"kiss me kate..."

Taming of the Shrew was the more enjoyable comedy of the two for me because of the humor in it. Overall comedy hasn't changed all that much. In A Midsummer Night's Dream there are still the fools, the idiots, that are placed there for quick comic relief; the three stooges are a more modern version of Bottom and his band of "actors". Although this sort of comedy works for a majority of people, I'm more a fan of subdued intelligent humor. To me, Taming of the Shrew is the more witty and funny play of the two we read, but that's solely personal opinion. I like the dialogue between Kate and Petruccio, and the latter just astounds me in how far he's willing to go to subdue Kate.

I also like Kate's character and the way Shakespeare makes her see her own personal flaws. People are initially intimidated of her; she is quicker than most of Padua. However it takes Petruccio, a man that isn't afraid to stand up to her, to make her see herself from a different perspective. The fact that he beats her at her own game is comedic.

I didn't like the conclusion of the play in that Kate basically concedes to Petruccio and is "tamed". Her character, an independent woman, was out of the norm in Shakespeare's day. I think that she did just become part of the crowd at the end, and although that was the point of the play, I was a little disappointed in her.

Oh Maccers....

Macbeth is a tragedy is the most defined form, and for this I have to enjoy it because it's to the book. Macbeth is the poor tragic character and for that I pity him a little. However, having a crazy wife whisper crazy things about killing people in your ear can't hide your own ambition. Although Lady Macbeth is the reason Macbeth is able disregard his morals and lose his integrity, it is his own ambition that brings his end. Macbeth is a character that can define hubris. I liked Macbeth because it is very human. Although the supernatural is a recurring theme in the play, Macbeth's progression to someone who has lost all morals is all human. Ambition is a human response and with Macbeth it becomes evident that we all must watch how much ambition dominates our existence.

What can I say about dear old Richard...

...well for starters he's not very nice.



As far as the play goes, I liked it. I like the way Shakespeare developed Richard's character in that he two-faced everyone and then killed them all. I hated Richard, and I think Shakespeare was banking on most of the audience hating him. This aspect allows what we witness on stage to seem all the more horrifying. We know what he's doing; we hear the evil plans, and the fact that he delights in deceiving everyone. We know it, but we can't do anything about it.

Another thing that I liked about Richard was his attitude regarding his own dispicable evil. He thinks so highly of himself and he delights in the fact that he can so easily deceive and ruin other people. I don't agree with Richard in any way shape or form. He is the epitome of evil in a sense, however I think that Shakespeare developed his character well enough to make him so hateable.

She's a Lady.....?

So even though Macbeth, is titled so because of the main and tragic character, Macbeth, I think the title leaves out a pretty significant part of the entire play; a significant part of the entire tragedy for that matter. She's the mastermind, the spark, the one who's really doing all the backstabbing... the one, the only... Lady Macbeth. Here's a character that defied convention not only during Shakespeare's age but does so in present day society as well. Lady Macbeth is one evil woman. Despite having ambition that supersedes her morals Lady Macbeth is poor Macbeth's undoing. Arguably the most prominent theme in the play is the switching of gender roles. Macbeth is more feminine throughout the play, whereas Lady Macbeth is more domineering and masculine. This transformation, the switching of gender roles is spelled out for the audience at parts throughout the play. Act I, Scene 5 begins with Lady Macbeth reading her husband's letter regarding what the witches said. After this she has a brief soliloquy that is worth looking at. In it she makes the gender switch very apparent by basically calling her husband a woman... or at least a guy with a feminine side. "Yet do I fear thy nature; it is too full o' th' milk of human kindness to catch the nearest way". Another thing she says essentially asserts her power into the situation:

Lady Macbeth: I may pour my spirits in thine ear;
And chastise with the valour of my tongue
All that impedes thee from the golden round,
Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem
To have thee crown'd withal.

Here she is saying I'm going to be Macbeth's ambition, I'm going to be his motivation. Let my words convince him this is the right thing to do, and let what I say cause him to stop at nothing until he wears the crown. Clearly by stop at nothing she means kill Duncan. This isn't the only passage where Lady Macbeth asserts her power. After Macbeth returns from murdering Duncan he carries the knife he used to kill him with. Lady Macbeth is clearly surprised because that wasn't the plan, but she flat out says I'll take care of it, while Macbeth shakes and mumbles "What have I done." She's the stronger one throughout the play and the one with all kinds of evil schemes... is she a lady? That's questionable...

The Art of Wooing... Take 2.

This scene from Taming of the Shrew is not the same sort of wooing that occurs in Richard III. However there are some similarities. One of the reasons I like Richard III and Taming of the Shrew so much is because of the quick dialogue throughout the play. This is evident more so in the comedy, because it is... a comedy, but it is in Richard and other plays as well. The dialogue is funny and witty and quick, and I expect no less from Shakespeare, but for the play itself it fits perfectly. Dialogue to highlight in this play comes between Kate and Petruccio. Shakespeare is known for his coy sexual innuendos, and in a play that is basically a battle of the sexes there is a whole lot of them. This makes the play entertaining to read for a more mature audience.

Petruccio: Come, come, you wasp; i' faith, you are too angry.
Kate: If I be waspish, best beware my sting.
Petruccio: My remedy is then, to pluck it out.
Kate: Ay, if the fool could find it where it lies.
Petruccio: Who knows not where a wasp does
wear his sting? In his tail.
Kate: In his tongue.
Petruccio: Whose tongue?
Kate: Yours, if you talk of tails: and so farewell.
Petruccio: What, with my tongue in your tail? nay, come again,
Good Kate; I am a gentleman.

Here the dialogue between the two of them is humorous, especially because Petruccio's plan to win over Kate is to beat her at her own game. Throughout the play there is no one who can compete with Kate verbally... except Petruccio. This makes the dialogue between them more heated and much better for the relationship of their characters. The fact that Petruccio is the only one who can match her quickness, and the fact that he can even beat her with it makes their love/hate relationship throughout the play more appealing and entertaining for the audience.

The Art of Wooing

One of my favorite scenes in Richard III is Act I, Scene II. This scene isn’t a scene where the audience sees Richard’s complete evil. Sure at this point we know he’s nuts, and the fact that he plans to kill her after they’ve married is basically a dead giveaway (no pun intended). This isn’t the scene where he orders the death of his own brother or the two young princes. The thing that makes this one of the better scenes in the play is that it shows Richard’s evil not from the abrupt murders he commits, but more so from the devious scheming deception that he uses to gain everyone’s sympathy and in turn their trust in a sense. In this particular scene Richard succeeds in his attempt to woo Lady Anne to marry him. Although throughout the scene she is constantly saying how much she hates him; she calls him a "villain" and a "devil." But the beauty of this scene isn’t that Richard merely succeeds., it lies in the fact that he first has the gall to woo a woman (his future wife no less!) over the body of her dead father in-law; a man Richard killed along with her husband.

The thing I love most about this scene isn’t the irony of the setting, it by far is the dialogue. To me, this is Shakespeare at his finest. The dialogue is quick and witty and sharp and sadly enough the scene is a little humorous because of the absolute bull crap Richard uses in his favor. With every negative Lady Anne throws at Richard, he responds with an over-affectionate response.

Anne: O wonderful, when devils tell the truth!
Richard: More wonderful, when angels are so angry.Vouchsafe, divine perfection of a woman,Of these supposed-evils, to give me leave,By circumstance, but to acquit myself.

Richard: Why dost thou spit at me?
Anne: Would it were mortal poison, for thy sake!
Richard: Never came poison from so sweet a place.

The entire scene is just great so it’s hard to pick lines... those were just a few that defended my point. The culmination of this scene ends with Lady Anne unable to kill Richard herself and in doing this she essentially concedes to him. Richard even brags "Was ever woman in this humor woo'd? Was ever woman in this humor won?" I think he finds it amazing he succeeded (as if he needed more a boost to his ego). The last image of the scene is another one of Richard’s soliloquies that, like the rest, is bad news. After witnessing Richard woo this poor woman the audience learns he’s going to kill her, to state it bluntly. This just reemphasizes what the audience has known all along... Richard is one evil evil man.

the tragedies

As far as tragedies go I've read Macbeth, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet (but honestly... who hasn't read that?). Macbeth and Hamlet being the designated hitters of the tragedies I can make a fair comment on the genre. As far as my liking Shakespeare goes I think that I like his tragedies the most. One of the things Shakespeare does best in his plays is develop characters relatively quickly. Although done fast, it is done very well, and this is why Shakespeare's plays can be very entertaining when put on well. Character development is particularly important when it comes to the tragedies. The characters in Shakespeare's tragedies generally start out likable. Macbeth seems like a decent guy; he's worshipped on the battlefield; his friends love him; the king loves him; the only one who seems to dislike him is his own wife. Hamlet too. He's not a guy that people loathe (like Richard) and he's even those who sort of betray him do so not completely intentionally. The fact that these characters are attractive to the audience. The fact that they are likable, not only allows characters in the play to form bonds with them but also members of the audience.

This is why Shakespeare's tragedies are so sad. The audience likes the person/people that are eventually going to fall. Macbeth has morals to begin with, Hamlet is pretty charismatic, and Romeo and Juliet are lovers. The audience can't like better characters. And sort of shadowing the Greek tragic hero they are all destined to fall. Shakespeare's tragedies are good and can be hail as possibly his best because of how they suck you in, and leave you empty when they're done. It is the sad side of life, they aren't the happy endings. But are they an eye opener and an entertainer as well? You bet.

the histories

Having read Richard III and Julius Caesar I like the histories but I haven't really had the chance to read enough of them. I couldn't really enjoy Caesar a lot, but I found Richard to be very interesting... if not disturbing in the least. I think the histories, like all of Shakespeare's other works have more to them than meets the first read. I mean Richard isn't just about one really really evil guy (*cough* Mr. Klimas) it's about evil as a whole, and Richard III wanting so desperately to be recognized. He feels cheated by nature and this gives him motive enough to want to seek retribution to all those who had wronged him. I think that this history in particular is sad... I don't empathize with Richard at all, and I certainly don't agree with what he did, but the man was nuts! The fact that this is a "history" in that it really happened, and Richard killed A LOT of people, and people so close to him no less, is sad; and to be honest vaguely horrifying. I think however that Shakespeare does portray the characters really well. The purpose of his works is to entertain a crowd more so than tell a factual, historical story. Therefore one thing about the histories in particular is building a character that people love to hate; Richard is certainly one of those characters. With his soliloquies and asides the audience learns more about Richard than we probably want to. We know of his evil plans, and the fact that he so easily deceives Clarence, Lady Anne, as well as everyone else is frightening. The fact that Shakespeare is able to create that intimacy with a character builds up the history as a play. As a whole it is difficult for me to comment on the genre because I've only really read one history. However, Richard was a good one to start with, in that it captures the history of the English strafe for power at the conclusion of the war of the roses, but also builds up a character that the audience can react to, in some way or another.

the comedies

I'm a huge fan of Shakespeare and I like many of his plays ranging from comedies to tragedies. My favorite comedy is probably "Much Ado About Nothing" because it's witty and romantic and I found it entertaining. Shakespeare is such a fantastic author that it's hard for me to decide whether I like the comedies or the tragedies more. I like the wit that comes with Shakespeare's humor. Of the works we read in class I think I liked "Taming of the Shrew" more than "A Midsummer Night's Dream" but to be honest I enjoyed both of them. I think that Shakespeare's dialogue in his comedies makes them all the more humorous. A lot of things that are written are between the lines, and I think that's why some hail Shakespeare to be the greatest author to have ever lived, and why some hate him. His humor is blatant in some regards, like the fools' play in "A Midsummer Night's Dream", however there is more humor in the things we pull out of his plays that aren't necessarily obvious. A bit of dialogue between Kate and Petruccio in "Taming of the Shrew" contains wit, humor, and with that some sexual innuendos that once you see are quite obvious. Being able to see this sort of humor, the kind that really isn't intended to be so obvious makes the comedies enjoyable to me in one way or another.