Read these two short chapters for Tuesday's class so we can discuss what others think of Titus, and some alternative theories for why the play is so funny (intentionally or unintentionally so!).
Answer two of the following as usual, even though I offered you five questions (there's a lot to talk about!):
Q1: Wells notes that despite being a run-away success in its day, Titus Andronicus has been almost unanimously reviled by critics until the mid-20th century, with comments like "[it is] one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays every written" (16). What changed? How did people start to a see a different side of Titus, according to Wells? Do you think he agrees? Does he seem to personally like the play?
Q2: According to Chapter 6, everything in the modern world has become "flattened," so that instead of classical tragedy we tend to get "pseudo-tragedy." So what is the proper subject of tragedy today? What makes tragedy seem 'real' on the stage (or on the screen) today?
Q3: What does Poole mean by the statement, "first time tragedy, second time farce"? How could something tragic become silly by mere repetition? Does this mean Hamlet gets funnier the second time around?
Q4: Many speeches and scenes of Shakespeare are cut either for time or because they seem perversely undramatic. The scene in Act 2, scene 4, when Marcus responds to Lavinia's rape, is often seen as "consciously artificial writing" (19). But how can even this 'bad' scene become effective and interesting from another perspective?
Q5: Poole writes that laughter in a tragedy is more than comic relief; indeed, it performs an essential function in a play where the gods (or some other cosmic force) seeks to crush the spirit of mortals. What else does comedy or laughter do in a tragedy, and how might this relate to Titus Andronicus?
No comments:
Post a Comment