Check out a 2013 Royal Shakespeare production of As You Like It (Act 3, Scene 2) that takes a much more modern/global approach: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72pyUuNLuoE
Answer TWO of the following as a comment below:
1. Read Shakespeare’s
Sonnet 130 (or re-read it—this site has the poem and some nice
commentary/historical examples): http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/130. How is the discussion of love between many
characters in Acts 3 and 4 similar to the main idea/satire in this sonnet? What conventions is he mocking and what
qualities is he trying to affirm?
Unlike Jacques, I don’t think Shakespeare is trying to satirize love
itself, but rather, how we make love—at least in poetry and on-stage.
2. Touchstone and Jacques
are both the ‘fools’ of the play, and are something of mirror images. What ideas, dialogue, or general approach do
they have in common? Consider how they
interact with Rosalind, in particular.
Likewise, what makes them distinct, and possibly commentaries on one
another? How can we understand one
character through the ‘frame’ of the other?
(Think about their names, too!)
3. Note when iambic
pentameter comes into play in these acts: why is it used in these situations
and what effect should we see/hear when it is spoken? How might verse ironically become a comic device in As You
Like It? (Also, see if you can find
the scene in verse where, on a dime, a character suddenly resumes speaking in
prose—why is this?).
1. In Acts 3 and 4 many of the characters are satirizing or mocking other characters the instance that most resembles Shakespeare’s Sonnet 130 is an exchange between Rosalind playing Ganymede and Phoebe:
ReplyDeleteROSALIND
(coming forward, speaking as Ganymede) And why, pray you? Who might be your mother That you insult, exult, and all at once Over the wretched? What, though you have no beauty—As, by my faith, I see no more in you Than without candle may go dark to bed—Must you be therefore proud and pitiless? Why, what means this? Why do you look on me? I see no more in you than in the ordinary Of nature’s sale-work.—‘Ods my little life, I think she means to tangle my eyes too!—No faith, proud mistress, hope not after it; ‘Tis not your inky brows, your black silk hair, Your bugle eyeballs, nor your cheeks of cream That can entame my spirits to your worship. You foolish shepherd, wherefore do you follow her Like foggy south, puffing with wind and rain? You are a thousand times a properer man Than she a woman. ‘Tis such fools as you That makes the world full of ill-favored children. ‘Tis not her glass but you that flatters her, And out of you she sees herself more proper Than any of her lineaments can show her. But mistress, know yourself: down on your knees And thank heaven, fasting, for a good man’s love. For I must tell you friendly in your ear, Sell when you can; you are not for all markets. Cry the man mercy, love him, take his offer. Foul is most foul being foul to be scoffer. So take her thee, shepherd. Fare you well.
The description of the lover in the sonnet and of Phoebe are both satirizing their character and beauty only to point out that love is bind to it. That those in love are blind to the faults of the heart’s desire, therefore, it is satirizing or mocking love as well as the beauty of it.
2. Touchstone and Jacques define two very different types of “fool’s”. On the one hand, we have Touchstone uses clever commentary and good cheer to divert attention from of his courtly intelligence. The other we have Jacques who’s melancholy commentary bitterly and articulately challenges the nature of everything and everyone around him that is not as dreary and depressing as he is. As Jacques demonstrates, the "title of a fool" can serve a very valuable purpose in telling truths that no one else wants to say out loud or is allowed to say without severe ramifications being bestowed upon them. In the characterization of Jacques doesn’t Shakespeare emphasize that isolation and sadness can give the joy of comedy more emotional weight by that I mean that even though his demeanor is dreary we still find humor in it because of how over the top it is or can be portrayed (that and we are looking at it from the outside). That perhaps even in the heart of a clown there may be a little bitterness. I enjoyed both character’s for their unique qualities and found both to be entertaining to an extent but feel that the Duke choose wisely by not giving Jacques the title that he sought. A melancholic Jester (fool) could make the courtly life bleak when it is seeking merriment. Jacques does try to mirror Touchstone but falls short of the roll of a fool/jester. Not that he is not a fool of his own accord he is just a fool of a different sort.
Is this Lisa Edge? Be sure to put your name at the beginning of the comment if you sign in as "Anonymous." I want to give you credit for these responses! :)
DeleteYes it is sorry I thought that I had.
Delete1. In the sonnet, Shakespeare takes idealizations and turns them into everyday, even off-putting, descriptions of a woman. Whereas a poet might normally describe his lover as nearly a goddess, the sonnet makes her ordinary, crude, even foul-smelling! Phoebe believes that she needs a man to be harsh and demanding to feel loved, when she has Silvius, who's head-over-heels in love with her--but she rejects him. Rosalind, as Ganymede, seems the perfect "man" for her, but Rosalind tells her in no uncertain terms that no, really, take Silvius, PLEASE! It is an inversion of a man's proposal to a woman who's "pretending" to hate him, as was apparently fashion even in Jane Austen's time--Pride and Prejudice being an example. Rosalind, as Ganymede, tells Orlando that she will act as every negative stereotype when they're married--shrewish, weepy, et cetera--as just the opposite of what a man wants to do. Ironically, she's pretending to be a man who's pretending to do these things, which makes it a MAN being the negative stereotypes, which just goes to show that whatever the stereotypes of the day, they really don't fit and it's insulting to mash every person into them, as the one doing so is probably exactly like that as well. Silvius and the letter riff on the letter messenger who has no clue what he's ferrying around--Rosalind actually accuses him of being an accomplice. Phoebe's "love letter" is actually quite angry, as if she demands to know why her demands aren't being seen to...and why Ganymede isn't in love with her already. In addition, it also riffs on the idea that only pagan gods are allowed to be aloof to those who crush on them or be inconstant. Audrey, Touchstone's girlfriend, is a spit in the face of the idea that a woman who is beautiful can't be constant or faithful, or that a homely one cannot be unfaithful. In other Shakespeare plays, men are the ones orchestrating the love affairs of those around them, like Oberon, Friar Lawrence, or Prospero. Here, it's Rosalind.
ReplyDelete--Jessie Randall
4. It really depends upon the interpretation. For most of history in patriarchal societies, her ideas would be subversive, innovative, and downright clever and admirable for those who think it, of a sort, progressive. For her time, Rosalind would definitely be a kind of feminist, using her own talents to manipulate the men around her for her own designs. For modern women, who by now (at least in Western society) are used to (mostly) being able to throw their weight around in public as men do, she might be "fair" by feminist standards, or more stereotypically "rabid" feminists would rail against her as a setback of everything they stand for. But Rosalind's control is definitely satirizing and deconstructing male definitions of power. Rosalind recognizes that men don't view her as a threat except in political situations (Duke Frederick thought she was trying to usurp Celia's position in the eyes of the populace), and when they do, they feel threatened by her "unnaturalness." In order to trick them into thinking she has power in her own right (by making them think she's a man) she masks her "unnaturalness" and therefore makes herself even more dangerous, for now she is not only in a position to know how men and women think, she has a recognized position to protect or hinder whom she will. Some might think her need to be a man to do this devalues her. It doesn't. That she recognizes certain limitations allows her to surpass them. The play is quite modern, AND a comedy. For a man to be taken seriously in "feminine" aspects, he is generally depicted in an "emasculating" way when in drag--even in other stories today one is likely to encounter a belief that a man who is nice is a wimp, whereas a jerk or strongman is more popular. This, in itself, is not necessarily true. Just because Rosalind's controlling a comedy does not mean that her power is invalid--she's a trickster, and the powers of a trickster derive from the assumptions of society being turned inside out or ignored entirely, which is a lot more power than other archetypes.
ReplyDelete--Jessie Randall
Melissa Williams
ReplyDeleteDr. J. Grasso
Shakespeare Lit
January 26, 2014
1. Rosalind brings up the very ideals of beauty that Shakespeare mocks in Sonnet 130 in scene 3 of Act 3. “A lean cheek, which you have not, a blue eye and sunken, which you have not, an unequestionable spirit, which you have not; a beard neglecte, which you have not – but I prefer you for that (49).” Basically, he wants to prove that love does not come from the stereotypical ideals of beauty that a society sets forth. In fact, Rosalind makes fun of those ideals because she does not like that her imaginary uncle she describes to Orlando. Instead, Shakespeare sounds like he is trying to put forth the idea that ideals are not what people truly in love fall for. Instead, they fall in love with the people for the qualities that they have naturally. A much more tangible example would come from how men today think. They often admit they do not want a woman with fake boobs, fake tans, and fake hair. They want a woman to look like herself without any artificial enhancements.
2. Page 41 Needless to say, both men think of themselves as downright hilarious. Touchstone decides to be very vocal in his jokes and makes them obvious to be jokes. Such as on page 41 when he hears Rosaling reciting a poem. “I’ll rhyme you eight years together, dinners and suppers and sleeping-hours excepted; it is the right butter-women’s rank to market.” He makes fun of the idea that Rosalind has fallen in status so low as to be equal to him. Now, switching over to Jaques, we see the opposite view since rather than fall in status, he gains status by being around prior nobles. “But it is melancholy of mine own, compounded of many simples, extracted from many objects, and indeed the sundry contemplation of my travels, in which by often rumination wraps me in a most humorous sadness (61).”
2. I think that Sonnet 130 and As You Like It mocks the idea of idealized love. Sonnet 130 is basically deconstructing an airbrushed image of a relationship, and revealing that you can find beauty in someone despite their faults. As You Like It completely overturns any concept of a normal relationship. I think that the main idea that is communicated about love is that it is imperfect. It seems to portray this idea that true love can look beyond an appearance or mask to the truth beneath the surface. Sonnet 130 is unconventional, because even today we expect love to be this all consuming state of mind. We still have the misconception that love must be blind. Instead, it is a much more moving notion to acknowledge faults, but find affection despite of them. As You Like It shows this in relation to Phoebe and Rosalind. This is a satirical look at love, because Phoebe "falls" for Rosalind, because she points out her faults. Rosalind doesn't say all of the expected sweet nothings that she was expecting. Instead, she was honest with her about how she viewed her character. Of course, Phoebe's feelings are not reciprocated. However, it doesn't take away from the way that Shakespeare portrays love as something unscripted and flawed. Overall, I think that Shakespeare mocks the rehearsed rituals of love.
ReplyDelete4. I really don't see this play as a feminist play. The fact that Rosalind is dishonest for much of the play doesn't give a positive view of her gender. Also, she must don a man's persona in order to have power within the play. However, I think that this play does explore the power of sexuality. I don't mean this in a lewd way. Rosalind has power over Orlando, because he is attracted to her. In the same way, she gains power over Phoebe because she becomes attracted to Ganymede. I didn't read this as satirizing male power. It left an impression of a character that realizes that as a man she has more freedom. In my opinion, to be empowered Rosalind would have to show strength through her own means instead of a farce. It is modern, because there is still a power struggle between the masculine and feminine. This play works as a comedy, because Rosalind is working towards a feminine goal. In some ways, she is working to woo Orlando. If her goal was of a political nature, I doubt this play would be considered to be a comedy.
- Cayla O.
1. After reading Shakespeare's Sonnet 130, I was reminded of the scene where Silvius begs for Phoebe's love. Shakespeare's Sonnet mocks what others in his time would consider love poetry. Instead of relating one's lover to impossible beauty, the lover is described as plain. In the scene between Phoebe and Silvius, I feel like Shakespeare is also mocking the way love is approached. Phoebe has no interest in Silvius, who swears to die if he is denied of her love. This scene, as well as the other exchanges between characters in love, seems to mock how love is portrayed in the way that these characters seem to distort what love really is, whether it is based off of looks or rude awkward exchanges that somehow lead these characters to believe they are in love.
ReplyDelete4. I do not think that Rosalind's control and handling of the characters in this play necessarily makes it a feminist play. Rosalind does indeed seem the take the lead and embrace her disguise in basically every encounter she has with the characters. She does act very confident of herself and beliefs; however, she is dressed up as a man when she is doing this. I feel like if Rosalind wasn't disguised as a man, this play would feel more feminist because she would be controlling every character as a woman. I think that for this play to really be feminist, Rosalind wouldn't be disguised. I think this play is modern because it not only relates to today's movies, how love is portrayed, and strong female characters, but also because I think this play was way ahead of Shakespeare's time. Back then, women were not suppose to walk around owning the place, whereas today it is no big deal.
-Courtney White
1. The sonnet represents a love that happens despite several faults and common imperfections. It doesn't matter than the woman's hair isn't perfect or her breath doesn't smell good, as for one, these imperfections are seen in many other people as well, and two, to love someone is to love them despite what others may view as bad qualities or traits. The conversation between Touchstone and Audrey in Act 3 Scene 3, pages 51 to 53, showcases this, as the two of them talk about the features they do not posses and what one another thinks about that. Touchstone begins by saying, “Doth my simple feature content you?” They both start quipping about honesty, and Touchstone says that he wouldn't want Audrey to be both beautiful and honest as that would be too much. Touchstone then says that he would like her to turn into a slut after they're married. He doesn't care too much of Audrey's looks or how honest she is – he just wants to have sex with her; he “loves” her for who she is, though the love they share for one another is far from stable.
ReplyDelete4. One thing I found interesting is that the names Rosalind and Orlando are very similar in spelling, when the letters are broken down. Because of this, she immediately begins the play having a characteristic of that of a man, namely Orlando. Rosalind gains power when she becomes a man, which suggests that the power of manipulation wouldn't have worked if she had been herself. There are no women in power in the play, and the only way she got that power was when she became a man. Rosalind's rival, is in a way, herself. This is seen when she and Orlando decide to play act and she uses her alias Ganymede to pretend to be Rosalind in order to confuse Orlando out of love. The act doesn't hold up, because she is both parties, but nonetheless, she does battle with herself in that scene where she and Orlando pretends to get married. Would the trickery have worked if she had dressed up as another woman and tried to play with Orlando that way? Or could it have only worked if she was a man? Orlando likewise didn't recognize Celia, which suggests he wouldn't have recognized Rosalind as well if she had dressed up as another woman.
- Casey Fowler
1.) The discussion of love between the characters in Acts 3 and 4 are similar to Sonnet 130 in that the message is that love is not entirely blinded to all faults. Phoebes “love” for Rosalind is through her faults much in the same way that the poet in Sonnet 130 has fallen in love through faults. It’s as if both are saying that love is being in love with the person and their faults. Not simply being in love through mere looks and being blinded from the rest. Although I have to wonder if Sonnet 130 was not a love poem about some woman’s faults but instead saying that he had at one point fallen for all that because love had blinded him from that. In this case the characters conversations could seem even more satirical in that they are an exaggeration of the faults one completely misses when in love.
ReplyDelete4.) I don’t think this play is a feminist play. Yes Rosalind does satire the idea of men and male power, but she can only do so by being dressed as a male. I find that to be conflicting. Because she has to dress as a man in order to receive respect and “power” it doesn’t help for a feminist point of view on woman receiving those through being woman. The fact that she dresses as a man should be brought into consideration, because it is what faults it from being empowering to woman. Furthermore, being a “man”, she still falls for the stereotypical female emotions. She giggles at the letters; she falls madly insanely in love with Orlando. She/He says herself at one point that she is taken and controlled by female emotions. Even dressed as a man she doesn’t do much to break stereotypes.
-Jasmine Q
To answer question four, I believe Rosalind a dominant female character, but not entirely feminist. She is very true to herself. I don’t think freethinking and wit necessarily make you a feminist. I think her character is a way of Shakespeare standing up for women and their way of the world. When you know that the character is written into a play by a man himself that sort of defeats the “feminist” quality in my opinion. I do think Rosalind represent female identity and strength, but not enough to be feminist. For all her wit and charm she is still a bit naïve.
ReplyDeleteSonnet 130 relates black wires to Rosalind (as Ganymede) commenting on Phoebe’s outdated black hair. Phoebe, being the common person she is and not of the court, probably grew up believing that men were supposed to be mean to you. Rosalind seems as hopeless as Celia, Audrey, and Phoebe, but she has more understanding of what love really consists of. Sonnet 130 and Rosalind’s training of Orlando express that it takes more than silly poems, wit, and jealously to make love.
Felicia Doyle
1. In Sonnet 130, Shakespeare lovingly describes his mistress’s eyes as ‘nothing like the sun’, and he goes on to say she’s also got dull red lips, black wiry hair, and terrible breath. Orlando on the other hand is running around the forest posting his own poetry about Rosalind which not only places her on a pedestal but isn’t very good. It shows that he doesn’t understand her that well, especially when compared to what Shakespeare had to say in the sonnet. Kind of like Shakespeare’s earlier sonnets that were more idealistic and less real. Just like he understands the less attractive qualities about his mistress and how looks aren’t everything, Rosalind as Ganymede is trying to point out faults about Rosalind. I think Shakespeare is poking fun at people who do fall in love with someone at first sight and sometimes seem to be more likely in love with the idea of love. Maybe they exaggerate their own feelings, and they fall out of love whenever they discover the real person behind the idea. He shows this through all of these characters that meet and share only a few lines or have very brief encounters but still profess this profound and deep attachment. Yet it’s not justified by their interaction except that maybe somebody is really hot.
ReplyDelete4. I don’t think of As You Like It as a feminist play because even though Rosalind is the leading character, despite her better qualities, she’s kind of silly. She is a strong person though. I think her character is more about making fun of the stereotypical image of men. I kind of view her part in the play as a coming of age story in a way. She’s lost her father, Duke Senior, through exile, and then she is later turned out herself by the usurper, Duke Frederick, along with her cousin and defender Celia. Before this, the two girls have grown close and become much attached to each other. They are smart, witty, and also very playful. They love to play act and run circles around lesser intelligent persons like Touchstone- or even people just not in the know with their jokes. Despite being smart and witty, I picture them as kind of giggling girls that are playing games who can be very silly. They’re able to put a formal face on whenever they need to, but they’re still immature. After being cast out, Rosalind readily takes on this Ganymede persona but doesn’t drop it whenever they’ve established themselves safely in the forest. Instead she continues that playing the game. She draws Orlando in to test his love and get to know him while trying to make him get to know who she really is. I looked at this as like having a friend go get the scoop on a guy to see if he really likes you then bring back the information, except Rosalind has alleviated the middle man by becoming a man. As Ganymede she teases and taunts Orlando but still manages to be in everyone’s business kind of like a nosy or dramatic teenager. She grows through her experience though. The turning point is whenever she sees the bloodied handkerchief and shows that she really cares for him. She reveals who she is, and Orlando plays if off like he kinda knew because Ganymede reminded him of the duke’s daughter. In the end, Rosalind gets her fairy tale ending that every girl wants.
Kim McCreery