Passage Analysis -Comedy

I'd say Shrew's Introduction deserves a look at. In summary, the drunk Sly ends up falling asleep (drunk) outside a bar, where a lord comes and pulls a prank on him, telling him when he wakes he's a rich nutty noble. Now firstly, I'd like to point out that the same technique was used in Midsummer Night: a play within a play. Now, the shorter bit last time was the play in a play, Bottom's screwy tale. This time the shorter bit is the "reality," and the play in a play is the story. However, the point remains that there is still a story in a story. Bottom's interlude played its part, as it were, as does Sly's little tale. Considering the constant motif of secrecy and disguise, I'd say it's got its own hidden meaning. Sly is being presented a play in which a shrew is made a proper wife, and a proper wife is revealed to be a shrew. Well, I'd say the shrew made to a proper wife describes Sly, and the proper wife to a shrew is the lord. Why? Well, if I were a proper lord, I wouldn't consider it very lordly to screw with the minds of drunks. Sounds like a high school prank more than a bit of good mannered fun. Sly is now being slowly changed into a right nobleman. Or is he? Really, the lord is no different than he was before, nor is Sly. Is Kate going to remain exceedingly weak and mild-mannered? Heck, no, I'm half-thinking if Petruchio let her she'd drift right back to being outspoken, though more obedient in the end. Plus, I doubt that Bianca is that much worse than Kate. She might be independent, but she's a little more considerate and isn't as likely to fly off the hook. Point? The lord isn't that lordly and never was, he's a bit of a prankster at heart, and Sly is a drunk through and through, nothing to change that ever, not robes nor manners. He'll act the part soon, but revert back to a moron as soon as the jig's up.

Now back to the point of this...There's plenty of reasons why this is being included. One is the above. Secondly, the lord is only dressing Sly properly. He is not changing his personality or mannerisms. Outward appearance is nothing, echoed by Tranio and Petruchio's actions. Also, Bianca's "hidden" personality. At first glance, you'd be well fooled, but spend any amount of time around Sly or the others and you'd have them figured out fast. Also, the thought of things not as they seem to be could be applied to Shakespeare's work itself. He could have left this out, and the above message could still be obtained. Why stress again all is not as it seems? This is a play within a play. Sly is being given a play to mock him. Perhaps the play can be taken as mocking those that would marry solely for personality, or outward appearance? Perhaps he really doesn't want, nor think it possible, for women to echo Kate's final speech? By the way, that question's rhetorical, I really do think Shakespeare's playing games with us, as the lord did to Sly. Shakespeare is not glorying women like Kate. He mocks men like Lucentio and the fact that Petruchio went to such lengths to brag about his wife. The lord is going through very little effort to mock the simple Sly. And he mocks him for his idiotic pursuits and desires which are far out of his reach. The purpose of this intro is to stress that we cannot merely assume the outward appearance is true, and also to never think that our personal desires should be reality. We must think of what reality is and mend our dreams to a reasonable objective, and know that not everything will go our way.

Passage Analysis -History

For Richard III, I'll analyze the first speech by Richard at the start of the play. One of the interesting things done in this passage is Richard's descriptive and in-depth discussion of the setting. He tells us specifically that it was absolutely god-awful terrible before, but now it's absolutely fantastic, happiest it's ever been. However, Richard's an ugly duck, and couldn't get a date to save his life. (not without some crafty double-talk) He can't enjoy the peace and prosperity without being constantly reminded, "DARN, I'm ugly!" Therefore, he's going to be a real SOB and make everyone miserable.

Overall, this helps to show us early on just how corrupt and terrible Richard is. A fantastic peace has just rolled in, and everyone's having a terrific party. But he's not happy so he's going to screw it all up. So he feels better knowing everyone's as miserable as he is. He is directly opposed to the peace, the merriment, the good things in life. He just about makes himself the nemesis of all goodness right then and there. You are supposed to hate this guy from the start. And he tells you why, so you don't have any questions as to whether or not there's a shave of goodness somewhere in that black pit of his heart. Shakespeare obviously is trying to make a point here. Few characters would need to be defined as pure evil. Perhaps for the purpose of the play, we shouldn't have any doubts, stressing the deviation from history that makes the play fiction based on truth. Shakespeare wouldn't need to do this otherwise, as the audience would know what to expect if the real Rich III was that bad.

And right from the beginning, Rich is attempting to work his magic on us. He doesn't have a choice in the matter, he couldn't be a good guy even if he wanted to. This is all he's got left...boohoo... Yeah, right. Considering how he sweet-talked his way around later, I doubt his plight in the beginning made any sense. He's playing the audience from the start. Shakespeare is stressing the fact that this guy is a tricky, sneaky, double talking jerk, and doing it for a reason. From the start he's lying to us. From the start he's trying to get us on his side. Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to tell us that one must always be on our guard, because evil is against us from the very beginning to the very end. Also, would we have trusted him as well, had he not told us his plans? Maybe Shakespeare is giving us insight into the mind of an evil politician because we can rarely distinguish between good and evil ourselves. We can view things objectively, and we know who the real problem is. Had the opening stopped before he stated he would "prove the villain," we might have felt sorry for him, and been shocked when he executed Clarence. Perhaps the point is: can we always know what people are thinking?

Passage Analysis -Tragedy

Being short, I'll analyze Act 5, Scene 1. The whole thing. Firstly, the doctor and nurse are concerning themselves with Lady Macbeth's involvement in the crimes. However, they seem to be surprised more at the fact that she herself is involved, not the fact that Macbeth, also mentioned, has knowledge of it. After all, the nurse heard this before getting the doctor and neither of the two turned from trying to treat her due to this knowledge. It seems that they're expecting Macbeth to be involved, not Lady Macbeth. Thus, Lady Macbeth has been getting away with murder until now. No one suspects her, yet Macbeth is apparently very suspicious. Of course, the irony is that she orchestrated the beginning of this whole story. She is possibly the most responsible for the novel's events.

However, she was kept oblivious of Banquo's murder plans. From her quote on lines 44-45, she may also have been oblivious to the murder of Macduff's family. She's only really responsible for the one murder of Duncan, and she only carried up the daggers! Now Shakespeare's got to be stressing that all of these murders are her fault and the respective blood is on her hands. If it weren't for her pushing Macbeth, none of this would have happened. She is the real slaughterer here. And, interestingly enough, she was the one that was aggressive in the beginning. Now she's even more nervous than Macbeth was then. A sort of role reversal here. Now she's wishing she didn't push Macbeth to get involved in any of this. Sure, the king for the crown, but not everybody else around...

Guilt by association is the main point here. Guilt in two ways, in fact: legal and personal. She's responsible for these murders. She knows they're her fault. And she later kills herself for it. It's a little tragic in the sense that she ended up involved in a good deal of blood after Duncan, and having only made that one bad decision, but she is as guilty as Macbeth. She pays the price as well. Perhaps Shakespeare is also attempting to stress that, despite the appearance of being a good idea, it can be quite the opposite and much more than bargained for. A little evil goes a long way, so to speak. Better not to commit any one crime so as not to be guilty of any further, as it were. Another amusing point is that the nurse and doctor seem sympathetic to her. Again, it's an unfortunate mistake, but she is still responsible for it.

Genre Commentary -Tragedy

Well, like the Comedies, the Tragedies seem to have a couple messages and morals of their own. Of course, these are the more corrupting and terrible faults of mankind rather than simple human screw ups. Macbeth, for example, had a brilliant life ahead of him and likely could have gotten far as thane of Cawdor and Glamis. Of course, he ended up tempted by the prospect of being king and blew it all. Even the greatest of heroes can fall given the right leverage. And of course, he ended up arrogant later after the second volley of prophecies from the witches. Again, a major and classic moral of arrogance being one's downfall. The tragedy genre, being like the comedy genre, in that respect, I think might be used to drive a point home rather than pass it along with a laugh. The comedies give a fun day out and a lesson for the day, but tragedies could be meant to make something absolutely clear. A touching story meant to grab you, stop you, and make you understand something particularly important. (Didn't Joyce ramble something on tragedy to that effect in Portrait?) The tragedy genre is more of a lesson play than an enjoyment play. And, like I said earlier, the story is not static like a history. First Macbeth is the good guy, then he's the nervous bad guy, then he's the complete bad guy. First Lady Macbeth took center stage for evil, then she fell apart by the end of the play quite pathetically, with Macbeth leading the way where she stands unsure of her deeds. It keeps one's interest better than a history, because something's always happening. Thus, unlike Histories that allow you to think, "Well that sounds familiar," Tragedies make a point clear and don't let your thoughts wander. Purposeful and entertaining.

Genre Commentary -History

Histories were not quite history as much as story. (I suppose one can say they got rid of the friendly "hi") The purpose may have seemed to have been a cruel representation of Richard III, but I think it is a political play. Yes, to imagine Shakespeare a politician! Really, though, Shakespeare lived in a time where what Richard did in the play was commonplace in real life. Henry VIII executed two people only a few days after he took the throne (at a young age, mind you!) just because Daddy didn't like them. (Yes, even though Daddy was dead he still lopped off their heads.) Shakespeare also had several plays banned at different times because they had characters or events that were similar to events that had recently happened. Sound similar to stuff over here? Shakespeare was a politician as much as he was a literary genius. He was making a statement about the events of his time through fiction where anyone else of less prominence could lose their heads for so much as uttering it. Also, the play's events were based on rumor, and Richard was just as bad as the devil if not worse. I doubt the real Richard the Third was actually that bad. Sure, he may have made a few mistakes and done some unpopular things, I haven't checked exactly what, but I doubt he was the very incarnation of evil. Current example? Richard Nixon. Personally a snake like that shouldn't be allowed to roam the White House halls as freely, but he did do some decent things during his presidency. Of course, he did several less popular things, which is what the public always remembers. Perhaps there is a correlation between the two Richards. (though I'm sure they weren't nicknamed "Dick" for nothing, another amusing coincidence)

Either way, Shakespeare did use the Histories as a form of political discussion. He also keeps the audience objective by making the villains villains and the heroes heroes. The story is fairly static. There isn't a great change in character for anyone. Nothing to mourn except the events of the story, nothing to laugh at except the foolish nature of the characters. It's just telling a story, not trying to entertain us. It's telling us what's going on, not leaving us to wonder the next twist of the plot. The purpose is not to entertain, but to inform. And it is not informing us what history is comprised of, but more that history can repeat itself. What one sees can very easily have happened, and what could have happened may still happen later.

Genre Commentary -Comedy

Why oh why did I choose to do each bit separately? Ah well.

The Comedy Genre for Shakespeare wasn't a simple slapstick pass-the-day-away laughfest. He kept things witty and clean (to a degree). Rather than simply have someone get smacked around, although there was plenty of that in some, he had comical situations, unfortunate events, and simple irony and sarcasm. Rather than simply have people laugh, he had them laugh and think. It was more on a mental level than a reflex level. Of course, he also made an attempt to keep his works important by hinting or directly quoting certain morals and messages, which I will refer to as M&M's because they are small, sweet, and too numerous to be individually worth savoring. Shrew had a meaning beneath the outward appearance of obedience, which is emphasized by the introduction and ensuing action. If it weren't for that constant appearance as a motif, there would be little purpose to Petruchio's actions save a less acceptable one. Midsummer Night's morals were less moral and more, "Well don't be dingbats." Bottom is self-explanatory, and Oberon's whim ended up causing the four Athenians much trouble. However, no real harm was meant, and that was the purpose. All was good-natured, even the insults at the end to the actors. Perhaps even a warning not to be too carefree, because all actions have consequence. However, as restated by Robin near the end, don't take everything seriously and to heart. A simple prank can turn out badly in the end, but it is not meant to laugh at one but instead with one.

Reaction to Shakespeare -Tragedy

A less historically accurate, but more enjoyable, history.

Kidding. However, this is a drift back to the morals and messages of the Comedies. The only difference is one is happy and the other's sad. Also, these morals are more at warnings than the, "Now remember kids..." of the Comedies. Macbeth was going to have everything, and the idiot blew it all. Personally, this is often so many people in the world today. The greediest of all fall in the same fashion. Be it for power or possession, they all get wind of the chance to get some freebies, and they go ahead and choke on the stuff. Still, unlike the Histories, you've got a good guy that comes to the rescue, goes bad, and then some other little unknown guy comes to the rescue and beats the former good guy. It's sort of like all of the Star Wars movies packed into one less spectacular production. There was a lot more depth, so I found it more amusing than the histories, but it does reflect on how easily people can be corrupted. It also reflects on how people are essentially good and can easily do evil and regret it later. There's plenty who have been tortured as Lady Macbeth was, and it can be safely assumed that just about everyone will hesitate like Macbeth did unless he's egged on by an outside force. Though it's a better story than the Histories, I prefer the Comedies. Fantastic plot and all, but I like to keep a pleasant outlook whenever possible. I tend to lose that outlook quickly enough without already knowing what will tick me off.

Reaction to Shakespeare -History

So history can be amusing...Interesting...

Well, for a play about a corrupt and murderous (not to mention incestuous) SOB, at least, it came out all right. Though really, I still found it a tad boring. The story is based loosely on history and rumor, but I doubt it was for that purpose. Frankly, a History in my opinion, is just a Tragedy sans emotion. At least this one is. But it certainly does bring to light the details of the time, and reflects a few things about all people. How many people in that time period killed or were killed in similar fashions or for similar reasons as were presented in the play? (In case you don't know, A LOT.) For Shakespeare, this was the equivalent of taking a step back and looking at the corrupted nature and track record of the government, if one could call it that, and giving an honest analysis of it. (And making a living at the same time.) There were terrible things going on, and the play was likely just a view of how things would have happened if the rumors were all true. I think there are PLENTY examples of this in our day and age. As much of a crude jerk Nixon was, he ended up doing a great deal of things for the American people. If Richard Nixon was a decent soul in the end, I doubt the real Richard the Third was any different. However, this novel was too much evil and trickery on one person. Frankly, to desire someone dead that long is going to wear you out in the end. It's just irritating. I am willing to bet that somebody in that audience stood up at the end and said "Finally!" or "Took ya long enough!" back in Shakespeare's time. Like today's documentaries; if you aren't seriously interested in what they're talking about, you are floating happily in your own little world. Good stuff, but a tad too consistent.

Reaction to Shakespeare -Comedy

Well, this was quite an enjoyable genre. Particularly compared to the doom gloom and misery of the past few novels. Joking aside, though, I wasn't expecting this out of Shakespeare's comedies. They were funny, obviously, but I wasn't referring to that, rather the depth involved, particularly in Shrew. Unlike other comedies that can be just simple purposeless comedies, the novels were sort of individual and witty, with important morals and messages even. Midsummer Night wasn't just chuckles, and actually had a bit of seriousness to it. It begins out with serious circumstances and only becomes comedic later in the play. Oberon's attempt at revenge ends up backfiring terribly, partly due to Robin's screw ups, but there's still the fact that his one other idea ended up causing even greater trouble. Perhaps it could be taken to mean that if something means that much to you, you could take some care to see that it is taken care of. Oberon simply passed the task off, and ended up causing massive problems in the end. And as much as Shrew could be taken to be a simple comedy with a bad message of inferior women, I personally feel that Shakespeare was after something else. Lucentio bet on his own wife's obedience under the assumption that she would obey orders, being beautiful and kind in contrast to her sister. The fact that Shakespeare has the turn-around in the end could be a repeat of the classic "don't judge a book by its cover." Also, perhaps, a nod toward people falling in love for looks rather than character. For lighthearted comedies, they certainly have quite a depth to them. More depth than, say, Mel Brooks. Nothing against his movies, but I can't quite think of many messages in there.