Answer TWO of the
following:
Q1: According to Hackett,
what qualities distinguish the verse of Marlowe and Shakespeare? Similarly,
what makes them distinct from one another? What does Shakespeare attempt in his
lines/speeches that is rarely (if ever) encountered in Marlowe?
Q2: Why does Marlowe’s
biography (or what little we know of it) shape the content of his plays? How
did this lead to the Renaissance scholar, A.L. Rowse to proclaim “Faustus is
Marlowe”? According to Hackett, where might we see some of his character in
the plays or characters themselves?
Q3: The great 18th century
poet Alexander Pope once wrote of Shakespeare: “His characters are so much
Nature her self that ‘tis a sort of injury to call them by so distant a name as
Copies of her...every single character in Shakespeare is as much an Individual
as those in Life itself” (99). While this might be hyperbolic, how does Hackett
explain the basis for this sentiment? What makes many of his characters seem
“universal” or “natural”?
Q4: Writing just before
Shakespeare took the stage, the poet Sir Philip Sidney attacked the theater for
creating plays where “you...have Asia of the one
side, and Afric of the other, and so many other under-kingdoms that the player,
when he cometh in, must ever begin with telling where he is” (109). How did
both Shakespeare and Marlowe commit these artistic ‘sins,’ and why do you think
they did so? Shakespeare, especially, was flagrant in disregarding the
classical rules of theater.
Q1- Marlowe and Shakespeare both share a distinct, yet similar style of writing, but each are unique in their own ways. Marlowe’s works seem to have a more relaxed feel to them, almost as if he is intentionally writing so that an audience comprised of all social castes can understand it. Shakespeare writes in a more “uptight” manner despite the increased frequency of puns. He also uses more iambic pentameter and increases the complexity of his syntax. To quote Dr. Grasso: “Iambic pentameter to the MAX”
ReplyDeleteQ2- Both Marlowe and Faustus are highly educated and tend to question the social norms that are imposed by society. It is possible that Faustus is actually a manifestation of Marlowe in an attempt to vent his feelings about the criticisms of society. This would have been the equivalent of a journal used to alleviate personal frustrations. Marlowe may have done this because he had no one to discuss his troubles with. Some of Marlowe’s beliefs, such as atheism, were so frowned upon by society that he simply could not freely express his thoughts.
I agree that Marlowe is a little more lax, but his language is not descriptive enough for me. It's more difficult for me to read Shakespeare, but I love picking apart poetry and language. And I think iambic pentameter helps the complicated language move more smoothly.
Delete1. According to Hackett, Marlowe's verses were more climactic. Also, she claims his lines were usually "end-stopped" - which means that his lines ran-on from one line to the next. This helped build energy, drama, and exhilaration. She said that this helped build up so much emotion and passion in his lines, that this is what separated him from Shakespeare. When it came to Shakespeare, however, she focused mainly on his use of language. Shakespeare has always had a knack for packing his lines full of emotion, but more so imagery than intense energy. His lines were far more poetic and beautiful than anything that Marlowe has ever written (in my own personal opinion). Shakespeare may be a little more difficult to read sometimes, but when picked a part and deciphered, his lines are more favorable.
ReplyDelete4. 'Sins' were a huge part of Shakespeare's writing. He's always been a sort of rebel, but that's what it took for people to enjoy true poetry/plays. Marlowe did this as well, but his 'sins' weren't as perverse as Shakespeare's. In Dr. Faustus, there's a scholar who is using his education for alchemy, or magic - which was highly, HIGHLY, frowned upon in the 16th century, since the only religions in Elizabethan Europe at the time were Protestant and Catholicism, which were both very strict. However, Shakespeare focused more so on the societal problems than religious problems. He had moors as main characters - and as high class characters. He made women have big roles in his plays. One thing that Sidney argued needed to conform to a genre. Plays were either to be categorized as "comedies" or "tragedies", and there was both tragedy and comedic relief in almost every single play Shakespeare has written. He wasn't alive in the time of Shakespearean plays, but I think he'd be flabbergasted. Shakespeare broke a lot of rules, but he didn't seem to care. The raunchy and rule-breaking barriers is what made him famous, I think.
Marilyn Kull
ReplyDeleteQ2: Marlowe was praised for his openness on subjects that would otherwise be dangerous. Perhaps this is why his death fits. This also fits with Rowse's quote: Marlowe shares the views of Faustus when it comes to religion. Neither man leans toward one faith or the other, but in the end Faustus dies without salvation. In a way, Marlowe shares that fate because there is no body to verify his fate. Marlowe's characters often share the atheist view of the world.
Q3: Shakespeare is known for his many in depth characters. His ability to add to the plot and characters was part of what made his writing unique. Each of the characters that Shakespeare employs has layers of hidden characterizing that make each one unique, and this is the quality that makes them "natural". No two people are alike and as such no two characters are the same.
1: Both Marlowe and Shakespeare have similar writing techniques and styles, yet they are also very different. Marlowe tends to really build his writing up, making the climax exaggerated and exciting. Whereas Shakespeare tends to care less about the plot of the play and more with the language the characters use. While Marlowe tends to focus on really exciting things such as emotion and conflict, Shakespeare tends to get lost in the scenery and the imagery of the play. While both were well liked, one tends to favor the stage, Marlowe, and the other, Shakespeare, cannot be beaten in writing.
ReplyDelete4: We see both Shakespeare and Marlowe play with controversial topics, and even develop controversial characters throughout their careers. Marlowe often plays with taboo topics such as witchcraft or satanic issues such as in Dr. Faustus. Shakespeare however privileges minorities in many of plays. We see a great example of this in Titus Andronicus through Aaron’s character. Both tend to play with topics that would make the crowd uncomfortable or uneasy, perhaps to keep them on their toes, or perhaps to cause them to ask questions. In many instances these taboo topics or characters are a direct challenge to society, and allow the play write, perhaps as well as the audience, to rebel against the norm.
Q2: Marlowe was viewed as an atheist, which would point to the similarity between Faustus and himself, and as a man of mystery, possibly a spy but no one really knew about his life- much in the same way- as Faustus' private life is guarded and he has no close relations, except with demons.
ReplyDeleteQ3: I believe Shakespeare and Marlowe viewed man as flawed and the under belly of society can show this principle very well. Both men wrote characters from all over the world and spotlighted the unsavory ones: Women, Moors, Jews, etc. Both writers pinned controversial plays that went complete4ly against the norm at the time and both men, I believe, were commenting on the rigid, boring, ritualistic setting of England at the time by showing how "others" operated in and outside their cultures.+
The second paragraph is in reference to Q4. Sorry about that.
Delete1. Shakespeare tends to get lost in the 'here and now', if that makes any sense. He would rather write poetry about the environment than about the emotions or difficulties like Marlowe does. Shakespeare also enjoys playing with the fourth wall, almost inviting the audience inside rather than poking his character's head through it to address the audience in question.
ReplyDelete2. Marlowe is a literal wild card. Mysterious, well-educated, possibly violent, and potentially a secret agent. He writes often about people who are at the top of society, so with his potential history, it's easy to wonder if he took inspiration from reality. No one even knows for sure what religion he aspired to, if he aspired at all, and Faustus does bear some resemblance to Marlowe. Both are educated men, considered top of their craft, but it was too dangerous to be outright in your doubt. It's possible that Doctor Faustus is merely a window to a very different conversation than what it appears on the surface. A play of morality, or a play on the debate of religion itself? No one has a single freaking clue.
Daniel Bonar
ReplyDeleteQ3: What really makes Shakespeare’s characters so universal is the fact that they all deal with, as Hackett calls it, “essential and timeless truths about human nature” (100). This means that while his characters are designed, and in some cases hinged on their time in history, the morals behind the driving forces of the play are still very alive today. So while we may not all be walking around with rapiers, or biting our thumbs at each other, we can still feel the emotions of the characters because themes like, love, hate, life, death, or victory and defeat are all experiences that we still have every day, centuries later.
Q4: Hackett says the rules of theatre required that “a play should observe ‘unity’ of time and place, presenting a story that takes place in one setting and within one day; and that it should conform to a genre, either comedy or tragedy.”(109). Both authors broke the “rules” of theatre by writing plays such as Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus and Titus Andronicus. Dr. Faustus, broke the rules by letting the story take place over a span of twenty some odd years, instead of the same day. In my opinion, Marlowe did this because he understood that a story sometimes needs time to breathe and work so that the audience could, in a relatively short time, see what they would consider the natural progression of the story. Otherwise he would’ve had to go through an entire story with a butcher’s knife, taking out everything but the bare essentials of the story. This would lead to a cookie cutter story with no life to the characters and would appear more as a bullet point production than what we would call “theatre”. Shakespeare was equally guilty with Titus Andronicus because while it is a Tradgedy, there are scenes such as the meat pie massacre that are seriously funny, even though its actually deathly serious.
Q1: Sometimes I feel as though Marlowe reads more straightforward because he often leaves out the elaborate metaphorical descriptions that Shakespeare uses readily. If Marlowe were a more modern artist, perhaps we could liken him to Hemingway, whereas Shakespeare is perhaps more like Faulkner, who packs so much into his verse that we have to piece together what is actually being communicated. Shakespeare takes great care to give his characters poetic masterpieces for their lines, even if it goes against or confuses the actual storyline. Marlowe seems a bit more concerned with the overall congruency of his work, building to a climax and resolution in a more traditional style.
ReplyDelete2. As others have said, there are many similarities between Marlowe and his character Faustus. It is very possible that Marlowe used his artistic ability to put forth a narrative on the problems he saw with both the church and the state, which were very connected at the time. It is said that there was a manuscript found that held some sort of "vile heretical concepts" which lead to Marlowe's arrest. I am sure a similar manuscript could be found in Dr. Faustus's possession had he been a real person. Maybe it was simply a draft of the sequel he intended to write before his mysterious death. The world will never know, but thankfully he is immortalized in many ways though the writing that he left behind.