For Thursday: van Es, Chapter 3, "Love" and Act V of Midsummer Night's Dream

Be sure to finish the play if you haven't, and we'll talk more about Act V specifically and the play within the play--and what it's like to see that on-stage. Also read Chapter 3, "Love" from Shakespeare's Comedies so we can figure out what Shakespeare is doing with the idea of love, coupling, and marriage in this play--and if we have a bona fide happy ending.

Some ideas to consider:

* Do Titania and Oberon live "happily ever after?" Does she forgive his trick? Do we?

* How is Act 5 a commentary on the act of performing and writing a play? Why does Shakespeare give us so much behind the scenes chatter? 

* What is it like to be in the audience watching another audience? What does the audience laugh at and object to? The same things we do? Does laughing at the play's own jokes ruin the joke?

* Why is Pyramus and Thisbe a bad play? Does Shakespeare use any of these techniques (flaws) in his own play? Is he showing us one bad play to help us 'see' the bad 'acting' in his own?

* Why end with a play rather than a marriage? Is it anti-climactic? Or does it take away from the "comedy" of a Romantic Comedy? 

* How does Shakespeare subvert the comic norms from Roman and Renaissance drama in his Romantic Comedies? (according to van Es)

* Why do women generally get a larger role in Shakespeare's comedies (or in the Renaissance in general)? 

* What do we learn about Shakespeare's ethos and ideas from an adaptation like She's the Man? What has to be changed or updated? And what is lost?

For Thursday: A MIdsummer Night's Dream, Acts 3-4 (and mabe 5)

 

* We didn’t talk about the actors last time, so think about how they represent a satire of contemporary acting in Shakespeare’s day, including in-jokes and references to acting/actors. What’s so funny about how they approach acting—and why might an audience used to watching actors find this particularly funny?

* Consider how the way characters talk to one another describes their relationships. Why does Hermia, for example, speak in couplets to Helena but not to Lysander? Why do lovers, in general, speak without rhyme?

* Are Helena and Hermia like Proteus and Valentine in Two Gentlemen? In 3.2, Helena reproaches Hermia of being unfaithful, since they were once “Two lovely berries molded on one stem.” Do women have the same close friendships that Shakespeare reserved for men in his earlier plays?

* Examine how Demetrius and Lysander both woo Helena: how does their language change from what it once was? Look, too, at the metaphors and imagery they use to woo.

* How do you read Robin Goodfellow (“Puck”): as an unwitting fool who can’t do anything right, or a “wit” who knows what he’s doing and is all the more menacing because of that? Consider, too, his final trick on the lovers in Act 4.

* On the same token, what about Bottom? Is he another witless fool, or is he a true “fool,” and perhaps even something of a tragic figure?

* Why does Shakespeare stage a play-within-a-play in Act 5? What is the effect of watching the audience watch a performance (all of whom are actors)? And what does the Athenian audience say about the performance that might echo what we say about it?

* Does the play end as a true comedy, with marriages and everything set to rights, or is it also like Two Gentlemen, a somewhat uneasy compromise between comedy and tragedy? Do we feel that everyone has received their just desserts? Is everyone sufficiently “happy”? Or are they simply forced to leave the stage?

For Tuesday: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Acts 1-2

NOTE: A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play that is constantly pitting different worlds against one another, as van Es explained in his book. So you will find the word of the forest/faeries (Oberon, Titania, Puck, etc.) vs. the world of upper-class Athens (Theseus, Hermia, Lysander, etc.) vs. the world of lower-class Athens (Bottom, Flute, Snout, etc.). To complicate matters, Theseus and Hippolyta are figures from Greek myth, though they exist side-by-side with the upper and lower-class characters in Athens who are really characters from Shakespeare's England. When these worlds mix, chaos--and comedy--ensue. 

* How do the paired lovers disucss the rules and ideals of love in the First Act? Consider especially Helena's speech in 1.1, and Egeus' complaint to Theseus at the beginning of the play.

* How is the moon used as a metaphor throughout the first scene regarding love and constancy? Consider Theseus' comment, "Changing faint hymns to the cold fruitless moon" (1.1). 

* Also, consider how characters play with the metaphor of "love as sight" throughout the first Act. For example, Hermia says, "I would my father looked but with my eyes," and Helena says, "Were the world mine, Demetrius being bated,/The rest I'd give to be to you translated" (1.1). 

* How do the "rustics" (the low class players) satirize the idea of acting and perhaps of Shakespeare's own theater? 

* The low class characters often use "malapropisms," which is the misuse of a word. Why are such mistakes funny? How would Bevis explain this? 

* Read Titania's speech in 2.1 carefully. What does this say about her character and about the nature of love itself? How does it offer a commentary on many of the themes/metaphors of Act 1? 

* How do the Spirits and they're arguments/conflicts echo that of the human world in Act 1? Consider the connections between Egeus and Oberon, and Titania and Hermia, etc. 

* Though prose and verse are pretty strictly followed in these Acts (verse for upper class, prose for lower), the use of verse often breaks from imabic pentameter into couplets and songs. Why does Shakespeare employ so many variations of poetry throughout Acts 1 and especially 2? 

For Tuesday: van Es, Shakespeare's Comedies: Intro, and Chapters 1-2

Okay, time to finally crack open our next book: Shakespeare's Comedies, which will give us insight into the historical period Shakespeare wrote in, as well as more food for thought about comedy and comedic conventions. Read the first 48 pages or so (no punishment if you don't get to the end), and consider some of the following ideas--one of which we'll write about in class:

* How did comedy as an art form change as Shakespeare was writing? How do his plays seem to reflect this?

* How did later generations view the 'problems' of Shakespeare's comedies? Do we find the same things problematic?

* What is the general rule for producing Shakespeare these days? Why are we less worried about "historical" accuracy and sentiment?

* What does van Es mean when he writes, "[the] strange quality of space is one of the reasons that there have been so few critically acclaimed films made of the comedies" (23). Why is space such an important factor in the comedies? Related to this, why are they often referred to as "dreamlike"? 

* The writer George Meredith claims that "some degree of sociial equality of the sexes is necessary for comedy to thrive" (27). Why is this? How might this explain the need for women to cross-dress so often in his plays?

* Shakespeare likes to "set a first world against a second world" in his plays, such as we see in The Two Gentlemen of Verona: the world of the court and the world of the forest (where the outlaws live). Why is this also important for comedy and to explore the social values of his time?

* According to van Es, what is the distinction between humor and wit? Does this jive with Bevis' ideas on the subject?

* van Es uses The Two Gentlemen as an example of Shakespeare's more dated use of wit. Why doesn't this translate as well for modern audiences? What are we missing when we hear this or see it on stage?

* According to Freud, what is the difference between humor and jokes? How does one relate to our "unconscious" thoughts and desires?

* In a passage that seems to echo Bevis' book, how does comedy play on social taboos and desires? In Shakespeare specifically, how does this play into his discussion of women's virtue? 

Short Paper #1: Comedic Personas

William Holman Hunt's depiction of Act V of The Two Gentlemen of Verona (the "happy" ending)

“By the time the comedy has ended, the lesson seems to have been that character is not something you are, but something you play. Many comedies have been entranced by the image of a person who never quite coincides with themselves, even when that person is at their most single-minded” (Bevis 38).

For your first Short Paper, I want you to write a character study of ONE character/role in The Two Gentlemen of Verona. In this paper, I want you to explain why this character is “funny,” or comical, or absurd through their inability to play their given role in the play.

By their “given” role, you might examine one or more of the following…

• Their identity in a relationship (a friend, a lover, a son, a daughter),
• Their identity in society (a gentleman, a gentlewoman, a servant),
• Their identity in language (prose and verse).

Comedy often comes from people acting against type, or what we expect them to perform in a given situation. Language allows Shakespeare to take this to another level, since who someone is can be undercut by what they say and how the language “creates” their reality (to quote George Constanza from Seinfeld, “it’s not a lie if you believe it”). To make this convincing, choose 2-3 passages that you can close read to help us see how you read the character’s conflicting character, and who they are throughout the play (even if this persona changes from one act to another). Why do they shift personas? What makes them ‘betray’ themselves and others? And how aware are they of these transformations? Does anyone else see them? Are they made aware of it? Do they listen?

REQUIREMENTS

• Quote from Bevis, Comedy: A Very Short Introduction to help analyze the character and the play. Don’t just use the quote above as your one and only “source!” Show me that you can make both books “talk” to each other.
• Close read 2-3 passages from the play to illustrate the character’s persona.
• Cite page or line numbers properly and include a Works Cited page for both books.
• DUE IN-CLASS on Thursday, February 15^th (we will discuss it in class)

For Thursday: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Acts 3-5

Finish the play for Thursday, and if you feel bogged down by lines you don't understand, don't feel afraid to skip (since you wouldn't catch everything in a performance, either). Look for passages you do understand and try to examine them more closely.

As always, look at how Shakespeare uses language:
* When does the language seem more noble, passionate, or poetic than usual?
* When does it descend into the most common, rambling (but hilarious) prose?
* When do characters seem to be speaking in clichés? Saying what "sounds" good rather than what makes sense?
* When are characters cracking jokes to the audience? Look for "asides"

Also, consider some of the following...

* Proteus is the biggest actor in the play: how many roles does he actually play? How many people is he deceiving? Consider Sylvia's line at the end of the play to him: "better have none/Than plural faith, which is too much by one" (5.4.51-52).

* Lance returns in Act 4, scene 4 for another big scene with Crab, which is typically hilarious. Yet it is also touching, much more so than his last one. How does Shakespeare ennoble Lance through his seemingly artless prose? How does he emerge as a more heroic figure than Proteus here?

* Julia transforms dramatically from Act 1 to Act 4-5. What allows her to do this? Is this consistent with her character? Or is she learning to 'act' like Proteus, her lover?

* Why are the women more constant than the men? Is this a convention of the time (women are virtuous, innocent, etc.), or should we read more into this?

* How does Proteus instruct Thurio to woo Sylvia? How does it do it himself? What does this say about the conventions of lovemaking in Shakespeare's time? Do these work on Sylvia?

* How does the play satirize the relationship between masters and servants, particularly when so many servants are "masters" (Proteus acting as Thurio's servant in love; Julia acting as Proteus' servant, etc.)?

* When Valentine is offered the leadership of the outlaws, he makes them promise to "do not outrages/On silly women or poor passengers" (4.2.). So why does he excuse Proteus' behavior to Sylvia--and once forgiven, even offer to give Sylvia over to her body and soul?

* Why doesn't Sylvia speak again in the play after the rape attempt? What do you think she's doing in the rest of the act, since she's still there--just silent?

* Does this play end as a comedy--or as something different? What would modern audiences make of it?

For Tuesday: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Acts 1-2

A 2014 RSC Produc tion of The Two Gentlemen

In class on Thursday, we watched the First Act of The Two Gentlemen of Verona in a 1983 BBC production to discuss how to "see" the wit and comedy in his language. Be sure to read the post below this one, which discusses the difference between prose and verse in his plays--this will be VERY important for our discussions, esp. on Tuesday. Consider, too, some of the ideas below for our in-class writing on Tuesday, which will ask you to write about one of them:

* Bevis writes that "one of comedy's most frequent and enduring topics is the vexed, intimate relationship between the rulers and the ruled" (67). How do we see this in the first two acts? What is being made fun of about this relationship?

* Which comic characters emerges as fools? Unwitting fools? How can we tell?

* Bevis writes that "Being in love it itself a comic double act. The couple rely on wit to gain some mastery over feelings that they cannot quite control" (26). What scene seems to embody this quality of comedy? 

* Bevis also writes that comedy is discusrive, not always concerned about telling a methodical, logical plot. Which scenes seem the most pointless or out-of-place to you? Why might Shakespeare have included them?

* How does the play satirize the conventions of love even while making the characters fall in love? In other words, how is Shakespeare making us laugh at ourselves when we fall in love in order to better understand how and why we do it? 

* What parts of the play transcend the page? That is, what would have to be seen or acted to truly be funny? You might consider a character like Crab, who is said to be the greatest non-speaking role in Shakespeare. 

* Like many of Shakespeare's early comedies, we find pairs of men and women: Julia and Sylvia; Valentine and Proteus. This can be confusuing for a modern audience, since we mistake one for the other--and on the page, it's hard to distinguish each one's characteristics. Why might pairs of young people in love lend themselves well to comedy or comedic situations/accidents?

* Bevis reminds us that in comedy, "a mistake is often something you secretly want to make" (18). Where do we see such mistakes in this play? 

Reading Verse and Prose in Shakespeare’s Plays

The fun of reading Shakespeare is less in the plot (most of which he borrowed from other sources) than in his characters and their language.  In Shakespeare, characters speak a mixture of poetry and prose, though at different times and for different reasons.  Conventional wisdom says that the upper classes speak verse and the lower classes speak prose.  However, this crude distinction would make for a very boring kind of drama, especially since the Shakespearean stage was bare by modern standards: the language ‘clothed’ the actors and helped us see who they were (classes, personalities, ideas) as well as characters’ relationships to one another.  Characters often switch from prose to verse and back again depending on whom they’re speaking to or who they are in a given situation.  The language is another actor on stage.  

PROSE: You can tell if a character is speaking in prose since the sentences look normal: that is, they go from one side of the page to the other.  Also there is no strict meter or rhythm (though prose can be very poetic!).  Prose is often used by the lower classes, though just as often between intimates (Beatrice and Benedick), among people being serious or honest, or when people are alone with their thoughts.  It’s often used as a way to create a comedic atmosphere, since prose is closer to the earth, whereas verse exalts common speech to a more poetic realm. 

VERSE: Verse is used for various reasons in Shakespeare: to invoke a more ‘epic’ character, to speak of love, or for formality.  Often, this puts us in a more tragic frame of mind, which can happen even in the comedies.  Characters typically speak verse to their superiors or in a courtly/public setting; however, some characters never switch into prose (perhaps due to insecurity?) and even think in verse.  You can tell if a character is speaking verse by the way the sentences are presented on the page.  For example, in Much Ado About Nothing, we find:

PEDRO:          Dost thou affect her, Claudio?

CLAUDIO:                                                     O my lord,

                        When you went onward on this ended action,

                        I looked upon her with a soldier’s eye,

                        That liked, but had a rougher task at hand

                        Than to drive liking to the name of love (I.1.280-294). 

These lines are in iambic pentameter.  An “iamb” means an unstressed + a stressed syllable.  “Pentameter” means a meter of five iambs.  So each line should have roughly 10 syllables, starting with an unstressed one followed by a stressed, etc.  For example, Pedro speaks 8 syllables: “dost THOU ah-FECKT her CLAU-dee-OH?”  Claudio then finishes the line with “o MY lord,” which makes it 11 syllables, which is okay (possibly Shakespeare’s actors pronounced Claudio with 2 syllables, though sometimes he uses an 11-syllable line).  This is interesting since characters are part of one large poem, their sounds and thoughts often echoing one another. 

Sometimes, Shakespeare will depart from iambic pentameter for songs or other significant moments.  But generally, he uses iambic pentameter to give his plays their unique rhythm and poetry.  As you read, note how he shifts from poetry to prose, who speaks what, and when, and why.  Often how one speaks is just as important as what one says.