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.  

For Thursday: Bevis, Chapters 4 & 5

As usual, here are a few ideas to consider as you read through the next two chapters on "Plotting Mischief" and "Underdogs":

* Why is the nature of a joke a frustrated expectation--or an unexpected surprise? How is this beneficial for society as a way of "maintain[ing] data integrity"?

* Why can we consider a joke as much HOW it is told as what is told? Why is delivery so important?

* Chapter 3 talked a bit about love as a form of comedy, and in Chapter 4 we learn that "to be in love is to have lost the plot" (52). What does this mean? How does this help make love comedic--and the reason we have romantic comedies, and not as many romantic tragedies?

* What does Bevis mean by saying "Comedy is often a story in which people can believe their luck" (53)?

* E.M. Forster said that "In a novel there is always a clock," but the clock in a comedy doesn't run in a normal fashion (unlike tragedy, which is run on a dramatic, methodical tempo). Why is time so skewed in comedy? And why is comedy not exactly about getting to the point?

* How does the film, Groundhog Day, provide a metaphor for the very philosophy of comedy? What does he learn that anyone who finds themselves in a comedy would learn?

* Why does comedy make more sense from the perspective of an underdog? Why do we have less comedies of the upper classes, rather than the lower (or middle)?

* The word philosopher invites the pun "foolosopher," which many "fools" in plays and movies certainly warrant. Why is the fool--the one who cracks the jokes--often the wisest man or woman in the room?

* What are the two types of fools in plays, particularly Shakespeare's? Why is one more 'foolish' than the other?

* Why did comedy develop past merely laughing at the fool to imagining "what it would feel like to be a fool or clown" (71)?

* Is it true that we can really only laugh at ourselves? Is that the essence of comedy (again, the idea of identity)?

Short Presentation Assignment

“Comedy characteristically begins with desire before encouraging us to laugh at it, but—in doing so—it can also reconcile us to desire, make it somehow easier to live with” (Bevis 18).

On Week 3, I want to spend both classes presenting short examples of comedy from throughout our culture as curated by you, the students (the true experts on modern comedy!). I want you to find a short clip, maybe 3-5 minutes long, from something you find particularly funny. It can be anything: a show, a movie, a skit, a stand-up comic, a song, etc, so long as we can watch it like a spectator. Show it first, and then I want you to briefly answer the following questions for the class:

 

1.      Why is this funny? What makes it comedy?

2.      How is it subversive? Why might someone find it threatening or inappropriate?

3.      Which chapter in Bevis’ book (Chs.1-5) does it most connect to? Find a specific passage or idea from one of these chapters (we’ll discuss them all next week) that made you go “ah ha!” when you watched it. Help us briefly appreciate the connection. 

For example, remember how we watched and discussed the skit, “It’s Business Time” form The Flight of the Conchords. This is a show that makes fun of something very taboo—a couple’s sex life—but also explores the real-life problems that come with routine. It’s not that having a “sex date” is bad, or that marriage is bad, but that sometimes we need to laugh at the absurdity of love to have a healthy relationship with our significant others.

DUE WEEK 3: Tuesday, January 30^th and Thursday, February 1^st (we’ll decide the order in class on Tuesday, so be ready to roll!). Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions or concerns, or come to my office before or after class (or during office hours) for help. Good luck!

For Tuesday: Bevis, Chs. 2 & 3

Be sure to read Chapters 2 & 3 for Tuesday's class, where we'll delve into more theories and ideas about comedy and what we find funny. Here are some questions to consider, one of which may return to haunt you on Tuesday:

* Bevis reminds us that "the comic cannot exist without sensousness'; the comic writer 'fastens our mind upon physical detail'" (21). Why is the body such a source of humor for audiences? Why do we need to be reminded of it--as well as the sensations relating to it--to achieve comedy?

* Why does comedy make more sense on stage than on the page? Why do we often need to 'see' it for it to make sense? Consider that Jorge Luis Borges, the famous writer, suggests that "Humour, I suspect, is an oral genre" (24).

* The word wit comes from the root "witan," which means "to know." How does this tie into the purpose of comedy as discussed in Chapter 1? Do you think this is still true today? Does comedy teach us "to know"?

* What does it mean that "all men are necessarily comic: for they are all things, or physical bodies, behaving as persons" (29). 

* Also, what does it mean to say "the body is the most imaginary of all imaginary objects" (32). Isn't the body the LEAST imaginary of all objects? Or is this a joke in itself?

* Bevis writes that comedy "is frequently born from the disparity between what a person is and what he affects to be" (39). Why is this funny, and how does this relate to the concept of one's "character"? 

* What is the difference between a character and a caricature? 

* Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying "One's real life is so often the life that one does not lead" (43). How might this explain the appeal of comedy and of the characters in a comedy?

For Thursday: Bevis, Comedy, Chapter 1: "In The Beginning..."

Be sure to read Chapter 1 (you don't have to read the short introduction, "Curtain Raiser," unless you want to) for Thursday's class. We'll respond with an in-class writing based on one of the following questions/ideas below. But feel free to use this as a guide to the reading to help you pick out important ideas or passages. 

* Why does Antiphanes claim that "tragedy is a cushy art," whereas comedians "have to invent everything" (9)? What makes comedy so much more difficult to create and stage for an audience? 

* What does Bevis mean that audience members in a comedy might be "participators as well as spectators" (10)? 

* Comedy has its roots in village festivals of drunkenness and sexuality, all of which celebrated the idea of spring and new life. How might modern comedy also represent this idea of regeneration and being able to "start anew"? 

* I used this quote in your syllabus, and really think it's an important one: what does Bevis mean when he writes "Comedy involves the construction of a creation myth you can live with" (14)? 

* Why is comedy more "dangerous" than tragedy? What is the secret thrill of watching a comedy, and related to this, what can comedy do to an audience that a tragedy, perhaps, cannot? What makes it more socially subversive? 

FINAL EXAM PAPER: THE FUTURE OF COMEDY: Due May 4th

INTRO: For your final exam, instead of giving you a comprehensive test over the various plays and authors we’ve read in class, I want you to apply your knowledge to a more modern branch of drama. As we’ve seen, even the most popular drama becomes dated when the allusions, genres, and characters fall out of fashion. To understand what made audiences laugh in ages past, it requires a bit of scholarly translation via footnotes and other editorial comments to help us “see” this world as clearly as the groundlings. However, the same will be true of our own entertainment. In one or two hundred years, students will dread taking Introduction to 20th Century Sitcoms since the language is “so hard,” and the situations “totally confusing.” The writers of Seinfeld or Friends could be seen as modern-day Shakespeares and Middletons, their scripts lovingly preserved in the pages of Penguin Classics and the subject of learned dissertations.

ASSIGNMENT (Part 1): to help future scholars appreciate the comedy of yesteryear, I want you to pick a short scene from a relatively recent comedic television show or movie (from the past 20 years at least, but the more recent the better) and add at least 3-4 double spaced pages of footnotes to it (consider those you see in Middleton’s books, or our Shakespeare and Marlowe volumes). These footnotes should gloss phrases that might not survive the ages, or allusions to other cultural practices or examples of popular culture. Try to imagine the ‘head scratching’ moments that your great-grandchildren will have when reading or watching this show. What knowledge is required to make the scene funny—to help people laugh? Remember, comedy is often entirely situational: if you don’t get the allusions and the references, the jokes simply aren’t funny.

ASSIGNMENT (Part 2): Additionally, I want you to add a 2-3 page double spaced introduction to your footnotes, explaining the cultural significance of this show/movie to its period. Why did people like it? Who watched it? Why did it matter? What made it “great”? Help future audiences understand its place in the literary firmament. Why are the writers of this show/film the next generation of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and Middleton?

REQUIREMENTS

• 3-4 pages of footnotes and 2-3 pages of Introduction
• Quote examples from the show/movie in your footnotes so we can understand what you’re glossing. Try to help your future audience as much as possible get the jokes/references.
• Have fun! Look at the footnotes in our Penguin and Folger books and try to write accordingly. Write about popular culture seriously.
• DUE ON OUR FINAL EXAM DAY: Thursday, May 4th by 5pm  
  

For Tuesday: Middleton, A Chaste Maid at Cheapside, Acts 3 and 4

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: If we squint, we can almost see the outline of Romeo and Juliet in this play: parents trying to marry a daughter off to a suitor she doesn’t love, while she meets her real lover in secret (and tries to run away with him); the daughter is threatened by her own parents, the lover fights a duel, and a lot of bawdy humor is thrown about. Though the plots are superficially similar, how does Middleton make sure his plays feels and ‘plays’ differently? What keeps this play a comedy despite events and circumstances which easily could—and maybe should—be tragic?

Q2: When we were reading The Revenger’s Tragedy, I asked about the play’s morality, and I want to ask them same question of this play: what seems to be acceptable ethical behavior in this play/society? How can people act and what can they get away with that the audience is supposed to take offense at? How does Middleton make sure we understand when he disagrees with the morality of his characters? How do we know to laugh (or sneer) at them?

Q3: When Maudline Yellowhammer’s son, Tim, arrives back at home from Cambridge, he insists his name is “Timothius,” and he tries to speak Latin as often as possible. Though Middleton (as a playwright/poet) is not against learning or Latin, how does he satirize Tim’s character? What might he represent about the Yellowhammers in general? You might also think about modern parallels to his character in TV/film.

Q4: One of the more humorous scenes in the play is also one of the least important to the plot: Act Three, Scene 2, when all the Gossips and Puritans converge on Mistress Allwit and her newborn child. What is the significance of this scene, and why might this have been written specifically to delight his audience? What might make them laugh or nod with recognition throughout the scene?

For Thursday: Middleton. A Chaste Maid at Cheapside, Acts 1 and 2

General Synopsis of the Play, from Shakespeare's Globe: 

Under the Lenten laws, the buying and seeling of all flesh is forbidden. The avaricious goldsmith, Yellowhammer and his wife, Maudlin, plan to marry their daughter, Moll, to the decadent knight, Sir Walter Whorehound and their son Tim to the knight's supposed Welsh cousin. However, Moll is in love with Touchwood Junior and Tim seems too naive to wed the Welsh gentlewoman.

Sir Walter, meanwhile, has secretly sired six children by the wife of Jack Allwit, who is very happy to earn an easy living from the knight. Mistress Allwit is about to give birth to her seventh child. Sir Walter's cousin, Sir Oliver Kix, is unable to have children. The cousin knights are competing for an inheritance that will pass to the first child, born within marriage, that either manages to produce. Promiscuous Touchwood Senior, elder brother of Moll Yellowhammer's suitor, to made aware of the Kix's situation and offers them a remedy - at great expense - that he guarantees will end their childless plight...

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: The play takes place at Cheapside, once a famous marketplace in London; this allows us to see various classes mixing in one place (much like a theater) with all the comedy inherent in this mixing of classes. Discuss a scene where we see Middleton satirizing a specific class or type of person in a way that might have delighted Londoners (who all knew these types--and some of whom WERE these types).Consider some of the types of people who mingle in the first two acts: Puritans, goldsmiths, maids, gentlemen, promoters, gossips, etc.

Q2: Unlike all of the previous plays in class, A Chaste Maid at Cheapside is an almost documentary account of the people who really lived in London just outside the theater doors. What strange customs or realities does the play reveal about early 17th century England that we could never otherwise see or know? What makes this such a strange, energetic environment?

Q3: Comedies require more translation than most plays, since most of the humor is topical and easily lost on a modern audience. Discuss a brief scene where you were completely lost without the footnotes, and show how the footnotes help restore some of the sense and humor to the play. Or, what are you still confused about? Why doesn't the scene 'play' in your mind?

Q4: In a play about the lower strata of society, the play has surprisingly little prose (though it often does lapse into prose). Why do you think Middleton had some many of his characters, even the Wench in Act 2, Scene 1, speak in verse? Discuss a brief scene where the use of verse is important to what is being said and who is saying it.