My initial plans for this blog were to rewrite "All's Well that Ends Well" in plain English. I felt that maybe by translating it I would find more understanding, literal understanding that I could internalize. What ended up happening was that by page fifteen I was exhausted. I found that I could not continue writing, not because the task was long or arduous but because I had come to a realization of sorts.The more and more that I translated the more and more the play lost its meaning. By changing the language I was effectually deconstructing the art. Taking beauty right out of the piece. If critics felt that "All's Well that Ends Well" was bad before, then they really didn't want to read it in plain English. The content of the play is certainly alright however the language is what gives Shakespeare his panache. Upon reaching page fifteen I lowered my hands from the keyboard and surrendered. I bowed down before the text giving Shakespeare some much deserved reverence. I feel that this blog now is my amends for committing hubris against the master and his quill. Shakespeare to use Wordsworth's words sees into the life of things.
In all honestly regardless of convention I quite enjoyed "All's Well that Ends Well". What I liked was that while remaining a comedy it broke with the conventional comedic progression. To be honest I tire easily of comedy. I am a tragedy person. Back to the point of comdey AWTEW stood apart from the other Shakespearian commedies. There are acouple of instance where I noticed (may not be terribly insightfull but this is what I got). For example Betram and Helena marry somewhere in the middle the play breaking the tradtional marriage as an ends. So all the while the reader asks themself how will this end, "the marriage already took place and the man has run off." I feel that the play does end with the marriage, but in the form of the consummation of their marriage. What is really fitting to the comedic tradition is that everything pans out in the end. The title is quite appropriate because it is that over arching theme of the how comedies end, they...well...end well.
Separate from comedy I would like to briefly discuss a portion of the play that I found most interesting. The dialogue between the clown and the countess in Act I.III. Presumably the dialogue is supposed to be jovial however there were a few lines that I found to resonate with me in a more serious manner. The first of which is the line spoken by Lavacht (the clown). The Countess asks him why it is that he must marry and he replies, "My poor body, madam, requires it: I am driven on by the flesh; and he must needs go that the devil drives." (Shakespeare) I reread this line over and over, and then the section over and over. Initially I felt that Lavacht was being a pervert, and that he made his comment as an overt illusion to lust and sinful craving. Then I got this meloncaoly feeling, because the notion of being driven by the flesh implies the existence of the biological clock, the temporality of life (mortality) and impending death. This in conjuction with a line that follows shortly there after I found some other meaning. Lavacht then says, "I have been, madam, a wicked creature, as you and all flesh and blood are; and, indeed, I do marryn that I may repent." (Shakespeare) From this I began to gather another meaning. I feel that Lavacht in some ways did intend his comments to be somewhat lascivious, however they entail deeper mythological meaning. I think that this is an allusion to the myth of original sin and how no matter how hard we struggle that we cannot be sepearte from the sins of the flesh, and that humans are of sin by origin. That being said, if original sin is an inherint part of our being then what is the point of fighting the 'urge". Then the devil come into play because he was the instigator of the original sin and as a result he set humanity in motion, hence the devil drives.This section holds relevance because I find that it is a underlying comment of human sexuality and marriage as the medium in which sexuality is acceptable (to a certain extent). All these conclusions of course have been drawn together in my mind and may not be as relevant as I think. I am also starting to find that Shakespeare may not be as into marriage as his character let on.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Intellectual Relapse in Shakespeare
 |
| Original Art by Roberto Amado-Cattaneo |
This blog is somewhat irrelevant. Recently I have been reading some contemporary literature. Actually I am more often than not in the process of reading some contemporary literature. Regardless, what I noticed is that when I read contemporary literature I find myself amerced in the material (I am talking about good material not crap, if I am not into a book I put it down and move on). When it is funny I laugh and typically when it is sad I cry, as well as a myriad of emotions in between these two. The point is that I am affected by the material I am reading. There is a certain connection to the text that I feel as a reader.
Now forgive me for my ignorance, but I just don't feel the same way when I read classical literature. That is not to say that I am not affected by works like that of Shakespeare, but the feelings are not quite as acute. I feel a kind of social detachment from older works. I understand what they mean and can still relate in general terms, however I feel a disconnect because I can't relate to the times. The universal issues that find their way into Shakespeare like love, loss, death, etcetera are still as much alive today as they were then, but in the same breath times have changed. I live in a different age than Shakespeare.
Honestly I think the biggest hurtle that I have to over come is the language. The language is beautiful and articulate, but as a result of this kind of linguistic relativity I find I am stretching to find meaning and thus loosing feeling. Like anything else when it is done with ease and comfort I find it more enjoyable, and when I am outside my level of 'comprehension' I find that I struggle to enjoy the activity.
None of this is to slight Shakespeare's significance, or to downplay classical works of literature, it is more of an acknowledgement of my difficulty studying Shakespeare, and what this course is teaching me about myself as an 'intellectual', a student, and a literate human being. Blogs like this one help me to create an outlet for my frustrations in pedagogical realm.
Again I find that I am in a kind of intellectual relapse. I end up falling back into a habit of reading objectively looking to hard for connections to historical context and literary influence. I have to realize that I don't know as much as I would like, so I must stick with the basics. On the top of that basics list is reading for my own enjoyment, and secondly for my intellectual enrichment. Otherwise what is the point of reading, if you can't enjoy it? That is like going to watch a movie to only to focus on the dynamics of light. I need to just watch the screen and enjoy the show. I am working on trying to find a balance in my mind between intellect and imagination.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
As You Like It: Turner and Mythology
In class on Thursday of last week it seems to me that we (Professor Sexson) covered pretty much every aspect of mythology that takes place in Acts I and II of "As You Like It". However turner has a whole chapter on "As You Like It" and though he doesn't talk about explicitly about mythology he does make some interesting points in regards to Time and other underlying themes.
As I had said before Fredrick Turner's book focuses on aspects of Time in Shakespeare's work. In the case of "As You Like It" he focuses on three aspects of time: Objective, Subjective, and Natural. Using these three notions of time he describes how different characters and occasions exhibit these different notions of time. Natural time pertains to the characters exile in Arden. Turner calls this time natural time because it operates according to the seasons (nature). What is interesting is that Turner views Arden as being in perpetual spring. However he also acknowledges how each of the characters tries to enact their preconceived perceptions of time on their environment. I tried tying this to mythology by using the ideas of the Pastoral place versus the Urban. I can remember a class I took at the University of Washington called "Dreaming the Earth". In that class we read Vigil's Eclogues. In the Eclogues Virgil juxtaposes the Pastoral with the Urban. In that Pastoral place life operates upon a different pace. People like Virgil's Tityrus live a peaceful life (resting, playing music, tending his flock).
What is interesting is that upon a rereading I came across a passage that reads, "teach the woods to re-echo the name of beautiful Amaryllis" (Virgil). In my opinion this is reminiscent of Turner's idea that the characters in "As You Like It" bring their own perceptions with them into the pastoral place, much like Meliboeus in "Eclogue 1". To take it one step further if you think about the Elysian fields (pseudo Greek heaven) this is the pastoral place of mythology. The place of rest. The pastoral is not only real because it exists in nature but it is also an ideal, a dream of sorts.
Another notion of time that is covered is subjective time. This kind of subjective time in "As You Like It" takes place during the journey. Turner ascertains that journey time is one of rhythm, he even likens the act to the movement of a horse up down as well as forward. "This is time as pace" (Turner 39). This kind of time as a journey also takes place through out a play because a play, film or book is a thematic event with a starting point and an end. This journey becomes more and more explicit when the reader or audience understands the thematic structure, like that of a comedy. For instance the u-shape. This is how instinctively a audience member or reader knows the end is near without it being explicit e.g. a timer.Certainly there are physical aspects of reading etc.. that let us know the end is near for example the thinning number of pages remaining in a book. However I agree with turner. I feel that if the audience or reader etc... had not a way of measuring the time they would intuitively perceive where in the journey they lay based on the thematic sequence.
The most prevalent portion of Turner's Chapter on "As You Like It" focuses on Jacques and his notions of time etc...More though than time I found something else more interesting. Turner writes about Jacques famous lines, "All the world's a stage..." (Shakespeare). Even though Jacques is detached he also has the most historical and objective perception of time. That said time is meaningless in the objective sense because it has no real bearing on the world because there is only the present moment and nothing else, essentially the acknowledgement of a past and a future is to treat time like myth itself. What complicates this matter is that Turner believes that by Jacques saying all the world is a stage etc... his is inadvertently saying that the people (the players) are participating or acting in a play that has already been written. "A play exists before it is performed; time is like a motion picture, every frame of which has already been prepared" (Turner 33). Now where I get confused is whether that makes time more subjective or more objective. The idea of life as a play already written lends to ideas of fate. Like in mythology fate plays a huge role in every action and outcome in the lives of people. And I am spent.
As I had said before Fredrick Turner's book focuses on aspects of Time in Shakespeare's work. In the case of "As You Like It" he focuses on three aspects of time: Objective, Subjective, and Natural. Using these three notions of time he describes how different characters and occasions exhibit these different notions of time. Natural time pertains to the characters exile in Arden. Turner calls this time natural time because it operates according to the seasons (nature). What is interesting is that Turner views Arden as being in perpetual spring. However he also acknowledges how each of the characters tries to enact their preconceived perceptions of time on their environment. I tried tying this to mythology by using the ideas of the Pastoral place versus the Urban. I can remember a class I took at the University of Washington called "Dreaming the Earth". In that class we read Vigil's Eclogues. In the Eclogues Virgil juxtaposes the Pastoral with the Urban. In that Pastoral place life operates upon a different pace. People like Virgil's Tityrus live a peaceful life (resting, playing music, tending his flock).
What is interesting is that upon a rereading I came across a passage that reads, "teach the woods to re-echo the name of beautiful Amaryllis" (Virgil). In my opinion this is reminiscent of Turner's idea that the characters in "As You Like It" bring their own perceptions with them into the pastoral place, much like Meliboeus in "Eclogue 1". To take it one step further if you think about the Elysian fields (pseudo Greek heaven) this is the pastoral place of mythology. The place of rest. The pastoral is not only real because it exists in nature but it is also an ideal, a dream of sorts.
Another notion of time that is covered is subjective time. This kind of subjective time in "As You Like It" takes place during the journey. Turner ascertains that journey time is one of rhythm, he even likens the act to the movement of a horse up down as well as forward. "This is time as pace" (Turner 39). This kind of time as a journey also takes place through out a play because a play, film or book is a thematic event with a starting point and an end. This journey becomes more and more explicit when the reader or audience understands the thematic structure, like that of a comedy. For instance the u-shape. This is how instinctively a audience member or reader knows the end is near without it being explicit e.g. a timer.Certainly there are physical aspects of reading etc.. that let us know the end is near for example the thinning number of pages remaining in a book. However I agree with turner. I feel that if the audience or reader etc... had not a way of measuring the time they would intuitively perceive where in the journey they lay based on the thematic sequence.
The most prevalent portion of Turner's Chapter on "As You Like It" focuses on Jacques and his notions of time etc...More though than time I found something else more interesting. Turner writes about Jacques famous lines, "All the world's a stage..." (Shakespeare). Even though Jacques is detached he also has the most historical and objective perception of time. That said time is meaningless in the objective sense because it has no real bearing on the world because there is only the present moment and nothing else, essentially the acknowledgement of a past and a future is to treat time like myth itself. What complicates this matter is that Turner believes that by Jacques saying all the world is a stage etc... his is inadvertently saying that the people (the players) are participating or acting in a play that has already been written. "A play exists before it is performed; time is like a motion picture, every frame of which has already been prepared" (Turner 33). Now where I get confused is whether that makes time more subjective or more objective. The idea of life as a play already written lends to ideas of fate. Like in mythology fate plays a huge role in every action and outcome in the lives of people. And I am spent.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Fredrick Turner. Stop blowing my mind!
A couple of days ago I received my copy of Fredrick Turner's book Shakespeare and the Nature of Time. Honestly the purchase of the book was accidental, I clicked purchase on my ipad by mistake and it couldn't be undone. Fifty bucks and a few days later the book came into my possession. Good bye Ted Hughes. The accidental purchase of Turner's book was the best book buying mistake in the history of my academic career.
As the title implies, the book is about Shakespeare and Time. The title got me excited because believe it or not I have almost zero background with Shakespeare and even less with his inspiring texts and theory inspired by his work. So I was glad to move into a more existential realm of analysis, one that focuses on Shakespeare's work and not everyone else's. Meaning, I don't want to talk about Greek mythology, Ovid, Borges or any other authors. I just want to read Shakespeare and talk about it. Believe it or not that is exactly what Turner does. He takes the text and talks about it. There is a little Eliot in there and a little Bible, but not enough to distract from the task at hand. It is almost like Turner mentions them as hypotheticals (read them if you want or don't. As you like it). What is so refreshing in terms of a theoretical text is that Turner's book reads nothing like a theoretical text. As a reader you can almost feel the excitement in his writing. There is a feeling of shared exploration and enthusiasm. He uses exclamation points for Christ sake. I have yet to see an exclamation point in a theoretical text.
At the moment I am only two chapters into Turner's book and I am floored. As I read I am continually letting the book fall into my lap as my mind goes running in a thousand directions (in a good way). It would seem that the topic of time would be a somewhat specific topic, but right of the bat turner divides it into the nine notions of time:
1. Objective
2. Subjective
3. The Agent
4. Realm/Sphere
5. Natural
6. Medium of Cause and Effect
7. Moments and Periods
8. The Revealer/Unfolder
9. Rhythm
These nine notions bleed into almost every conceivable aspect of the human condition (perceptions, ideas, actions, etc...) After Turner establishes these notions he moves on to chapter two entitled "Time the 'Destroyer' in the Sonnets. It is here in this chapter that I am just beginning to understand a part of Shakespeares' method and purpose. I am starting to see a method in the madness. I say madness because in some respects I read Shakespeare and have no !#$&ing idea what he is saying. I realized I am going about the reading all wrong. I was trying to use the metaphors as abstracts to describe the concrete, while I should be using the concrete in the metaphors to describe the abstract. That the images in his work are in and of themselves the meaning. I found that I have to read Shakespeare as myself (a living breathing person). I have to give up my analytical mind and go with my literary instincts (kind of like following my gut). I need to let myself feel what emotions, feelings and thoughts are created by the images within the metaphors.
That is all I can really rant about at the moment. More is to be uncovered. I am just glad that Turner could actually help me. So often I feel that I read literary theory only to be confounded even more. I'll read theory, all the while yelling, "Speak English! What are you saying? Just say it." This I feel is a new beginning for me, a period of illumination as well as appreciation.
Jim Croce - Time in a Bottle
As the title implies, the book is about Shakespeare and Time. The title got me excited because believe it or not I have almost zero background with Shakespeare and even less with his inspiring texts and theory inspired by his work. So I was glad to move into a more existential realm of analysis, one that focuses on Shakespeare's work and not everyone else's. Meaning, I don't want to talk about Greek mythology, Ovid, Borges or any other authors. I just want to read Shakespeare and talk about it. Believe it or not that is exactly what Turner does. He takes the text and talks about it. There is a little Eliot in there and a little Bible, but not enough to distract from the task at hand. It is almost like Turner mentions them as hypotheticals (read them if you want or don't. As you like it). What is so refreshing in terms of a theoretical text is that Turner's book reads nothing like a theoretical text. As a reader you can almost feel the excitement in his writing. There is a feeling of shared exploration and enthusiasm. He uses exclamation points for Christ sake. I have yet to see an exclamation point in a theoretical text.
At the moment I am only two chapters into Turner's book and I am floored. As I read I am continually letting the book fall into my lap as my mind goes running in a thousand directions (in a good way). It would seem that the topic of time would be a somewhat specific topic, but right of the bat turner divides it into the nine notions of time:
1. Objective
2. Subjective
3. The Agent
4. Realm/Sphere
5. Natural
6. Medium of Cause and Effect
7. Moments and Periods
8. The Revealer/Unfolder
9. Rhythm
These nine notions bleed into almost every conceivable aspect of the human condition (perceptions, ideas, actions, etc...) After Turner establishes these notions he moves on to chapter two entitled "Time the 'Destroyer' in the Sonnets. It is here in this chapter that I am just beginning to understand a part of Shakespeares' method and purpose. I am starting to see a method in the madness. I say madness because in some respects I read Shakespeare and have no !#$&ing idea what he is saying. I realized I am going about the reading all wrong. I was trying to use the metaphors as abstracts to describe the concrete, while I should be using the concrete in the metaphors to describe the abstract. That the images in his work are in and of themselves the meaning. I found that I have to read Shakespeare as myself (a living breathing person). I have to give up my analytical mind and go with my literary instincts (kind of like following my gut). I need to let myself feel what emotions, feelings and thoughts are created by the images within the metaphors.
That is all I can really rant about at the moment. More is to be uncovered. I am just glad that Turner could actually help me. So often I feel that I read literary theory only to be confounded even more. I'll read theory, all the while yelling, "Speak English! What are you saying? Just say it." This I feel is a new beginning for me, a period of illumination as well as appreciation.
Jim Croce - Time in a Bottle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)