanted with the "rustic" lifestyle. The duke even seems too jovial for a man who was recently banished. Jacques knows that things are bad--his lord's brother could want to kill him, having probably even tried to do so already. He seems to know how rough it really is for a person to live on the edge, complaining even about "good" noble actions, as seen when we are told he grieved for the animals slain by the nobles for food or sport--they were killing for fun or to eat, but the animal, on its part, just died. He seems to hate the captivity of worldly stations, but if he met Touchstone, who is a "wise fool," an optimist, he is a philosopher, and therefore a pessimist. His "world's a stage" speech is that people are born, they live, they die, and one can be known what stage of life they are in by their behavior. The world is dangerous and bleak, and he may see himself as trying to keep everything on track in terms of mentality.
ReplyDelete4. Clues that we're in a comedy come from Celia and Rosalind's love for each other as cousins; in a tragedy they might be questioning each other based on Duke Frederick's words (he is a kind of Richard/Macbeth/Iago without their full edge). Also, Rosalind cross-dresses, which might not be gotten away with in a tragedy, as someone in disguise could get killed. Silvius' sighs for Phoebe come off as very comedic, but Romeo also sighed for Rosaline and Juliet in the very same way. Comedies traditionally had happy endings; tragedies didn't. Generally, characters are more likely to do absurd things in a comedy, but ultimately, the only real way to know is the ending. (Heck, even Robin Hood, generally depicted in a fairy tale form nowadays, was betrayed to his death in certain ballads and even did more overtly robberly things to boot.) Interestingly, the characters who start out tragic end up comedic (Celia, Rosalind, Duke Senior), whereas the comic characters (such as Touchstone) have some darker elements to them. Jacques sees everything as dying. Touchstone later threatens William over the woman they both like. Shakespeare may very well have been playing with the types of story when he wrote this, making the play's world as gray (or nearly so) in the fashion as modern writings (characters, as much as events, having layers to them). The attitude displayed may very well not match how the character really feels from moment to moment.
--Jessie Randall
Rosalind and Celia speak prose not only to define and develop character, but to prove that prose can be spoken by all statuses of people. Also, I think Shakespeare was trying to illustrate that low class speech or “relaxed” language can be full of wit. Unlike suggested in class, I don’t believe these two friends are romantically involved in any way. I would like to imagine Shakespeare being exposed to a few galpals in real life that opened his eyes to the other sex, because no play has ever focused on female bonding in this time. In that time men were expected to be in a bromance, but women weren’t given a lot of focus.
ReplyDeleteJaques is the logic and reason of the play. He is also the one that is uncertain. He is always the observer and never the observed, which annoys him. Anyone who has ever been an outcast can relate to this character. I also think his speech at the end of Act II demonstrates his frustrations with conventions. The grass is not greener on the other side for Jaques; it’s just grass! Maybe Jaques shouldn’t over examine the world. His expectations may be a little to high.
previous comment is Felicia Doyle.
ReplyDelete1. I truly believe that the contrast between characters speaking in verse and prose give readers and audience members an insight to the mood of the conversation, the relationship between characters, and the characters themselves. As we discussed in class, the changing of verse to prose between Rosalind and Celia helps us see how close their relationship really is. It helps reveal how deep their love for each other runs. This changing from verse to prose, however, also shows the exact opposite when it comes to Orlando and Oliver. They lose all facades and let their anger take over: Orlando because he wants what is fair and what his brother has deprived him from, and Oliver because in spite of his effort to oppress his brother, Orlando has still shone brighter than him. I believe that Shakespeare composed their argument in prose in order to show the severity of how each feels towards the other which leads to the reason behind Oliver's attempt to kill his own brother. Jealousy can turn anyone into a monster.
ReplyDeleteThe prose that is spoken from these four characters are distinctly contrasted when they are placed in different situation and begin speaking verse. For example, in the scene where the duke banishes Rosalind, readers and audience members are able to see how the atmosphere has completely made a 180. We are also shown when Oliver talks to Charles how much of a mask that his language really is. He sets his brother up to be destroyed by Charles by alluring to Charles in verse and playing on the fact that Charles is loyal to him. He talks down about his brother and I believe that he makes it more believable by talking in verse because it is how people of the upper classes and ranks speak, therefore Charles could see more credibility in Oliver's words.
2. I have to be honest, Jacques was one of my favorite characters while watching the movie. So far, however, I am not feeling as strong of a liking towards him while reading it. Although, I take into consideration that if I saw a different version, I may not like him as much either. I believe that the character of Jacques and how he comes across depends greatly on the actor who is portraying him. Of course, that is the case for almost every one of Shakespeare's characters, however, I feel like the portrayal of Jacques is more detrimental to how the audience members like and perceive him. In the play, while reading, I agree with most of my other classmates in what kind of role he plays. I agree that he seems very out of place. However, I also believe that the contrast he represents is almost necessary. In certain ways, he makes things funnier by contrasting the other characters so much. He is the reality check in a play full of ridiculousness. In the past few years, I have become more aware how dark the world really is. I think that while Jacques is a tool to contrast with the humor and silliness in the play, he is also there to give readers and audience members something to take out of the play. Something deep that actually has worth. I do agree with Macy on the idea that he is Shakespeare's voice and the idea that was presented in class that all of his plays represent the "All the world's a stage" speech. That this play is just one of the seven stages that Jacques talks about. I do not believe that the play would have been as effective if Shakespeare would have left out Jacques, which I certainly believe could have been done considering I do not see any part of the plot that he is absolutely detrimental to. I am very interested to see if I start to grow more of a liking for the Jacques on the pages as I did to the one in the film throughout reading the rest of the play.
Kelsey Jackson
1. It seems to me that Jaques serves the role of a sort of narrator for the readers/viewers of the play. Although he never addresses the outside audience, his musings and general presence do not necessarily move the story of the play forward, but they make the audience consider notions of the play in his terms. For example on page 33 he discusses the advantages of being a fool and indeed wishes himself one; after the rash, foolish events that occurred in earlier in the play, it directs the reader/viewer to contemplate a life of rash action and the abandonment of reason, a life that only works out in fictional plays. His famous “all the world” passage is another opportunity for the reader/viewer to identify his/her own life stage with those of the characters in the play. In other words, Jaques does not seem to belong in the play because he seems crazy and out of place in comparison to the other characters, but his presence provides a certain substance to the overall foolishness of the story.
ReplyDelete4. As opposed to a well-developed Shakespearian tragedy (think Caeser), As You Like It kind of throws a story together in the beginning solely for the purpose of setting up a later event. Instead of explaining the significance of the characters’ family history, these two youngens immediately fall in love, both find themselves suddenly in the forest, and other people that they may or may not know also are in the forest. For example, pages 35-38 feature the meeting of Orlando and the Duke Senior and his friends in the forest. Never once in Orlando’s dialogue did he introduce himself by name, but the Duke Senior knows who he is by a “faithful whisper” and he can see the family resemblence in Orlando’s face—how convenient. How convenient that he even stumbled upon his father’s old best friend in the forest. Such undeveloped convenience in order to get to the “meat” of the play are part of the comedic value of the play.