New Book on Shakespeare

Alkibiades

New member
Greetings from Inner Mongolia. While sojourning here in
semi-retirement I wrote a little collection of essays on
Shakespeare. The title is 'Hamlet Made Simple' (New
English Review Press, 2013) I'd be interested if anyone
reads it to learn your impressions.

Thanks!
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
Greetings from Inner Mongolia. While sojourning here in
semi-retirement I wrote a little collection of essays on
Shakespeare. The title is 'Hamlet Made Simple' (New
English Review Press, 2013) I'd be interested if anyone
reads it to learn your impressions.

Thanks!

Alkibiades, I liked very much the first essay of your book. Truth is I never liked any of the winners in Merchant of Venice and didn't wish them well. I specially disliked that 'cold, snobbish little bitch', Portia. So it was heartwarming to read that Shakespeare also intends unhappy marriages for them.

P.S. Thank you for introducing me to Hank Whittemore's The Monument.
 
Last edited:
T

tjteoo388

Guest
huong dan ca cuoc tren mang
huong dan ca cuoc online
huong dan ca do bong da
huong dan ca cuoc bong da
huong dan ca do tren mang
huong dan ca cuoc tren mang
huong dan ca cuoc bong da
huong dan ca do bong da online
huong dan ca do bong da tren mang
huong dan ca cuuoc bong da online
huong dan ca cuoc bong da tren mang
huong dan ca do bong da truc tuyen
huong dan ca cuoc bong da truc tuyen
huong da ca do qua mang
huong dan ca cuoc qua mang
huong dan choi danh bai an tien tren mang
cach mo tai khoan ca do online
 

Alkibiades

New member
Thanks, Cleanthess, for your nice comment. This evening I just finished re-reading Coriolanus, a powerful drama in my judgment far better than the overperformed 'Othello'. Have you read Coriolanus? As you wade into Hamlet Made Simple, don't hesitate to share your thoughts with everyone. BTW, I alerted Hank Whittemore about your interest in his scholarship.

-Alkibiades
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
Thanks, Cleanthess, for your nice comment. This evening I just finished re-reading Coriolanus, a powerful drama in my judgment far better than the overperformed 'Othello'. Have you read Coriolanus? As you wade into Hamlet Made Simple, don't hesitate to share your thoughts with everyone. BTW, I alerted Hank Whittemore about your interest in his scholarship.

-Alkibiades

I second your views on Othello. Somebody once joked about how unmotivated the actions on that play are by calling it: 'Othello, or the Tragedy of the Handkerchief'.

As a matter of fact, the two Shakespearean plays I find to be the most underrated are Coriolanus and Measure for Measure. Both of them secret masterpieces, to the extent that a work by Shakespeare can be a secret masterpiece.
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
A Shakespeare-loving friend emailed me last night complaining about my opinions regarding Othello. He said that a piece of clothing bringing tragedy to a powerful man was recently on the news: Monica Lewinsky's stained dress. And as for Iago's unmotivated betrayal and deceptions, my friend wrote that Monica Lewinsky's friend Linda Tripp had even less reasons to behave the way she did than Iago.

Also, the whole Clinton's scandal could be seen as confirmation that things happen twice, first as tragedy, then as farce.
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
The last essay on Alkibiades book about Shakespeare deals with that frustrating masterpiece manque: Cymbeline.
Alkibiades points out how pertinent to today's news is the starting point of the play where England is engaged on a real-politic power play with Europe. And how king Cymbeline walks an aloof middle ground: his land will not be a servant to the Roman Empire, as a matter of fact, he defeated Rome's invading troops, but he will pay tribute to Caesar to ensure peaceful relations with the Empire.

We also get a clue to Alkybiades' choice of nick. In Plato's Symposium after Socrates great speech about Love and Beauty, a drunk Alcibiades crashes the party and as drunks are prone to do he proceeds to effusively praise a loved one: Socrates. Alcibiades claims that for greatness and goodness among those living Socrates stands alone. Replace Socrates with Shakespeare and you'll see where I'm going with this.

Anyways, let's get to the main point. Alkibiades also writes about the two salient points of Cymbeline (at least from the point of view of critics).
First: the magnificent 'Fear no more the heat of the sun' poem, sung in the play by Cymbeline's sons Guiderius and Arviragus while mourning the death of Fidele:

GUIDERIUS. Fear no more the heat o' th' Sun,
Nor the furious Winters rages,
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and taken thy wages.
Golden Lads, and Girls all must,
As Chimney-Sweepers come to dust.

ARVIRAGUS. Fear no more the frown o' th' Great,
Thou art past the Tyrants stroke,
Care no more to cloth and eat,
To thee the Reed is as the Oak:
The Scepter, Learning, Physic must,
All follow this and come to dust.

GUIDERIUS. Fear no more the Lightning flash.
ARVIRAGUS. Nor th' all-dreaded Thunderstone.
GUIDERIUS. Fear not Slander, Censure rash.
ARVIRAGUS. Thou hast finish'd Joy and moan.
BOTH. All Lovers young all Lovers must,
Consign to thee and come to dust.

GUIDERIUS. No Exorciser harm thee,
ARVIRAGUS. Nor no witch-craft charm thee.
GUIDERIUS. Ghost unlaid forbear thee.
ARVIRAGUS. Nothing ill come near thee.
BOTH. Quiet consummation have,
And renowned be thy grave.

Stevenson seems to have been inspired by the first stanza when he wrote:
UNDER the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie:
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.
This be the verse you 'grave for me:
Here he lies where he long'd to be;
Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.

Second: the complicated nature and messy ending of the play. My theory is that the ending was changed from the way it was originally written, which would explain why in the first folio Cymbeline was listed as a tragedy, despite the fact that the main characters get a 'happy' ending.

George Bernard Shaw, who had the audacity to rewrite the last act for a 1937 performance trying to "improve" Shakespeare, disagrees with my POV while still making fun of Shakespeare on his Cymbeline Refinished:
"When I read the act I found that my notion that it is a cobbled-up pasticcio by other hands was an unpardonable stupidity. The act is genuine Shakespear to the last full stop, and late phase Shakespear in point of verbal workmanship.
The doggerel is not doggerel: it is a versified masque, in Shakespear's careless woodnotes wild, complete with Jupiter as deus ex machina, eagle and all, introduced, like the Ceres scene in The Tempest, to please King Jamie, or else because an irresistible fashion had set in, just as at all the great continental opera houses a ballet used to be de rigueur. So, I take it, had Shakespear to stick a masque into Cymbeline. Performed as such, with suitable music and enough pictorial splendor, it is not only entertaining on the stage, but, with the very Shakespearean feature of a comic jailor which precedes it, just the thing to save the last act.
Without it the act is a tedious string of unsurprising dénouements sugared with insincere sentimentality after a ludicrous stage battle."
"I have ruthlessly cut out the surprises that no longer surprise anybody. I really could not keep my countenance over the identification of Guiderius by the mole on his neck. … In Maddison Morton's masterpiece, Box and Cox, Box asks Cox whether he has a strawberry mark on his left arm. "No" says Cox. "Then you are my long lost brother" says Box as they fall into one another's arms."

Of course Shaw's resolution to the play is weaker than Shakespeare's. And the sad fact is that if I was stupid enough to try to write my own fan-fiction denouement it would be even worse. There is no satisfactory way to do reparations for Posthumus attempted murder of Imogen. Nothing will do, not even going all the way John Barth went on his retelling of the Scherezade story on Chimera and have Imogen do to Posthumus what Scherezade instructed her sister do to her husband:
to get him to "spread-eagle himself on the bed and suffer his wrists and ankles to be bound to its posts with silken cords, lest by a spasm of early joy he abort its heavenly culmination, et cetera. Then, little sister, then, when you have him stripped and bound supine and salivating, take from the left pocket of your seventh gown the razor I've hid there, as I shall mine from mine -- and geld the monster! Cut his bloody engine off and choke him on it, as I'll do to my husband Shahryar! Then we'll lay our own throats open, to spare ourselves their sex's worse revenge".
 

Cleanthess

Dinanukht wannabe
At some point on his book, Alkibiades dissects an essay on Shakespeare done by a certain professor who clouded the meaning of her argument behind ambiguity and jargon, or, in Alkibiades words, 1970's argot.

Nonetheless, some interesting points can be extrapolated from the first paragraph that Alkibiades quotes:
"The problem with the meanings that we learn ... is that they seem to define and delimit what is thinkable, imaginable, possible. To fix meaning, to deny ... its plurality, is in effect to confine what is possible to what is."

The main problem for me was that the statement is too broad, to the point that Alkibiades can make fun of it because of how ambiguous it is. However, there is truth to be found if we're willing to limit the sentence to something along the lines of:
The problem with accepting unquestioningly the meanings of all the words that we are taught is that some of them can be used to define negatively and delimit rashly what is thinkable, imaginable, possible.

Of course I'm bringing my transistor radio to Professor Belsey's little party, to paraphrase Nabokov, but what the heck. Let's consider a few of those words, Witch (the Benandanti, Liborio), Heretic (Bruno, Galileo, the Cathars), Gross Indecency (Oscar Wilde), Obscenity (Lady Chatterley's Lover, Madame Bovary), Immorality (Baudelaire), Hysterics, Entartete Kunst and lastly, a word I'm not brave enough to even type (Lolita, The Tin Drum movie).
The Benandanti cult was a pagan earth fertility visionary cult. Its members will periodically at night metamorphose their souls into tiny animals and do the good walk into a field to battle for a good harvest. When the Catholic Church authorities learned of this cult they shoe-horned it into witchcraft and forced concepts like devil worship, sabbath, etc. into the trials of the Benandanti. Eventually the Benandanti themselves incorporated the traditional witchcraft elements into their pagan visions and thus became actual witches.

At the beginning of the 20th. Century on a tiny island in the Caribbean sea there once lived a man named Oliborio Mateo who claimed to be the latest coming of God, performed miracles, preached sexual love and forgiveness and was executed by the occupying forces of an invading Empire; his body was hung on the outsides of the town where he was killed. His followers later claimed that he had ascended to heaven and that he had not really died, but was judging us from above, because Liborio will have none of our shit (Liborio no come pendejá). Of course the Catholic Church immediately branded Liborio's followers as witches (brujos) and convinced the whole population, including the Liboristas themselves, that they were powerful witches.
As for the branding of Bruno and Galileo as Heretics (and thus modern science), we're lucky Rome did not rule over all of Europe at the time or we'd still be living in the Middle Ages. On the other hand compare the subsequent progress of the sciences on Portugal, Spain and Italy versus Germany, the Netherlands, England and France.
The gnostic Cathars were another victim of this nasty word Heretic, when they were actually a completely different religion.
Hysterics was a term used to brand and dismiss any expression of frustration and dissatisfaction by women as a neurotic disease caused by their having an uterus.

As you can see all these words are used to limit and suppress, to convey a negative meaning and/or to justify prosecution of those branded by them. And the worst part is when the victims themselves internalize and accept the branding. Consider how socialist thinkers and sympathizers, who mostly wanted better working and living conditions for the masses of workers of their nations, felt obligated to support dictators like Stalin(G B Shaw, Picasso, Brecht), Mao (Robert Crumb), Fidel Castro (Saramago, Garcia Marquez). This support could be explained as being granted because they had accepted the definition that Communist dictatorship = Left.
 
It sounds very interesting! I have always been a fan of Shakespeare and enjoy reading other's words based on him. Yours sounds quite fascinating and I will certainly look into it. I've always found people's interpretations of Shakespeare's work to vary considerably, and I'm endlessly intrigued by other's opinions of his work.
 

Hamlet

Reader
It sounds very interesting! I have always been a fan of Shakespeare and enjoy reading other's words based on him. Yours sounds quite fascinating and I will certainly look into it. I've always found people's interpretations of Shakespeare's work to vary considerably, and I'm endlessly intrigued by other's opinions of his work.

I quite like the books by Jonathan Bate on Shakespeare.

Uplifting biography (of sorts) rather than the occasional post-modern gloom one stumbles across. :rolleyes:

http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Age-Biog...&qid=1360242396&sr=1-1&keywords=jonathan+bate

...and on Youtube, Michael Woods series from 2004 IN SEARCH OF SHAKESPEARE is impressive and very relaxing. I have it on dvd and the book to the series is really excellent in terms of quality and yes, pictures! ...

but they seem to have some of it on YT at least. Episodes 1-4.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_XU7sfBJ0
 
Last edited:
Top