Click here to edit contents of this page.
Click here to toggle editing of individual sections of the page (if possible). Watch headings for an "edit" link when available.
Append content without editing the whole page source.
Check out how this page has evolved in the past.
If you want to discuss contents of this page - this is the easiest way to do it.
View and manage file attachments for this page.
A few useful tools to manage this Site.
See pages that link to and include this page.
Change the name (also URL address, possibly the category) of the page.
View wiki source for this page without editing.
View/set parent page (used for creating breadcrumbs and structured layout).
Notify administrators if there is objectionable content in this page.
Something does not work as expected? Find out what you can do.
General Wikidot.com documentation and help section.
Wikidot.com Terms of Service - what you can, what you should not etc.
Wikidot.com Privacy Policy.
Here is where we will begin our written discussion of the plays.
You will be expected to post to the conference wiki twice a week beginning this week. These posts should be about 350 words. These are the posting guidelines.
1) a summary of class discussion that focuses on the main points brought up that day (we will assign a person to this role)
2) a response to some aspect of class discussion that you found particularly interesting
3) a response to a major question or theme about the text
4) a response to a passage in the text from that week's reading about which you have something interesting to say
5) a thoughtful response to someone else's post
Have fun, or as Bottom would say, "Take pains; be perfect; adieu!"
Jeff and Tim
In today’s class discussion, I was struck by the contrast between the complexity of many themes that Shakespeare has begun to introduce and the apparent superficiality of his characters. The conflict between Helena and her father highlights the perennial tensions between the younger and older generations, while Helen and Lysander’s relationship permits Shakespeare to explore definitions of love and marriage.
For example, Egeus is wedded to tradition as he calls upon, “the ancient privilege of Athens” to kill his daughter or force her to marry Demetrius (1.1.42). Helena’s request that she be allowed to marry the man she loves represents a youthful desire for independence. The evolution of the play will permit Shakespeare to comment critically on whether age makes men forget and disregard the passions of youth, or whether teens need the guidance and sagacity of their parents. At the same time, Helena and Egeus are essentially stock characters. Egeus is a quintessential cranky old man whose complaints against Demetrius are nothing short of absurd: “[he hath] given her rhymes… rings, gauds, conceits, knacks, triffles…” (1.1.29, 34-35), Egeus complains.
Similarly, Helena’s relationship with Lysander does take on deeper significance in questioning whether marriage should be based on love or duty. By beginning the play with Theseus’s pronouncement that he, “[woed Hyppolyta] with [his] sword…But will wed [her] in another key,” (1.1.17-19), Shakespeare establishes a society in which arranged marriages are the accepted norm. Throughout the play, Helena and Lysander’s relationship will test this social construct. On the other hand, they are interchangeable classic lovers who complete one another’s sentences and demonstrate no real common interests.
This dichotomy appears to be deliberate. By creating characters that lack distinctive personalities, Shakespeare can shape their actions to make more universal statements and social critiques. The simplicity of Helena and Lysander allows the audience to immediately understand the role the couple will take-on, and to appreciate the play’s plot-line for its own sake. At the same time, Shakespeare’s plays move beyond simple entertainment to philosophically explore the nature of society and relationships.
It is extremely relevant that you have mistaken Hermia for Helena, as this is what Shakespeare intended to happen. He creates these four characters; Hermia, Helena, Demetrius, and Lysander, to be virtually identical, only differing in the person they love. In this way, he allows for much confusion between characters and who they are in love with. Furthermore, this depicts the love of these youths as quite arbitrary, as each individual differs only slightly from the rest, but each character is "in love" and sometimes passionately so with a specific character. Why is Demetrius set on marrying Hermia while he cannot stand Helena (1.1.93-94, 2.1.195)? Helena and Hermia are both beautiful, and so far have no stark differences, but Demetrius loves one and dismisses the other (1.1.184). This lack of reason is also seen in Hermia's affections for she loves Lysander, but is willing to die rather than marry Demetrius (1.1.54, 1.1.81). So far, there are negligible differences between Demetrius and Lysander and furthermore they are of similar social standings (1.1.101-104). So far there are no logical explanations for the feelings of these "four lovers," as Shakespeare calls them.
However unreasonable these affections may seem, these characters are willing to act drastically upon them. Hermia, as stated above, is willing to die rather than to marry Demetrius, but later she then plans on running away from her home and her family to a place not even in Athens in order to be with Lysander (1.1.181). She plans to meet Lysander in the "wood a league without the town", a place completely uncivilized and far from the comfort of Athens (1.1.167). She is willing to give up the civilized place where she lives because while sophisticated, it is also restrictive, as she and Lysander must live under "sharp Athenian law" that prohibits them from marrying(1.1.164). In order to escape the reaches of the oppressive law, she must accept the lack of civilization, and consent to meet Lysander in the woods. While at first glance this logic of giving up order to gain a freedom seems sound and even plausible, the question of where Hermia's passionate emotions for Lysander stem from is still unanswered. Shakespeare effectively portrays the conflict between laws and freedom, giving some backing to the actions of these characters, but ultimatley leaving the reader with a view of young love as unsound and arbitrary.
Sam, I think that the point you made regarding the contrast between the woods and the court is very fascinating. For Lysander and Hermia to run away together to the unknown and uncivilized woods, they have to sacrifice, but to stay and live under "sharp Athenian law" is a separate sacrifice in itself (1.1.164). If they choose to stay and live in the court under the Athenian law, they sacrifice the love they have for one another, and Hermia could even choose to sacrifice her own life if she disobeys her controlling father. Staying and living under the Athenian court would be sacrificing love, but preserving their physical safety. If Lysander and Hermia decide to go through with their plan and elope in the woods, they choose a free future, but one that is unknown and potentially very dangerous. In the woods, demonstrated in Act 1 Scene 2 by Quince and Bottom, a very different life is led than the one of the courts. Compared to the people of the courts, the people of the woods are crude, rude, and inarticulate. While the people of the court, such as the fair Helena, speak in eloquent verse with rhymes incorporated throughout, the coarse people of the woods speak a more simple language, and debate in a more uncivilized manner laced with innuendos. Just by the way that Shakespeare gives a different voice to the characters living in the woods than the characters living in the courts demonstrates the vast differences in quality of life. Both the court and the woods have their upsides and downsides, but they are very different and both come with a necessary sacrifice. Hermia and Lysander have to make the decision about whether they should choose love and stand up for what they believe in, or safety, respect, and tradition. The court symbolizes the old Athenian law that is being forced upon them, while the woods appears to symbolize the freedom to chose. In picking the woods, Lysander and Hermia would move away from tradition and create something new for themselves to live by, something that is not ancient but unknown. Because of this, to me, the woods and the court have a generational divide, separating the old and the new, tradition and precedent. Hermia and Lysander could set a new precedent, marrying purely based on love and emotion, not social status or parental guidance. In creating a precedent lies the possibility to change the ancient laws, and to pave the way as to what is considered acceptable in their society. The woods could establish Hermia's feminism, for lack of a better word, that gives the bride some sort of say about her future and her life. Overall, the woods and the courts are two separate worlds depicted in this text, each one possessing their own sacrifice and cultural significance in the lives of Hermia and Lysander.
I entirely agree that the Shakespeare's use of the woods as a setting for much of the play has a keen intent behind it. However, my take on this conscious decision differs slightly from yours. Before I begin I want to clarify a point you hit on a few times, referring to Bottom & co. as "the people of the woods." In actuality, Snug, Quince, Bottom, Flute, Starveling and Snout are Athenian citizens as well, though their roles in society may be labor-based and lower in status (e.g. weaver, tailor, tinker). In addition, I don't quite agree with your description of these men as "crude, rude and inarticulate." Though Shakespeare makes them intentionally less eloquent, appropriate of their class, he also makes an effort to portray them as likable, humorous and carefree. Jokes that would appeal to all audiences (such as the jab at the french 1.2, line 90ish) suggest that the writer intends for his viewers to feel a connection with the characters, rather than repulsed or offended by them. Though you make an important distinction between this group and that from 1.1, in that the latter represents the aristocratic Athenian court, it's worth reminding that both are still from the same community. Keeping in mind this fact, the woods take on a whole new understanding; away from Athens, this setting is foreign and unknown to all characters, a place full of potential danger and uncivilized creatures. Jeff pointed out that our understanding (in the 21st century) of forested areas is far more transcendental and welcoming - a European audience of Shakespeare's time would respond to the idea of the woods with discomfort and unease. Away from the rules and structure of the court (which you refer to quite comprehensively in your post), anything can happen. Status and social standing no longer hold up in the woods, and characters from all three groups (aristocracy, lower class and fairy/ethereal) will inevitably come to interact because of this breakdown in divide.
Tula
Similarly to what others have already said, the way that Shakespeare uses the woods in contrast to the court is fascinating because of the direct contrasts. The woods embodies the wild and uncontrollable where anything can and will happen, while the court is civilized and protected. Hermia, Demetrius, Lysander, and Helena all prove this distinction because they are under the influence while in the woods, but normally royalty in court. The flower is just another example of disorderly and immature the woods can be because it takes you out of your mental state. The flower creates sexual tension and confusion, but in the court there is not any confusion or misinterpretations because of the orderliness. Throughout the time in the woods, all of the characters lose there characteristics that make them royal, including their impeccable language. All of the lovers lose their status in the woods as they become savage animals. People commonly associate the woods with dark, scary and unknown, which probably comes from Shakespeare proving that the woods implies loss of structure. Athens is the perfect example of structured and polished because it is one of the most famous cities with an established government. Because of the extreme contradiction between the unknown of the woods and the prominent Athens city and government, Shakespeare proves his ability to show conflict.
THE GREAT QUESTIONS:
-Break scenes into smaller sub-scenes.
-Ask yourself “why this moment at this moment?”
Mini-scene 1:Theseus and Hippolyta
-Marriage not based on love, or consensual
-Sets foundation for other marriages such as Hermia being forced to marry Demetrius, but wanting Lysander.
-Hippolyta is a prisoner of war
-Not a love scene or marriage scene – its rape, conquest
-Theseus is determined to appear like love
-She speaks of moon to remind him of the matriarchal power that she once had
Mini-scene 2: Egeus’ complaint
-Hermia loves Lysander but she must marry Demetrius
-Lysander is described as a horrible man who loves Hermia and treats her well, Egeus is upset because he has lost his authority over daughter
-Theseus upset with Egeus for ruining what he has just promised Hippolyta
-“Ancient” law
-Hermia doesn’t love Demetrius (who has “messed around with” Helena) but Egeus wants Hermia to marry him so she must
-Generation tension – freedom to choose or forced to do as what your parents tell you
-Theseus tries to lure Hermia to chose Demetrius for herself…Nuns cant have children, sexual relations (exactly what Theseus wants from Hippolyta)
Mini-scene 3: Lysander and Hermia
-Lysander not exactly “bright”
-“The course of true love never did run smooth” (134)
-Lysander makes ridiculous claims: we were meant to be together and it we have true love because its already difficult
-Finishing each other’s sentences = Stychio Muthia
-Lysander is in love with being in love – but do they love each other? As readers we just met them, they shouldn’t be “in love” already.
Mini-scene 4: Lysander, Hermia and Helena
-Self-obsession of characters undercuts tension and lays down foundation for comedy.
-However we are not emotionally attached yet
Mini-scene 5: Helena’s soliloquy
-Rejection of Demetrius
-We connect with her because she is a stalk character – girl wants guy who doesn’t want her.
WHAT WERE THE KEY DETAIL (CLUES THAT SHOW THIS IS NOT HOW THE STORY ENDS):
- Elopement – agreement, here is one of the potential problems
- Egeus’ problems with daughter
- Doesn’t start healthy and happy, starts with tension and stress
- In Athenian Court, wealthy characters who barge into the King’s court
- Nobility of characters, not just random people
- Educated to speak of self-determination, Greek Law
- Class warfare: speaking to audience and hierarchy of seating
During today’s class discussion, I found the contrast between different characters understandings of relationship roles particularly interesting. Factors such as gender, age and level of “civilization” contributed largely to a characters ability to access and assert authority and control.
Egeus believes that his position as an older male in society provides him the opportunity to assert his control over Hermia’s desire to wed Lysander. He boldly states that Lysander “bewitched” Hermia. In saying this he is further supporting the gender expectations present in Athens, as he pushes blame to the male figure and does not find comparable fault in Hermia (1.1 line 28).
Similar to Egeus, Theseus sides with tradition in his relationship with Hippolyta. Because Theseus is from Athens, associated with wealth and leisure, he regards Hippolyta as an uncivilized being, as she is from the Amazon. By stating that he will wed Hippolyta with “triumph, and with reveling,” Theseus seems to suggest that he has conquered Hippolyta and is now able to assert his dominance (1.1, line20). This serves as a rather abrupt transition for Hippolyta from the matriarchal world of the Amazon to the patriarchy present in Athens. Although Hippolyta asserts her shrinking influence over Theseus by withholding a physical relationship until marriage, their wedding will largely signify her vanished power and she will need to grow to accept the customary roles of women in Athens.
Diverging from Egeus’ foundation in tradition, Hermia is willing to combat the standard of conforming to the patriarchal authority that Egeus possesses. Hermia’s decision to knowingly disobey Egeus’ by refusing to marry Demetrius shows her fearless nature in challenging the age-old rule that she must submit to older male authority (Egeus). What is so striking about Hermia’s ease in defying Egeus is that she is comfortable with Lysander, openly professing his “true love” for her when Egeus is but steps away (1.1 line 135). Hermia feels the restrictions of her subordinate situation because “to choose love by another’s eyes” removes the level of control and influence that she desires over her own life and happiness (1.1, line 143). Nevertheless, Hermia’s enthusiasm to defend her own right to choose whom she marries is evident in her compliance with Lysander’s plan to escape to the woods.
The ways in which each character responds to the societal roles cast on them reflects a personal resilience or a willingness to conform that is telling of an evident or absent desire to confront societies injustices.
I agree that age and gender influence the interactions between certain characters, however I believe that personal interest plays a major role as well. For example, Egeus insists that Demetrius is the right man for Hermia because he said so. Due to traditional views and values, Egeus believes that is his right to choose a bride for his daughter, no matter what she has to say about the issue. Although Hermia has found a man of the same wealth and status of Demetrius, she is unable to marry him because her father chose someone else. I believe that Egeus refuses to cave and allow Hermia and Lysander to marry because it usurps the control he has as Hermia’s father.
On the same note, throughout Theseus’ conversation with Egeus, it is obvious that Theseus is annoyed and wishes that he and Hippolyta had not been interrupted. As such, I believe he is willing to do whatever it takes to remove Egeus, Hermia and the rest of the characters from his room so he can return to “wooing” his bride. That being said, his agreement with Egeus mostly stems from his impatience with his courtiers. However, it is very likely that Theseus decides to support Egeus because he does not want his own control and power to be questioned. Theseus’ entire relationship with Hippolyta is based on the idea of dominance and the fact that Theseus beat her in battle. If Theseus were to approve Hermia’s choice in Lysander for her husband, he would be granting women the right to choose who they want to marry. Theseus knows that he brought Hippolyta to Athens against her will and that she is used to making her own decisions as the matriarch of the Amazons, and therefore, Theseus is unable to support Hermia in her request to marry Lysander. Had Theseus supported Hermia, he would have inadvertently granted his own bride the chance to not marry him and run away.
Throughout this scene, I believe that the majority of decisions made are based on personal interest and attempts to retain control and power.
A Midsummer Nights Dream
Where are We?
The story is set in Athens, Greece- common picture of Athens. It is the bed of philosophy and thinking. There is a lot of wealth, prosperity and leisure. There is a belief in Greek Gods and Goddesses. Part of a large empire. They travel, explore, and take over other countries. They wear togas and live in luxury and happiness
We begin our story in Theseus court in Athens. His court fulfills the requirements people think of when normally thinking of Athens, it is white, and beautiful, and strong.
In the second scene we travel to the woods.
This creates a dichotomy between beautiful and strong Athens, with the uncivilized, wild, and anarchist woods. There is a real opposition set up in the very first scenes of the play.
Scene 1- really has five scenes
Scene one- made up of Theseus the duke and Hippolyta his betrothed who was the queen in the amazon, in the amazon she had power, but now the duke has power, she is from a much more wild place. Both of these characters have overt and covert ideas. Sometimes they say one thing that means another.
Theseus
Overt
-he is anxious to get married. Their wedding is in four days, but he wants to get married now.
- I woo'd you with my sword because he had to fight for her.
-Tells Hermia she could become a nun, but being a virgin for life is terrible
Covert
-he wants to sleep with her now, so he wants to marry her now.
-Won her over in a primal situation, but now they are in a more structured civilization, and he wants to show her how civilized it is.
-I woo'd you with my sword- is a phallic image
-Is saying being a virgin is awful to convey to Hippolyta the importance of sleeping with him
Hippolyta
Overt- have patience, it will happen eventually.
Covert- does not want to be used just for sex, she wants power. she wants to establish power for herself by withholding sex.
Scene 2-Four young characters will often get confused with each other. They have similar names, and sometimes similar motives
Egeus
Overt-
he wants Hermia to marry Demetrius, if she doesn't she will die. She must obey me. He decides everything for her.
Covert-
He wants to keep his power over her. Greece has always been a patriarchal society, so the man should have power. It is a power struggle between the ideas of generations.
Hermia
Overt
Wants to marry Lysander. Is refusing Egeus demands. Knows she could die but is still willing to risk declaring her love in front of the court
Covert
She is challenging the existing patriarchal society. This is a rebellion and self assertion. She is asserting herself as a spokesperson for her gender (parallel between Hippolyta and Hermia) and her generation. Trying to control her own virginity.
Lysander
Overt
Wants to marry Hermia.
Has public actions, begins to be proper, and good guy.
Covert
Doesn't like Demetrius, wants demetrius to look undesirable, does not want him to be happy.
The second he is alone with Hermia he begins wooing her. He is arrogant and not prudent.
Athens
Overt
Proper, all adjectives we discussed in beginning. Clearly better than amazon
Covert
Lots of old men running around in a tuff. There are a lot of problems in Athens, maybe as many as the Amazon
As I read 2.2 today, I found it particularly interesting that Shakespeare seems to criticize the idea of love. In 1.1 Lysander is introduced as a character obsessed with the idea of love. He appears to be head over heels for Hermia- constantly finishing her sentences and professing his love for her over and over again. When alone with Hermia, Lysander says, "the course of true love never did run smooth" (1.1.136). Lysander's dramatic attempt at reassuring Helena is laughable. Shakespeare intentionally constructs such language, though, to mock the dramatization of love. Thus the audience is naturally drawn to dislike these characters, simply because their one dimensionality makes them uninteresting and somewhat annoying. Although this couple at first seems inseparable, Shakespeare shows his aversion towards blind romance by creating a problem in their relationship in 2.2. Robin mistakingly applies the love potion to the eyes of Lysander instead of Demetrius, so when Lysander wakes up and sees Helena, he immediately falls in love. He says to her, "not Hermia, but Helena I do love" (2.2.120). In this situation Shakespeare is making fun of the inconsistency of love. He quickly constructs a happy couple only to possibly destroy them two scenes later.
Shakespeare also uses Demetrius and Helena to prove the same point- that love has its unavoidable misfortunes. Helena is clearly infatuated with Demetrius and will not leave him alone. Reluctant to accept this love, Demetrius repeatedly denies Helena and frankly states his lack of interest in her. Demetrius says it makes him "sick" to look at her, and he will "leave thee to the mercy of wild beasts" (2.1.220, 2.1.235). This hilarious dramatization of Demetrius' dislike towards Helena suggests once again that Shakespeare finds love to be exaggerated. Here we have a woman determined to gain the love of a man, which has so far proved unsuccessful. A stark contrast to Lysander and Hermia's relationship where the profound love cannot seem to keep constant, Demetrius and Helena serve to prove the same point. No matter how strongly one or both of the characters seem to feel, Shakespeare renders the couples unable to perpetuate happiness.
I agree, I think it's interesting how Shakespeare mocks the idea that love must be an extremely difficult endeavor. As already discussed, Hermia, Helena, Lysander, and Demetrius are essentially all very similar characters. None of them have logical reasons for loving another person. They only seem drawn to the person it is hardest for them to be with, as if the chase itself is what makes the love exciting, rather than the actual person they are chasing. It seems that Lysander and Hermia's determination to be together grows stronger simply because they are not allowed to be together. There is no reason for Hermia to be so strongly opposed to Demetrius and infatuated with Lysander. Similarly, there is no reason that Demetrius should so ardently refuse Helena and desire to marry Hermia. It is as if Shakespeare made it that way merely to make things harder. The reader is meant to look up and ask why the characters choose to behave so stubbornly, as if they are actually trying to make things harder for themselves. He is criticizing the ridiculous idea that true love must be treacherous and difficult in order for it to be true love. Eugeus is Shakespeare's prime example of how ridiculous the reasoning behind love can be. He insists upon Hermia marrying Demetrius, merely because she does not want to and forbids that she marry Lysander merely because she does want to, as if to sarcastically say 'of course she is not allowed to marry who she wants to, because love would be far too easy if that were the case'.
We began class today by discussing the differences between scenes 1.1 and 1.2. For example, Shakespeare uses verse in 1.1 but then switches to prose in scene 2 to differentiate between the classes of the people speaking. He shifts from the poetic, rhythmic speaking style of the upper class Athenian Court to the ordinary speech of the carpenters in order to distinguish between the royalty and the commoners. His use of less impressive names in 1.2 also helps make this distinction more obvious.
For the rest of class, we talked about Bottom, possibly the most interesting character of 1.2. Bottom’s desire to perform all of the characters in their play and take control over the production is either because of his ambition, ego, or enthusiasm. Some people in our class felt put off by Bottom’s comportment as opposed to Bottom’s fellow actors who are in awe of Bottom because he’s the only one who seems to know anything about acting. In class, some argued that Bottom was comparable to Ron Burgundy because we know he’s not the smartest of the bunch while he seems to think he’s wonderful and the world never lets him in on this joke. As readers, Bottom and the other 1.2 characters are a relief from the serious, conflicted world (the “real” world) we are introduced to in 1.1. The subject matter in both are also incredibly different- it goes from conversations of death and chastity to ones of growing beards and memorizing three lines of a script in a week, clearly less serious subject matter.
Last, we talked about how crucial the setting of the woods may become later on in the play. We were asked to look at how Shakespeare utilizes the woods in the play and why it could be so important for the six men to step out of town into the woods to become actors.
Just a few things to remember!!
After today’s dissection of the woods and Athenian Court, I wanted to address the character of Bottom from Act 1. Scene2. His character matches the setting fittingly, as Bottom’s power among the other tradesmen exists only because they congregate in the woods. Bottom orders Quince around, commanding him to “call forth [his] actors by the scroll” (25). Yet later, he demonstrates ignorance with his malapropisms, “Thisne, Thisne!”, and his desire to play multiple characters in the play (27). Even though Bottom acts rudely and appears uneducated, he still seems to wield control over his peers, shouting orders such as “we will meet, and there we may rehearse” (29). Bottom directs his fellow tradesmen, and they listen to him. This bizarre contradiction, where a conceited, foolish character wrongly controls the situation, occurs in the woods because of its lawless, uncivilized nature. If these tradesmen had been meeting in the Athenian Court, where reason, education, and order trump all, Bottom surely would defer to the people around him. Lacking the traits that the court endorses, Bottom could not act pompously or ill-informed. Yet in the unorganized woods, Bottom’s companions show no authority over him, except for advising him against playing multiple roles.
Though I just argued that Bottom appears as one of the leading figures in the woods, I would also point out that he does not receive the typical, respectful treatment of a powerful man. The scene takes place in the woods, so the other tradesmen feel like they have no reason to submit to Bottom’s commanding presence. Quince demonstrates this willingness to challenge authority with his crude joke about Bottom’s reference to the “French-crown-color” (29). Quince says, “Some of your French crowns have no hair at all, and then you will play barefaced” (29). This reference to syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease the tradesmen associate with France, directly pokes fun at Bottom’s use of language. Instead of accepting everything Bottom says, the tradesmen illustrate their freedom to act and speak as they please. The freedoms that the tradesmen exhibit exist only in the woods, the place that starkly contrasts the world established in the Athenian Court.
Though I think your reading of Bottom is an accurate one, his character can be read entirely differently. In fact, Bottom is arguably the only truly likable character introduced in the play by the time he makes his appearance in 1.2. Carefree and boisterous, yet humorous and endearingly absent-minded, Bottom certainly has a large personality that can be read as arrogant or bossy. However, close reading reveals that Shakespeare never has the other characters respond to him in a negative way, nor even with annoyance. On the contrary, they reply to his frequent outbursts with patience and understanding; "no, no, you must play Pyramus," "you can play no part but Pyramus, for Pyramus is a sweet-faced man, a proper man…a most lovely gentle-manlike man." (1.2, 53) (1.2, 81). Though some may read frustration and sarcasm into these respective quotes, Shakespeare does not include any jest or pun that suggests insincerity.
Up until this point, all the characters we meet in the play have had their own set of private intentions and secret agendas. Theseus is a sex-crazed king, Egeus an outdated, power-driven old man, Lysander a dopy romantic, Hermia just as hopelessly in love and eager to defy her father out of youthful rebellion, Helena a jealous, slightly psychotic woman who would reduce herself to the role of a 'dog' simply to be around Demetrius, who is a two-timing sleaze bag who loves her not. Basically, Shakespeare ruptures any possibility for the audience to create a connection with a character early on, until he introduces Bottom. With him, we get pages of harmless banter and silly requests; how can you hate anyone, or call them arrogant, if they earnestly offer themselves as the part of a lion in play? He already has the main part, yet volunteers to sit around on stage and roar a few times; this is not a man who takes himself too seriously. In return, I don't suspect we're meant to take Bottom seriously, either.
While I agree with your assertion that Bottom is the first truly interesting character we see, Tula, I do not think that he is necessarily as likable as you claim. As you alluded to, there are many different ways one can read 1.2. Bottom is the first character who can truly be interpreted and played in a variety of ways, whereas all other characters before him are very one-dimensional and stereotypical theater roles. However, though interesting, he is not endearing; rather, he is boastful, arrogant, and inconsiderate of those around him. You pointed out that Shakespeare never has Bottom's associates openly mock or ridicule him, but as Josh pointed out above, Peter Quince makes a reference to syphilis when Bottom asks him about his French crowns. Furthermore, as Nate demonstrated in our portrayal of 1.2, Quince is quite possibly trying to restrain his anger at Bottom when he says that "no, no, you must play Pyramus," and "you can play no part but Pyramus, for Pyramus is a sweet-faced man, a proper man…a most lovely gentle-manlike man." (1.2, 53) (1.2, 81). These comments, when read the way Nate acted them, do not come sincerely from the bottom of Quince's heart, but are instead a rather transparent attempt to conceal anger and appeal to Bottom through flattery, which makes Bottom seem like, for lack of a better word, a diva, and casts him in an egotistical light. Furthermore, you also mentioned that Bottom's offer to play the lion when he already has the main part is rather generous; I contend that Bottom instead either wants to play any role he can get his hands on, in an attempt for more time in the spotlight, or, as Jeff suggested in class, that he simply does not realize it is not possible for him to keep his role as Pyramus and to play every other part in a show at the same time. I do agree with you that Bottom may act mostly out of good intentions and is not meant to be taken seriously, but that does not mean we have to like him.
Hm…
I provided the alternative reading of Bottom's character, to which you have repeated the initial interpretation, given by Mr. Caine. He already made your argument.
In summary, there are a couple of readings.
I still maintain that Bottom is likable. We shall see! Yay for Shakespeare.
Ah… awkward… I suppose I should have read all of the posts, and not just skimmed over some of them. Lesson learned!
I agree with Tula when she says there are different ways to portray Bottom and his relationship with the rest of the gang, logic, and the larger world, given the amount of freedom Shakespeare writes into the play. It is possible to read him as the bumbling ignorant who you cant really get angry at due to his stupidity, or as kind of an ass (given his name), however I think 3:1 can provide more insight into this character.
Even though in 1:2 Bottom is quick to jump on the idea of roaring, “I will roar that I will do any man’s heart good to hear me…”, which Josh pointed out in making the case that Bottom’s lack of smarts removes his authority in places like the court, outside of the uncivilized woods, in act 3 we see him as the logical one (1:2;68). When he says “Peter Quince? There are things in this comedy … that will never please… which the ladies cannot abide”, we see Bottom thinking ahead and taking action to remove aspects of the play that could be detrimental to the gang later (like being executed) (3:1;7). Here we see him thinking with logic that the court would endorse.
In the rest of the scene, Bottom’s logical thinking only increases. After coming up with the idea to have a prologue, explaining ‘its just a play guys, no one actually dies, so don’t worry’, he puts a lot of thought into specifically how to address the upper classes. “ ‘Ladies’, or ‘Fair ladies, I would wish you’, or ‘I would request you’, or ‘I would entreat you not to fear’….” (3:1;39). This great detail further eludes to Bottom’s previously hidden intelligence and ability to reason things out, so we cant just dismiss him as a Ron Burgendy.
3/15/12 - A Midsummer Night’s Dream
One of the most interesting topics that came up in class today was the way that we, as readers of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the 21st century, worked out how to read the lines for our dramatic reading session. While the actual style of Shakespeare’s stage directions, really there aren’t very many, and the way he denoted how to read certain passages or words by using parenthesis or brackets as seen through “[Yours would]” and “(Where I did meet thee once with Helena to do observance to a mourn of May)” is interesting enough, figuring out his intentions through careful reading and understanding of the characters is the most accurate way to realize a characters emotions and how they would deliver their lines (1.1.190, 1.1.168-169).
In particular, the deliverance by Group 1 who read Act 1 Scene 1, lines 21 to 128, read with specific emotions that allowed further insight into the thoughts and feelings of the actual characters and made it far easier for the listeners to understand the characters’ following actions because of the new basic knowledge of their thoughts. The certain speech given by Kate playing Egeus from lines 23 to 46 was a roller-coaster of emotions that broke Egeus down into understandable fatherly categories. During “Full of vexation come I, … interchanged love tokens with my child”, the initial anger felt by Egeus about his daughter’s marriage was palpable by way of Kate because of her carful reading and understanding of Egeus’ desires which translated to my understanding of Egeus’ position (1.1.23-30). In the next part, “Thou, thou, Lysander … to stubborn harshness”, Kate’s increase in speed reveled the franticness of Egeus and his growing worry that Hermia was slipping out of his grasp (1.1.31-39). The last part of the speech, “And, my gracious duke, … immediately provided in that case” was read in almost a pleading tone, wrapping up the transition in Egeus as a father worried about his daughter’s grave mistake (1.1.39-46).
This kind of dictation born from critical reading of the text is the way Shakespeare intended for his plays to be read, with a little flair from the actor but also from careful understanding of the text. A reading session such as Kate’s allows for greater understanding of the play as a whole but also specific individual characters by the listeners who are privy to Kate’s own interpretation of the play which furthers their thoughts and realizations about the play and their already developed ideas.