This 120 year old play is still surprisingly fresh and laugh-out-loud funny today, though the Victorian-era society it critiques is a thing of the pasThis 120 year old play is still surprisingly fresh and laugh-out-loud funny today, though the Victorian-era society it critiques is a thing of the past. It is light and playful, though this belies its complexity – in plot, structure and in the subtly crafted digs at class and sexual relations. I had assumed this play was going to be quite serious and dull, so reading it was a very pleasant surprise....more
King Lear is more subtle and complex than some of Shakespeare's other tragedies: it's difficult to point to a single theme or moral that comfortably eKing Lear is more subtle and complex than some of Shakespeare's other tragedies: it's difficult to point to a single theme or moral that comfortably encapsulates it. Unlike, say, Macbeth, which largely revolves around the actions (and their repercussions) of the titular characters, the various supporting characters in King Lear seem to possess more independence, depth and agency. Each has their own complex motives and weaknesses, and they appear to wield real influence over the story, rather than simply being locked into some fixed tragic arc. This is a play I would really like to see performed; it is difficult to appreciate the full expression of these characters on the page.
Due to its complexity, I felt that the play was also a little loose and unfocused. And at times, some of the tragic events felt excessive or forced - not like a natural or honest outcome of the narrative. But I remind myself of the the context in which it was written and intended to be consumed. As always with Shakespeare, the shortcomings are slight in comparison to the brilliance of the language. ...more
Shakespeare's lyricism makes this play a worthwhile read, but there's not much to recommend it beyond this. The plot is weak and contrived, and the acShakespeare's lyricism makes this play a worthwhile read, but there's not much to recommend it beyond this. The plot is weak and contrived, and the actions of the characters are often a bit of a stretch. There is a good measure of humour, but the play relies a lot on witty repartee, much of which has lost its bite in the intervening 400 years....more
A Midsummer Night's Dream is very light in substance, devoid as it is of sinister plotsOn second thought, let's not go to Athens. It is a silly place.
A Midsummer Night's Dream is very light in substance, devoid as it is of sinister plots, murder and revenge. It's a whimsical comedy concerning potions, fairies and the capriciousness of love. It's fun, but I expect the greater part of the enjoyment is in the spectacle and the performance, not in the reading....more
It seems to be a recurring motif in Shakespeare's tragedies that mankind has a dark inner nature, which can compel otherwise decent people to commit tIt seems to be a recurring motif in Shakespeare's tragedies that mankind has a dark inner nature, which can compel otherwise decent people to commit terrible acts. While Hamlet was driven by a desire for vengeance and Macbeth by a lust for power, Othello's characters are dominated by jealousy. Man's jealous nature is of course the weakness that Iago is able to exploit so adroitly. It is what impels the pliable Roderigo to murder a man he does not hate, and it is what drives Othello to kill the woman he loves and with whom he has found perfect happiness. But it is also jealousy of the successful outsider and his foreign lieutenant that fuels Iago's own bitter crusade. Iago is not simply malicious, he is the embodiment of jealousy, both in nature and in deed. He is there in every scene, manufacturing evidence, undermining trust, and forcing characters to sabotage their own causes. In some ways he could be viewed as a symbol - a proxy for jealousy itself- or simply as a catalyst, for jealousy once allowed to take hold needs no man to feed it, nor any concordance with reality to confirm it.
There is an interesting way in which Othello mirrors Macbeth: both foreshadow the play's core theme in an ironic way in the scene which introduces the title character. At the beginning of the latter, Macbeth defeats the traitor Macdonwald, only to be later consumed by the same desire for power and himself become a traitor. In Othello's opening scenes Othello is unjustly accused by the possessive Brabantio, and is similarly cast in the opposite position at the play's conclusion. Indeed, Othello, for its contrivances and occasional melodramatic tone, is an incredibly subtle play, full of symbolism, and much more depth than this brief analysis would suggest....more
Macbeth is a relatively straightforward story, at least compared to Hamlet. Indeed, there is very little in the ending that comes as a surprise given Macbeth is a relatively straightforward story, at least compared to Hamlet. Indeed, there is very little in the ending that comes as a surprise given the prophecy that is revealed early on. Even so, there is a remarkable amount of tension that runs through the play. There is an interesting interplay between fate and choice - how knowledge of the prophecy affected the actions of the characters and catalysed its own fulfillment, even when characters believed themselves to be working against it. Nowadays, this is a bit of an overused trope, but you can see its origin here, and Shakespeare treats it well.
The overarching theme in Macbeth is the corruptibility of power. It appears almost as a character in itself; an unseen spectre who transfers at the beginning of the play to Macbeth from the defeated traitor Macdonwald. Even later we see in the reluctance of Malcolm to accept the crown, a fear that he too will be corrupted, and that his own evil will overshadow even Macbeth's. In fact, the play is only really tragic if we acknowledge this corruptible nature to be so consuming and intractable that it mitigates the culpability of the characters in their own actions. If instead we believe that Macbeth and Lady Macbeth acted honestly and in accordance with their moral character, then the outcome is justice to evildoers, not tragedy. Shakespeare suggests the former assessment by characterizing the corruption thus, and by exposing the Macbeths' extreme guilt and remorse. They are clearly not wholly unrepentant psychopaths, and the tragedy here is not in their demise, but in the eternal and inexorable weakness of humanity - its inability to resist its desirous nature.
The language of Macbeth is particularly poetic, full of little rhyming couplets and clever turns of phrase that had me smiling. I am going to abandon my reading list for the moment and just do Shakespeare for a while. It's such a pleasure to read.
Hamlet is probably the most widely read and performed of all plays, yet somehow I'd managed to avoid it entirely until now.
It's been about 20 years siHamlet is probably the most widely read and performed of all plays, yet somehow I'd managed to avoid it entirely until now.
It's been about 20 years since I'd last read any Shakespeare, and there were a few things that surprised me. It's certainly a lot easier to read as an adult than as a teenager. The language seemed a lot less cryptic, and it's fairly straightforward to follow with a little concentration. But what I found most interesting is how messy and unfinished the structure and the dialogue is. Somehow, reading Shakespeare when I was younger I felt that I was reading something permanent and authoritative, but actually the versions we have today are not definitive - they vary based on the interpretation of the copyists who reproduced the manuscripts, as well as the versions of the manuscript that were copied (plays being living documents that are duplicated, revised and developed throughout rehearsals). Acknowledging this fact changed my reading of Hamlet. The play took on a sort of draft quality - the narrative possesses an unpolished linear nature that somehow exposes Shakespeare's thought process - you can almost picture him with quill in hand scrawling the lines as they come to him, crossing out some but leaving most untouched. Even so, his use of language is stunningly rich and wildly inventive... but to say any more on Shakespeare's literary mastery would be redundant; it's almost axiomatic at this point.
However, there are certainly criticisms that can be leveled at Hamlet. The play lacks some amount of subtlety (although not in the prose itself), the plot is awkward at many points, the characters are often lacking in plausibility and consistency, and their actions are sometimes irrational and bewildering. This is not a play that is highly internally consistent or dramatically robust by any modern standard. These shortcomings are sometimes glaring to the reader, but do not even come close to diminishing the brilliance of the play. And indeed I suppose that kind of criticism is unfair - Shakespeare was writing to entertain the public of his time, not pretentious snobs scrutinising his work four hundred years later....more
This is a very short dramatic work; very different of course from McCarthy's novels, and different also from The Sunset Limited - being a screenplay iThis is a very short dramatic work; very different of course from McCarthy's novels, and different also from The Sunset Limited - being a screenplay it contains not only dialogue but extensive directions on framing and character acting. Even in this condensed and inflexible format, McCarthy manages to capture much of what makes his novel writing so great. I believe that his real skill is not only in the telling, but in knowing what to leave out: he never exposes his characters' inner lives (desires, motivations, fears), but instead lets you simply observe them and draw your own conclusions. The Gardener's Son is haunting and unsettling in that it never really explains itself. In fact, its protagonist at the critical moment is actively prevented from speaking, leaving the observers (both the reader and the other characters) to struggle for understanding. Beautifully subtle and skillful storytelling....more
Completely against my expectations, I loved Waiting for Godot. It is intelligent, the dialogue is witty, the characters are charming, and their actionCompletely against my expectations, I loved Waiting for Godot. It is intelligent, the dialogue is witty, the characters are charming, and their actions are at times genuinely funny. It is profound: it confronts the question of the meaning of life itself, but offers no obvious solution. I think it's a mistake to get caught up in over-analysis; to dig for symbolism and metaphor and attach to these an authorial intent. I don't think Beckett's aim was to create some sort of cryptic allegory. I think the point is for the audience to be prompted to cogitate about what it all could mean. The best art makes an artist of the observer, and Beckett does that so well here....more
I've always enjoyed the dialogue in McCarthy's novels, but stripped of the prose his dramatic works are inevitably crippled. Additionally, reading a sI've always enjoyed the dialogue in McCarthy's novels, but stripped of the prose his dramatic works are inevitably crippled. Additionally, reading a screenplay like The Counselor is not the natural way to absorb it, as so much of the intended artistic content is visual and left in the hands of the director.
Regardless of these caveats, I don't think The Counselor is as strong even as McCarthy's other dramatic works. It has a very contemporary feel, it dabbles with modern technology, and it is at times highly sexual - all these feel somehow unnatural and uncomfortable for McCarthy, and there are parts of this screenplay that really don't work, at least on the page (I have yet to see the film).
In some ways The Counselor is standard McCarthy, in that you can expect depravity, grotesque violence and the sense of inevitable destruction. But even considering the limitations of the format, there are some real problems with the execution, and the substance and themes do not seem to run as deep as his other works. ...more
I sought out and read The Stonemason for completeness, really (now I've read all of McCarthy's novels and plays), but I was pleasantly surprised - thiI sought out and read The Stonemason for completeness, really (now I've read all of McCarthy's novels and plays), but I was pleasantly surprised - this is probably one of his better dramatic works. I haven't seen this performed, so I'm evaluating it more or less as a written piece only. There are some interesting dramatic elements, like the lead character, Ben, narrating his dialogue from a separate area of the stage (his character's representation in the drama is a mute "double"). I'm not sure how this would come across when performed, but the idea is interesting enough. Here is an extract from the stage directions, which explains the use of the double - I enjoyed McCarthy's little philosophical asides here:
"What must be kept in mind is that the performance consists of two separate presentations. One is the staged drama. The other is the monologue - or - chautauqua - which Ben delivers from the podium. And while it is true that Ben at his podium is at times speaking for - or through - his silent double on stage, it is nevertheless a crucial feature of the play that there be no suggestion of communication between these worlds. In this sense it would not even be incorrect to assume that Ben is unaware of the staged drama. Above all we must resist the temptation to see the drama as something being presented by the speaker at his lectern, for to do so is to defraud the drama of its right autonomy. One could say that the play is an artifact of history to which the audience is made privy, yet if the speaker at his podium apostrophizes the figures in that history it is only as they reside in his memory. It is this which dictates the use of the podium. It locates Ben in a separate space and isolates that space from the world of the drama on stage. The speaker has an agenda which centers upon his own exoneration, his own salvation. The events which unfold upon the stage will not at all times support him. The audience may perhaps be also a jury. And now we can begin. As the mathematician Gauss said to his contemporaries: Go forward and faith will come to you."
The play deals with themes like death, purpose, loss, pride, family, self-destruction and redemption, with which readers of McCarthy's other works will be familiar. These central ideas are elusive enough that they can be contemplated, but not cleanly resolved at the play's completion....more
The already spare McCarthy is stripped to the bone. Absent is the wildly poetic, powerful language that defines his work. The resulting dialogue feelsThe already spare McCarthy is stripped to the bone. Absent is the wildly poetic, powerful language that defines his work. The resulting dialogue feels hollow and empty, like staring down the cool void of the metaphorical train tunnel that is at the centre of this work. This is a dialogue that is really an expression of an internal monologue: both a struggle for faith, and an argument against it; a search for meaning in life, and a demonstration of its absence; a plea to love oneself and to love humanity, and a case for suicide. You will be driven down a wandering path between desolation and salvation, and the destination will be of your own choosing....more