Catching up on Shakespeare

[S. Gomez]

With so many varied interests and hobbies, I often find myself going through cycles of focussing in on one of them at a time. One month I’m heavily steeped in studying ancient history, then Victorian literature, then Star Trek and other science-fiction, then The Lord of The Rings, etc. Right now, as you can probably tell by my avatar...it’s Shakespeare again.

I haven’t read every play (yet), so I’m taking the opportunity to catch up on those I haven’t. I started with Park Honan’s Shakespeare: A Life (which was excellent, by the way), then reread Romeo And Juliet...which for some reason I didn't enjoy quite as much as I did before; I hope I'm not getting too cynical, I'd hate that. Now, having finished Great Expectations for school, I have no more long reading responsibilities for the semester: let summer bookishness reign!

Cymbeline: This was one of the plays I hadn't read. One word: disappointing. I had been led to believe that while the plot left something to be desired, the writing was beautiful. Instead I found the reverse was largely the case; the writing apart from a few brief flashes of genius (such as one of the most beautiful funeral songs I've ever seen) is fairly limpid while the story, though not very well plotted, has a great deal of potential. Imogen was my favourite character (not a huge surprise), while frankly no one else made much of an impact. I'm not sorry I read it, nor was I even expecting it to be Shakespeare's best, but it was still a little disheartening. Maybe King Lear (which I've read before) will cheer me up.

I can't believe I just typed that last line...

 

[Christopher]

I keep meaning to get out my Riverside Shakespeare and read all the plays and stuff I've never read. But I never get around to it.

On the other hand, my father has to read stuff aloud as part of his speech therapy, and he's chosen Shakespeare as his text. So he's been re-reading it a lot lately.

 

[WillsBabe]

I love Shakespeare but I prefer to see it staged than read it myself. I love seeing different staging of the same play, too, to see the variety of interpretations of lines and settings etc.

 

[Holdfast]

On the other hand, my father has to read stuff aloud as part of his speech therapy, and he's chosen Shakespeare as his text. So he's been re-reading it a lot lately.

Interesting choice for speech therapy; certainly challenging and requiring careful diction. I like your father's style!

 

[Kegek]

Maybe King Lear (which I've read before) will cheer me up.

I can't believe I just typed that last line...

Nor can I. My favourite Shakespeare play is Titus Andronicus, but I prefer Marlowe generally. Obviously those are two closely related ideas, as Andronicus is one of the more Marlovian entries in the canon. I liked Cymbeline, it's amusing in an odd way.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I've read most of the Histories (the sole exception being Henry VIII) and Tragedies (except Troilus and Cressida and Timon of Athens), but only a few of the Comedies, which I generally don't think are suited to be just read; they need performance to capture whatever it is that makes them funny, whereas drama/tragedy can be read just fine on the page. It's been a while since I read Cymbeline, but I recall that I liked it.

I'm drawn to the Histories, especially the ones like King John and the Henry VI plays, which are really underrated in my opinion.

I'm currently reading my Riverside compendium of non-Shakespeare plays that I got for a university course (we had to read six plays there, from Marlowe (Faustus), Webster (The Duchess of Malfi), Beaumont (The Knight of the Burning Pestle), Middleton & Rowley (The Changeling), Dekker (The Shoemakers' Holiday), and Kyd (The Spanish Tragedy); since then I've read one of the few Marlowe plays I hadn't already read (Tamburlaine the Great) and I'm now reading an Anonymous tragedy, Arden of Faversham.

 

[Kegek]

^
Tamubrlaine the Great is one of my favourites. Timon of Athens is okay; Troilus and Cressida is an interesting enough take on the Trojan War.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I've only ever been moderately interested in Marlowe; he's got some fine verse, but his stuff never measures up to Shakespeare's (as the joke goes, the best way to determine that Marlowe didn't write Shakespeare's plays is to read Marlowe's) in my opinion; Doctor Faustus is usually held up as his masterpiece, but the middle drags the whole thing down (Goethe's is my favourite take on that story, as totally incoherent as it is). My favourite Marlowe work is The Jew of Malta, which is delightfully nasty, and has an infectious energy to the proceedings (actually, the paper that I should be writing instead of posting here is a comparison of Jew with The Merchant of Venice, which, diabolically, will serve as my final paper for both my Shakespeare and Renaissance drama courses; yay for merging).

 

[Kegek]

I love Marlowe because he's got a gloriously cynical black wit. He's a consistently fun read, in both plays and verse. Andronicus is really the only Shakespeare play that makes a serious stab at Marlovian tragicomedy.

 

[S. Gomez]

I agree about the performance issue, although I also think it differs from person to person, and that reading and performance go hand in hand when it comes to appreciating Shakespeare's powers. But anyone who claims to love Shakespeare MUST see him on stage. I don't often get to see many productions (much to my chagrin), which is particularly inexcusable since Vancouver's Bard on the Beach festival is run every summer. Among this year's offerings is King Lear! I have determined that if I miss it I must die.

Never read Marlowe. Determined to, but I never get there.

Ah yes, the Histories. I love the Histories, especially the second tetralogy; Prince Hal's/Henry's character arc is remarkably powerful, and Henry V is my favourite play from the series. Speaking of which: I mentioned before my varied interests, one being history. I've discovered to my horror that Medieval history is not something I'm terribly knowledgeable about. If anyone knows of any good (ie. thorough and readable) books dealing with the Hundred Years' War, and particularly with the kings of Shakespeare's plays, would you mind posting? Thanks in advance.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I went to Stratford (Ontario) in 2006, and saw Coriolanus (Colm Feore in the lead) and Henry IV, Part I (which really benefits from performance; the court scenes are fine, but the Falstaff rustic humour defines the kind of stuff you really need to see performed to find funny/affecting). Other than that, it's just movies and the text for me (Prince Edward Island really only has musical theatre, and the occasional university production of a Renaissance play; this year they did Beaumont's The Knight of the Burning Pestle, which was very fun).

 

[S. Gomez]

^How is Coriolanus? That's another one I haven't read.

 

[Harvey]

^^
I read it a year ago. Thought it was very, very good. A highly underrated play of his.

Never cared for Titus, though, Kegek. I have to admit, though, Julie Taymor managed to turn an okay play into a cinematic masterpiece, at least in my humble opinion.

 

[CaptainCanada]

^How is Coriolanus? That's another one I haven't read.

Pretty good; one of his more underrated tragedies. The final moments strike me as a bit rushed in terms of one character's changing perceptions, but otherwise it's quite enjoyable. It's also quite interesting to see the take on Coriolanus vs. the people, since Coriolanus, the hero, is totally contemptuous of ordinary people and feels he shouldn't need their support to be their consul (probably the most memorable line is when he compares giving them input to allowing crows to peck eagles).

 

[Goliath]

I recently read a play by one of Shakespeare's contemporaries: The Devil's Charter by Barnabe Barnes. This was not up to Shakespeare's standards, but interesting nonetheless. It was about the Borgias, in Renaissance Italy, and portrayed Pope Alexander VI as a sorcerer who had made a Pact with the Devil.

Indeed, one of the most interesting parts of the play was a scene where Alexander VI summons the demon Astaroth to reveal the name of the Duke of Candia's murderer. Barnes had obviously done his research, because the magical ritual in this scene is taken from a real magical grimoire, the Heptameron of Peter of Albano.

Although Barnes wasn't a great poet, I was impressed that he managed to turn the grimoire's magical incantations into blank verse.

 

[S. Gomez]

King Lear: Not my first encounter with the play, but the first time I’ve read the Quarto text on its own. I remember coming away from my previous reading exhausted by the sheer weight of the story, let alone the complexity of the language and the density of the plot’s themes. This time, approaching it with a vague familiarity, I get the same sense--but in a much better way. The language is now to me a great deal clearer (thank you, Oxford Shakespeare; although the Arden had notes as well), and the thematic motifs and character relationships are things to delve into more deeply. I hope to do that after reading the Folio text. And it will all be aided by the fact that I convinced Mom that we should plan to go see the production being put on by Bard On The Beach.

Phew. All the tragedy’s making my head whirl. A Comedy next, I think. Let’s see...ah yes. As You Like It.

 

[Kegek]

Good choice. Always liked As You Like It.

Someone wittier than me would have made a dashing pun, but I disgress...

 

[S. Gomez]

^"Not my favourite of his plays, but What You Will."

No, wait. That's a different play...

 

[CaptainCanada]

Phew. All the tragedy’s making my head whirl. A Comedy next, I think. Let’s see...ah yes. As You Like It.

I've read that; pretty good, and the Branagh film version is quite fun (not his best, by any stretch; I really wish he'd get back to the Histories or Tragedies).

 

[stj]

For those of us hours away from stage productions of any type, much less obscure Shakespeare plays---are the old BBC productions of all Shakespeare's plays available on DVD? (Netflix?) They were supposed to be particularly good for the lesser known works.

A note on Marlowe vs Shakespeare---Marlowe's first six plays are superior to Shakespeare's first six plays in my opinion. Comparing the two is like comparing Alexander and Genghis Kahn. The disparity in life spans is just too much for a valid comparison I think.