You got it: Final Essay

Mything the Point: Cymbeline

Before we breach into the bulk the coming pages, we must first narrow the playing field. William Shakespeare is the author, a master of interpretation, impersonation, and the imagination. To be precise, we’re going to peruse into his final act of the revelation-of-a-romance Cymbeline. Cymbeline is not typically heralded for its characters if we’re comparing them to Hamlet, Falstaff, or Lear but its story construction is just too damn good. I’m no expert (unless you give me expertise credit for this classical commentary) but if you took the final act out then the play would still flourish. The irony and wordplay in the characters’ dialogue and their obliviousness to it all is jolly fun. The first two characters in the play are known anonymously, and few people from then on are truly in character or when they’re on stage. Shakespeare has written these characters to sometimes know who they are and at the same time have no idea, until…It’s only fitting that the pretext and proceedings of Act V: Scene V provides a prime finale. Our focus will be concerned not with mything the point but the fact that these characters are missing the point.

“She (Imogen) is not in fact possessed of much discernment. She fails utterly to see through Iachimo, fails to suspect the medications that Pisanio gives her as from the queen, and thinks, when she mistakes the headless body of Cloten for that of Posthumous, that Cloten and Pisanio have conspired to commit the murder—though she has no reason to suppose that Cloten is anywhere in the vicinity” (Adams, 65). I say, well articulated Robert Adams, but I have something to add: this point has lead me to conclude that it was Shakespeare’s intention for the characters in Cymbeline to have trouble with physical identification of others or discernment. This is a method of Shakespeare’s mastery of impersonation and, in doing so, suspending his audiences’ disbelief. It’s not until the final scene that they, family member or not, are all together defaced. On a different note, many believe, and I’m one of ‘em, that Cloten is Posthumous’ alter-ego. This theory is cogent because they do not have any scenes together along with their similar temperaments and objectives. For example, they both desire Imogen but they both have a tendency to show signs of anger, hatred, or more specifically misogyny.

Secondly, before we breach into the bulk the coming pages, we must first have some quick notes about the mythology of the matter. Many of the character from Shakespeare’s Cymbeline are adaptations from other pieces [as are most of his characters in most of his pieces]; they commonly mirror mythological figures from Ovid’s Metamorphoses and Virgil’s Aeneid, for instance. Cymbeline, one of his final works, follows a similar referential pattern. For example, Imogen corresponds with the goddess Diana because of her chastity, and also is loose retelling of the character Philomel from Ovid’s Metamorphoses’ story of “Tereus, Procne, and Philomel.” Additionally, Philomel is relatable to Lucrece as Tereus is to Tarquinius, from “The Rape of Lucrece.” Therefore, Imogen and Cloten symbols of Lucrece and Tarquinius, and that’s only a taste of the play’s mythological analogies. With all this said, we’ve scratched the surface of Shakespeare’s interpretation skills, but our future business will shy away from Shakespeare’s interpretation ability and rather bear with his exemplary impersonation ability, which is a far more prevalent theme in Cymbeline.

There is a reoccurring theme of characters masking themselves, and the characters’ varying motives for doing so. In Act V of the play nearly all of the primary characters are “masked” in one way or another (Posthumous is constantly flip-flopping side and changing his characters’ nuances leading up to the final scene); and there’s a conscious mask, an unconscious mask, and even the aforementioned coincidentally in some characters’ cases. Remember, we aren’t even concerning the mythological allusions and their resonance at this point, we are more concerned with physical appearance (however slight) and stage direction. For example and it’s a hint for the deus ex machina, Guiderius and Arviragus are playing themselves at this point but they still don’t know who they truly are, the fruit of their loins that is; they are masked with twenty years’ age without knowing so. Then Belarius, whom I believe to be the slyest, sharpest, and smartest character, drops a bombshell of wisdom. The fifth act is incredibly rich in fleshing out the play and its characters; you can piece together the prior plot from the fifth scene alone because of its dialogue density and mise en scene­.

What’s happening is that everybody’s been called to King Cymbeline’s tent. The Romans have been defeated, and the King has been saved by many of the masked personnel consisting of Morgan, Polydore, Cadwal, Fidele, and a haggard man once mistaken for a Roman. That’s Belarius, Guiderius, Arviragus, Imogen, and Posthumous, in that order.

Now, after all that, we can enter the Act V: Scene V:

Cymbeline enters and reflects right after recalling Posthumous’ execution; “Stand by my side, you whom the gods have made/ Preservers of my throne. Woe is my heart/ That poor soldier, that so richly fought,/ Whose rags shamed gilded arms, whose naked breast” (1095). This shows Cymbeline’s lack of discernment when he believes his knowledge of the matter to be quite palpable. By speaking of the raggedy Posthumous as naked or seeing one for who they really are Cymbeline is wrong at this point in the scene. Cymbeline is ready to award those who are noble and honorable (Morgan, Polydore, and Cadwal) until he is abruptly informed that his wife, the Queen, had previously conspired against (i.e. poisoned) his daughter Imogen and has recently taken her own life, and that, in the words of Cornelius, “she confest she never loved you; only/ Affected greatness got by you”. He begins to bereave his daughter, but then the rest of the living lot enters including Posthumous (still masked), Fidele, and Iachimo as well as some other smaller characters. That’s a total of five people who aren’t yet naked to the King. Also, this is where the domino effect is beginning to teeter. Ironically as the King begins to dwell on the bad news as Fidele enters the room. Morgan takes immediate notice of this because the three cave-dwellers had previously thought the ‘page’ had passed away. Though neither of the three step up because they believe their eyes might be deceiving them or that this is about to get good. It does; Fidele notices the ring on Iachimo’s finger which looked strikingly familiar to Posthumous’. Already having been captured, Iachimo is the first to unveil his lies and he believes Posthumous to be long gone. Iachimo is a prisoner of war, feels a sense of guilt inside, and has that ‘I’ve got nothin’ left to lose’ mentality. He had cheated on his bet with Posthumous in obtaining Imogen’s bracelet and inheriting Posthumous’ ring; he used the “bed trick” but failed with the bedding. With that tidbit of gossip now out, Posthumous steps up because he cannot control his emotions screaming for justice and desire for his wife, Imogen. He, I mean she, Fidele then steps up to calm him, but she is disguised as a teenage boy. These two are lovers for crying out loud, and neither of them recognizes one another! In fact, each of them believes the other to be dead. Imogen had lead herself to believe that Posthumous was the beheaded body because of the garments’ evidence, but it was just Cloten. Whereas, Posthumous had denounced womankind for Imogen’s alleged fling with Iachimo and had conspired to kill his wife. It turns out, nothing really went as planned, and here we find ourselves. Fidele steps up and is struck by Posthumous out of irate, emotional reflex. When he next shows signs of life, he is not a he anymore. The fidelity-filled Fidele is revealed as the chaste Imogen, who admits to have drunken the “poison.” Belarius says, “My boys,/There was our error” (1098). Now the three cave-dwellers know that Fidele never died, and that he is a she. Here, Cymbeline and Posthumous are overjoyed and they both forgive Imogen for their imprudence. The story really rounds out into the genre of a romance hereafter. Furthermore, this is not only a romance between a guy and a girl; this is a story of a bringing all the loved ones in the family together in one way or another. Currently, Imogen knows that the beheaded body from the forest was that of Cloten, who was the heir (though not ideal) apparent to the throne. In this government’s eye, someone has to pay the price. Polydore steps up and admits to his actions and argues his case in a quaint fashion, “A most uncivil one (prince): the wrongs he did me/ Were nothing prince-like; for he did provoke me”; Polydore tends to express the prudence of a prince far more than his adversary, although what follows is his condemnation. Lastly, Morgan must step up because he is the banished beholder of the biggest secret, and he sets everything straight. He provides the King with a happy ending, two more royal, rightful heirs with physical proof. Morgan brings forth with him Cadwal, soon to be recognized as Arviragus, to join Polydore, and he confesses that their identities aren’t as they appear. He proclaims that he was exiled by Cymbeline himself nearly twenty years previous, and that’s when he nabbed the two princes. His proof: Guiderius, once Polydore, has a distinctive mole upon his neck as Imogen, his evident sister, does under her breast. This is a sign the King hadn’t forgotten. Guiderius is immediately pardoned and they reunited family embraces one another. The masks are off. Because of this final revelation everything falls into place; the two worst-hearted characters, the Queen and Cloten, are dead, the King will sustain the integrity of the royal bloodline, Britain has vanquished the Romans, and the romance between Imogen and Posthumous will triumph.

As the finale unravels the masked characters are unveiled, and after it’s all said and done the characters finally “get it,” get what they want, and get what they never expected. We learned earlier in this class that there is no such thing as a “wrong interpretation” of Shakespeare. Something that Frederick Turner said really stuck with me: “The weightless thoughts of man effectively control the massive universe itself, if correct principles of rational transformation – proper levers, pulleys, lenses, clocks, quadrants – can be found. The microcosm can not only reflect, but control, the macrocosm” (Turner). As possessors of this potential, if we manifest, maximize and master the infinite capaciousness of undeveloped imagination then we may impersonate the power of the universe. Furthermore, knowing the art of acting is a good start because impersonating another takes very little weight (not to mention that your memory aptitude does increase). If I dozed off into my imagination and somehow conjured up this scenario whence I saw The William Shakespeare then he would surely be a thespian because “All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts” (622). Some of Cymbeline’s characters choose their roles in order to blind others of their true identity, while others are naturally blind and simultaneously missing the point if they haven’t yet discarded their unconscious masking. Interpretation, impersonation, and imagination are a few keys to the universe, some tools for thought, and Shakespeare has enriched the story of Cymbeline with these qualities. The final scene of Act V is merely a microcosm of the macrocosm that is Cymbeline, The Romances, The Complete Works of…, Literature, Knowledge, and so on.

Works Cited

- Shakespeare, William. Cymbeline. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Published by Barnes & Noble, Inc. Print. 1994.

- Shakespeare, William. As You Like It. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Published by Barnes & Noble, Inc. Print. 1994.

- Turner, Frederick. “The School of Night.” Frederick Turner’s Blog: mark my words: on poetry, life, culture, and the cosmos. Web. 26 February 2009.

- Adams, Robert M. Shakespeare: The Four Romances. Published by Penguin Books. Canada. 1989. Print.

Vocab Lesson

Here are some of terms I've learned over the course of this class:

Visceral - pertaining to intuition rather than intellect

Pliable - adaptable, easily changed

Propinquity - close proximity

Lucidity - easily understood

Candid - open and sincere, frank

Osmosis - gradual compilation, assimilation, and convergence of knowledge and ideas

Rhapsody - study of book < study of the soul (from the woman's POV)

Ad nauseum - arguing to the point of nausea

Deus ex machina - a seemingly supernatural force which helps characters in a story out of a difficult situation

Miles gloriosus - braggart soldier

Neologism - newly coined term

Sieve - a strainer

Captious - apt to noticing faults, difficult to please

Capacious - spacious

Plausive - applauding

Intenible - "the captious and intenible sieve" -whatever that means

Pied - consisting of two or more colors

Anamnesis - complete remembrance, recollection, or memory

This is only a small, itty, bitty bit. Let's add to it in the future!

In Short: Screenplay Scene V

I've prepared a brief retelling of the Cymbeline's final scene for my individual presentation, and this is going to be inspired by Dr. Sexson's favorite performance of The Tempest and my experience with how different I look without a hat.

Act V: Scene V

- King – Britain is saved because of all these people here today, except that one! Call in those who need rewards! Come in Morgan, Polydore, Cadwal. But wait, there is news, good or bad news? Bad, how bad? My wife is dead! What? And what’s that you say, my daughter too?! Ah, Fidele I’m glad you’re here. You’re the closest I have to family now.

- Fidele – You have no idea. But Cymbeline I must inquire into that ring in which that prisoner has. I’ve seen it.

- Iachimo – It’s from Posthumous Leonatus, I swear, but I can no longer bear the pain. I cheated, we didn’t do it, me and your daughter dear King! She’s chaste!

- Posthumous – What? You cheated, and then I ordered people to kill my wife?! I’m so angry I could just punch…a little kid.

- FideleàImogen – Ow, And who the heck do you think you are? And that Italian son of a bitch is the one who took my bracelet.

- King – my daughter alive, but how?

- Belarius – my boys, there was our error, she wasn’t even dead at her funeral. And she’s not a she at all. Ahahah

- Woodsmen – Bloody hell, she’s a bombshell!

- Posthumous – Well, not dead Imogen, I’m your husband. That’s quite a costume you have for being one possessing your chastity.

- Imogen – Wait a tick. Posthumous? Have I lost my head? I mean your head, I mean you’re dead.

- King – Where is Cloten, we can’t have this Postumous become king.

- Woodsmen – Oh that one, I killed him. He was a jackass.

- King – Jackass or not, nobody is going to get away with spilling royal blood.

- Belarius – Ehem, actually King, if I may, you have all the heir you need right in this room, if you catch my drift. These two are Guiderius and Arviragus, your sons, and I am the banished Belarius. I can prove it, just check this mole on his neck. So go ahead, kill your son!

- Woodsmen – Wait, if we’re royalty then that bombshell is my sister? Oh my god!

- King – well, um, Imogen. Did I ever tell you that you had two brothers?

Hats

Ever since the beginning of the semester I've been fascinated with this idea of suspension of disbelief. Even the most elementary change in a character can alter their entire persona. Early in the semester I was in Acting class and wore a hat the first few week. The fourth week comes around and I decide to not wear the hat. You know what happened, I'll tell you what happened; the teacher didn't even recognize me. It's happened many times before, but the fact that it happened in Acting class during the same semester in which I've taken Studies in Shakespeare makes it a little more intriguing.

Furthermore, I've attempted to employ and been an advocate of this tactic since our School of Night group started meeting and constructing our interpretation of Henry IV: Part I. If one of our groupmates were to wonder how they would play two characters then I would suggest my fallback stage direction, "Just grab another hat, the audience will get it."

In acting, it's not all about the costume, but it sure helps the point get across and draws some particulars for the audience to feed upon.

The Man Behind the Curtain

Ever since our Professor has told us of his favorite performance of The Tempest, done by one all-encompassing man, in the form of a puppet show I haven't been able to shake the idea that every character is one character. The one character who comes to mind, naturally, is Prospero. He has complete control of what's going on. Even though there are subplots which are conspired behind his back still knows who's up to what. There's the Three drunken Stooges who confidently believe they can relinquish Prospero of his power, and there's the shipwrecked sailors consisting of Prospero's aristocratic kin. Propero hatches two plans; one, to have Miranda and Ferdinand fall in love; two, to seek revenge upon Antonio.
Looking back, this is the perfect play for Shakespeare to die on. He's the omnipotent storyteller and controller of contortion. I like to think of Propero's character as William Shakespeare himself. The books are where his knowledge lies. According to history, he rarely stepped in front of the curtain except in character, his character(s). Realistically, he's incognito which provides him a void fill. Being no one give you the power to be anyone.
Propero talks a lot in The Tempest, far more than any other character as a narrator would, and the play ends on his terms and when he sees fit.
Going back to this prodigious performance; the method in which it was performed was right on target. The man behind the curtain is the only performer, and the only performer necessary.

Prethesis

I've not decided for sure, yet, but I have a couple plays in mind which I'd like to investigate and write an essay on: Cymbeline or King Henry IV: Part I.

As I've expressed in a previous blog, Cymbeline's final Act fascinated me. I would desire to develop a thesis involving the role changes, revealings, and mythological elements.

Although, at this point I'm leaning towards writing about John Falstaff from Henry IV. His hypocritical moral standards and brash, witty nature makes him one funny farce of a fellow.

These ideas are rough, and with them I leave you a rough sonnet:

I've made a promise, one poem per blog

The page is blank, the words in the cavern

The whoreson Falstaff, that fat, aging hog

Sack and smog each behalf the Boar's tavern.

Hal holds the wealth, the inherent well-off

Shall he lend coin so the fat may maintain?

The drunk's princely niche pays his rent and trough

Thee horse spits and nays, so ends this quatrain.

We ask for no end, we desire for more

From this sacked Falstaff, we hire the boar

It's late and we tire, Jack's flat on the floor

Till the morrow we'll retire, the fat horse snores.

A hog and horse, quite a contradiction

We plead for more, in spite of the fiction.

A Click

- There was a click somewhen reading Cymbeline. I understood this play pretty good, at least it's been the most fun for me to read this semester.

- Recently we've returned from spring break, and I filled a couple hours of that time watching Rango. The main character, a Chameleon, is a playwriter. Though, mythologically, he's a Thespian. His character shows his improvisational abilities. Sometimes he's just awful at it, and it reminded me of A Midsummer Night's Dream in Act V. His innovative nuances and the other characters' connection to his addition makes it a story...of Thespians.

- I love the idea of being a Thespian; an actor who may inherit, employ, or become another person. Simple changes in ones appearance (may it be clothing, hairdo, fidgety hands, whatever) and/or persona potentially gives others the impression that they've not before met this newcomer. Newcomers are interesting. There are many newcomers in this play. Cloten, Iachimo, Imogen, Belarius, Guiderius, and Arviragus carry more than one role in this playwrite. In addition, tally three roles for Posthumous, there ‘bout. These people know how to act, even if when they don’t know they are acting.

- One of my favorite scenes, somewhen it may all clicked, is Act V, Scene V of Cymbeline. We’ll pick it up right when the king has found out that Cloten has been killed by Guiderius. A moment ago he was a hero, and now he’s the murderer of the heir apparent. I find this play more comic than tragic. The reader or audience figures that Guiderius (and Arviragus, same blood) are apparently pretty good dudes. It’s funny because King Cymbeline wanted Cloten to be king for an entire other sub-plot is talking to a purer heir apparent. (Think of Posthumous’s conundrum, too. Prior, convicted of murder and now a hero, yet he’s in disguise and and suppose to be in exile.) Guiderius is condemned by the King, but then people start speaking up. Imogen didn’t know that Cloten was the well-dressed headless man. Even when they actors are dead they never lose their method. Fidele’s no longer a boy, and now the three mountainmen find out that not only Fidele is a girl but also that she’s their sister. Posthumous has to open his mouth at this point, as well as Belarius. Now, it’s a happy ending as I see it.

Imogen can be with Posthumous, and they don’t even have to be top dogs. The king gets his wish because Posthumous doesn’t have to be king with Guiderius and Arviragus around. The forg-rotten Cloten is dead. I suppose the king did lose his pistol of a wife, but the king was stubborn and dumb at times. He probably wouldn’t allow Imogen to go out to a movie screening after 9:35. "But Daddy, I'll be home before midnight...No! I'm not going out with a boy!" Everything clicked. The characters are most definitely not the most enticing compared to some of the other plays (i.e. Lear, Falstaff, the Mechanical ensemble, Hamlet) because their dialogue is much easier to pin down. Nevertheless, the inherent and added characterizations along with revelations of true identities provide that mythological spin. Everyone is never who they appear. Things work out exactly as they're supposed to, in and if time.

Deer in the Headlights

Our source begins in Cymbeline, Act III, Scene IV. The context: Posthumous has been conspirin' and hatin' on Imogen and she's had enough. Posthumous is in exile and Imogen insists that Pisanio should carry out his orders and 'end her life'.

We pick up at about...line 89 or so...

Imogen-

...--Prithee, dispatch: The lamb entreats the butcher: where's thy knife? Thou art too slow to do thy master's bidding, When I desire it too.

Pisanio-

O gracious lady, Since I received command to do this business I have not slept one wink.

Imogen-

Do't and to bed then.

Pisanio-

I'll wake mine eyeballs out first.

Imogen-

Wherefore, then, Didst undertake it?...[yada yada yada]...Why has thou gone so far, To be unbent when thou hast ta'en thy stand, Th'elected deer before thee?

Here we have a deer in the headlights. This is what popped into my head after reading the referenced scene. Mythologically, Pisanio is that deer above. He's wide-eyed, petrified, and waiting for his break (brake, too! Sorry, pun). Though, ain't it strange for Imogen to declare a role reversal, that Pisanio is the butcher? She's really the one behind the wheel, yet she calls herself the lamb to be slaughtered. Usually, the deer's the one that gets a windshield to the face and bumper to the knees. The one with the car is protected and confident in their security, yet shaken from the recent occurrence. Imogen is smart because she's the driver even though she "offers" Pisanio (the butcher) the wheel, but she really knows that it'll just scamper off. Pisanio is no butcher, he's just a deer who hasn't blinked once since he decided to come into the road.

The scene continues, and Pisanio suggests that he bring back part of Imogen's automobile to his forest friends. Maybe part of the bumper or windshield with a little flesh attached will suffice for proof that the deed is done? Let's see what happens next...

Will the deer find some more friends to walk into the road with him? Will they find some horns and headlights, again?

The Sandlot's Flyting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVscCNZsYSY

My childhood recollection example of 'Flyting.' The clip popped to the top of my head because I must've seen this film over twenty/thirty times.

Only an insult like, "You play ball like a girl!" would be best effective in the correct context. A childish and athletically competitive nature. Something so simply insulting turns the conversation into a heated status establishing contest. The rivals' backyard quarrel becomes hyperbolic in context. A pin prick can cause big conflict as scribble can become a quibble. It takes one wrong button for self-destruction.

A quick All's Well

Recently there's been this trend throughout our classes with this idea of the female getting rejected by the male. I like to believe that an 18th century, British short story titled Fantomina was derived from some Shakespearean scripture. Eliza Haywood wrote this story of an unnamed girl who was probably of a higher class, and she becomes infinitely infatuated with Beauplaisir, the original translation meaning something along the lines of "good pleasure." Yada, yada, yada. She gets rejected a number of times, but every time (four times in forty pages) she's rejected she then morphs herself into another seductress. So time goes on and things get out of hand and then...all's well that ends well? I thought Haywood's story was humorous for it's sensual inscriptions (pornographic genre?) though the ending hits on a lower note. Nevertheless it seems that Haywood's female agent-of-a-character could live as anyone and get anything she wanted, emphasizing the inherent stupidity of the male figure (more specifically, the meat-head, male archetype). In respect for the story it's fair lump all men into this general male character, I understand how it goes.

Then I got to thinking, soon after we eventually read All's Well..., that there is something going on here. Fantomina and Helena are like totally the same person, yeah. Totally, though the difference is that Helena is part of an ensemble (compared to the character-study nature of Fantomina), but they still have the similar bag of tricks. The 'bed trick' for example, the usage of light. Both characters understand that guys are stupid. This is how guys think in literary terms (to some extent [work with me here]):

I want to see this chick's face. She's probably smokin'. Wait, she wants lights off? Well okay, as long as I get my end's meat. Was that inappropriate to call a girl a piece of meat? No, as long as I care for her. Come to me, Diana......yada, yada, yada.......Scene.

Then we come to the part where we find out Mr. Beauplaisir, I mean Bertram, has been duped. Bertram's initial enigmatic epistle had become his fate because All's Well That Ends Well. His letter predicted the perfect happy ending, but it's the females which take over in these stories. Mr. Beauplaisir falls for the mask-followed-the-no-lights trick by the last of Fantomina's aliases. It's textbook. But the textbook must derive from something. Haywood's character grabbed a little flavor from All's Well's witty and wild Helena (who swapped spots with Diana).

Really, who isn't Shakespeare? He writes and becomes characters within characters within characters and the latter.

King Lear Videos and Books on Tape

I have two videos here. The first is an English play, the second an early seventies Russian film adaptation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tURpNRYakMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_MKXo-AOCk&feature=player_detailpage

First of all, the Fool is my favorite character in this part of the play because he is the voice of reason to the King. The Russian rendition got it right because it was presented as a sitcom, with the laugh track and whatnot. It's ironic and funny that Lear is a believer in the Fool. I should note, I had 'read,' more or less, this back in high school but the details are foggy. Our teacher Mr. McMan had a hell of a sense of humor though. I remember him explaining to the class how he thought Shakespeare's writing was hilarious. I chuckle when I recall how much tragedy the play has. It is a tragedy, right? I suppose not at this point in the play in Act 1 Scene 4.

Secondly, this past weekend I took a trip out to see some friends in Spokane. Since I had to get some homework done on the way back, and I thought that listening to King Lear's book-on-tape would fill the six hour drive nicely. A friend and I discussed how the experience is different when you're listening to a performance as opposed to reading the text. Technically it's the same material, but there's an interpretation variation. You're going to focus on different things in a movie as opposed to a book. Or say a stage play versus a stand-up comic. You're going to learn and absorb things, but you need the right traction. Shakespeare's books/performances on tape is a different experience than reading.

Lastly, in each of these clips my favorite part of the book on tape was cut out of the clips' scripts.

Fool - Mark it, nuncle; Have more than thou showest, Speak less than thou knowest, Lend less than thou owest, Ride more than thou goest, Learn more than thou trowest, Set less than thou throwest, Leave thy drink and thy whore, And keep in-a-door, And thou shalt have more, Than two tens to a score.

I think that when I was in the car, through snowstorms and stars, driving along them mountain passes, through passing lanes of traffic; I think I just liked his flow. Cruising and flowing, no snoozin' and no slowin'. The book on tape production was fantastic, but the hardest part was keeping up with who was talking. I found out later that the Fool said the line above, but in the car it didn't matter much.

Spoken word is arguably more powerful than writing. Effective? Affective? That's what my friend and I debated. Should we prefer one over the other? He was always the book guy and I was a movie guy growing up. Which experience is more rich? In conclusion, there was no conclusion to the conversation.

Shakespeare ala Alchemist

James Orchard Halliwell wrote a brief, 50-page essay called the "Character of Falstaff." This I've just completed reading, and earlier in the day I completed Shakespeare's Henry IV: Part I. I though that this essay would help me understand the character of Falstaff, but instead it was more about the inspiration for his character and his initial character.

What I mean to say is, I learned something today.

According to Halliwell (and his common-belief associates), Sir John Falstaff was once Sir John Oldcastle. Shakespeare made a simple name change before the play was produced before too long.

I also learned something else today, the name of "Shakespeare" is quite similar to that of "Falstaff."

Shake=Fal (Fall) -- a motion, action, or descriptive?

speare=staff -- in one way or another, a stick?

If this allegory and/or semiotic holds consistent then Shakespeare must've found too much similarity between himself and Oldcastle to keep his name so. Thus, the name change to Falstaff.

But where do the similarities between the infamous character and author begin? Shoot, I couldn't answer that for you. Give me a few more of Shakespeare's historic reads then I'll formulate something. Instead, I'll give some of my favorite content from HenryIV:Pt.I.

Prince Henry and Falstaff, along with others, are kickin' it in the pub with some sack. Much sack, at least for Falstaff who ends up passed out behind the bar in given time/text.

Prince Henry - "That villainous abominable misleader of youth, Falstaff, that old white-bearded Satan."

This is Hal's retort after Falstaff's challenge to call out the cowardice (Falstaff's character, not necessarily Falstaff himself). Hal and Falstaff are not themselves, but a mere personification of their characters of themselves. They're play on their characters allow for free voice on the matter. Then a hostess enters the frame.

Falstaff - "Out ye rogue!--Play out the play. I have much to say in the behalf of that Falstaff."

Then after several lines...

Falstaff - "Dost thou hear, Hal? never call a true piece of gold a counterfeit; thou art essentially mad, without seeming so.

Prince Henry - "And thou a natural coward, without instinct."

It's funny that we should discuss alchemy and then I revert to something we haven't yet discussed and find the same theme. I should also say that my favorite show is The Wire, and a common theme in the show is that people shine their shit up and call it gold. It's a politically, criminally, economically, and socially driven narrative. It's a common theme among many writers, bullshit that is, so to speak.

Falstaff is quite the bullshitter, considering his acting in Act V. He fools Prince Hal into believing that he's died, but that's not so. Was this a move of cowardice? I doubt it because it he was having some fun. But Falstaff believed "'twas time to counterfeit..." Quite a one-of-a-kind fat man, kicking back, drinking sack, talking smack. It's his charm and liquid sworded tongue, always well worded that one. It's funny that he talks a lot of bull but is known for his cowardice.

Finally, back to the issue of Shakespeare changing the name 'Oldcastle' (3 syllables) to 'Falstaff' (2 syllables). It's a sound hypothesis considering some of the stanza's syllables fall short. Shakespeare didn't care to change it, and it's gold because it is so. If you break the rules of iambic pentameter then you needn't repent. You're (i.e. Shakespeare) the alchemist then you make your own rules. Sir John Falstaff is a product of Shakespeare's literary alchemical experimentation.

You can break the rules if you can get away with it, but Shakespeare might have not believed in rules. Because some rules are bullshit, but then again so is alchemy. People's gold can be anything, like a chocolate coin.

During my break from the blog

I've been intrigued by some of the ideas from The School of Night, as well as Shakespeare, naturally. Also as of recent I read The Great Divorce, half of The Pilgrim's Progress, and Robinson Crusoe. These few books have very similar ideas in their settings. Thus, The School of Night and Shakespeare, in general, have gotten me on the right road to start a short story. A friend of mine back home and I over Christmas break began this story, and some other classes' assignments have allowed me to continue jotting down and structuring what I want to say.

So here you have it, the first paragraph for an essay from another class. You'll see a couple of the most affecting quotes from Shakespeare and The School of Night. Keep in mind, a chess game is a stage, and the pieces are it's players; They all have an entrace in every game played, and if more than one's played then most will make their leave. And I suppose, a pawn can have many parts. This is an element which you'll seldom visit in the ensuing opening. I hope to further elaborate and layer this story out as I gather ideas from oncoming ideas and variables.

Action.

“All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts.” (Shakespeare, 42) This is the truth. I learn’t this whence I was in the Void. How’s this the truth? Well, if you’re on a stage then you must believe that there’s an audience behind the fourth wall. It wasn’t so simple how I learn’t what I did whence I was there. Let me explain, this Void place is not of our world, the previous one. You see, the Void is beyond all cognition, anything and everything, whatever. It is timeless and spaceless. That it is to say, this place is beyond time and space thus containing infinite amounts of both. “Timeless and spaceless” is how you should understand this place to be; simply, because time and space do not matter, literally and figuratively. But wait, what’s the difference between here and heaven? There’s also a fine line between Soul and Mind. Remember, the Soul is matterless giving it infinite potential to freelance without its corporeal Body. “The weightless thoughts of man effectively control the massive universe itself, if correct principles of rational transformation – proper levers, pulleys, lenses, clocks, quadrants – can be found. The microcosm can not only reflect, but control, the macrocosm.” (Turner) In the real world, delving into, analyzing, and investigating your mind is the closest you’ll get to your soul in your body. The mind is a void itself and the infinite must be explored without the restriction of matter; it’s a fulcrum betwixt body and soul. This is the place where you learn to be like the gods. Remember you are never God, which would be hubris. But you have to transcend, and you must practice in order to do so.

Scene.

AMsN'sD prez info

It must be true, Shakespeare is everywhere. Even in bad movies, or should we say the criticism of the bad movies. In our case, the Rude Mechanicals rendition of Pyramus and Thisby's story is Santa Clause Conquers the Martians. There are a number of different critics and they are not all behind the same fourth wall. There's the fairies, who's 4th is beyond the stage and Pyramus and Thisby's audience. That being said, the audience, Theseus, Hippolyta, and the four lovers, are behind the second 4th. We have a peculiar comparison here because this layer seems to be where the main critics are viewing. These personae are the inspiration for Mystery Science Theatre 3000. The movies they watch are inspired by the horrendously hilariously Rude Mechanicals, and even in MST3K they are forced by their master to witness the cheap entertainment. The Rude Mechanicals are the lowermost layer, and embody the lowermost competence, regarding tragedy.

What's funny is that Santa Clause Conquers the Martians is (more specifically, was meant to be) a tragedy. The film about invasion turns into a travesty right quick, and these filmmakers are being put on display for their utmost incompetence, and it's funny to people or characters who are apt at identifying and critiquing. And they'll blab about anything that runs across the brim of their minds; for example, Theseus, Hippolyta, and Lysander numerously poke fun at Quince's Prologue's grammar prior to its conclusion. They're the archetype of the "front row."

Theseus, the master, makes a most convincing argument to Philostrate for why these Rude Mechanicals are worthwhile. It's an ignorant argument having never actually seen the play, but the argument stands lone and tall.

Philostrate - “A play is there, my lord, some ten words long, Which is as brief as I have known a play; But by ten words, my lord, it is too long. Which makes it tedious. For in all the play There is not one word apt, one player fitted…”

Theseus - “I will hear the play; For never anything can be amiss, When simpleness an duty tender it. Go, bring them in: and take your places, ladies.”

Theseus' ample argument is right for our taste because there are no boring books/texts/movies/general-form-of-art-or-entertainment, boredom lies within its beholder. But Theseus may have thought over what he's made him and his band others do. At the beginning of Act V, Theseus would have claimed that there's merit in every piece of art. But by the end, he says explicitly, "No epilogue, Your play needs no excuse." [a] Is Theseus the type of person who simply doesn't believe in epilogues, or [b] is it specifically the Rude Mechanical's Pyramus and Thisby epilogue that he'd like to avoid? B? There's four Acts to A Midsummer Night's Dream core story, but five Acts to its play. Act V is a tragedy because of the performance's objective storyline. Act V is a comedy for performance itself. Act V is a comedy to the aristocracy. But what is Act V to the fairies? Probably a comedy, but they do take the performance more seriously.

Sonnet Therapy #2

Golf, Song, and Shakespeare

Grow as a tree but stick with Cobra's chrome

Flow as Nickel Creek, these my reasons why:

Drive'n off the tee is the quickest root home

I wish you out of the woods, the club's try

Find in your past a game of lost and found

Might as well be dream'n lest you hear a snore

Time comes at you fast, try to slow it down

One chip to the green'n she's on the dance floor

Find your roots but the capable break free

The story's weave'n is pretty far out

Mind the woods, but escape their lunacy

One putt to break ev'n, a nifty par out.

The myth behind the trees takes quite the toll

Take risks on your leave, with higher stakes next hole.

*It becomes more free-verse-Iam-Pent near the end. For funs.

Shakespeare and the Restoration

Another one of my classes is about the inception of the "novel" in British Literature, years 1660 to the mid-1800s. Shakespeare was not a writer of novels, sticking with playwrights and poetry. He died around 1616, 44 (short) years before the Restoration period, yet, presumptuously, his style heavily influenced those Englishmen (and women) who pioneered the new "novel."

"The Restoration and the 18th Century" is an introductory article about the new novel.

Novel: "identifying the genre by no other marks than newness itself."

It seems that the article's definition attempts to advocate free reign within the realm of writing because the latter part of the definition elaborates --"Letters, diaries, memoirs, news items, government articles, drawings, verses, even sheet music crop up within the pages of the early novels"-- It's a collection of styles within a single product.

Shakespeare's work is pertinent to this topic because of his innovation. His individualistic style from the century previous to the Restoration prompted the Restorers to evolve their visions.

For example, Shakespeare's playwrights are identified as Comedies, Tragedies, or Histories, but his rich style surpasses the generic genre. The Restorers recognized the necessity for more dense and diverse works, genre aside. Shakespeare, or his scholars, may sub-group his works, but Shakespeare inadvertently wrote with a Restoration mindset, we'll call it "Renaissance writing." To be a Renaissance writer is to understand and utilize many different styles of writing--stretching beyond what's mentioned above from the Restoration article. In other words, if you're a Renaissance writer then your talent is well-rounded; like a "Renaissance man," time period aside.

Logically

-- Shakespeare:Playwrights::Restorers:Novels

(-- Writer:Styles::Writer:Styles)

Think of it this way

-- Shakespeare:Mathematics or Linguistics::Restorers:Poetry or Sheet Music

Shakespeare was as fresh as the works of the Restoration. His "newness" is obvious, but does his influence correlate within the Restoration writing revolution?

A Midsummer Night's Dream

I chose to knock out this story first. Instead, it's knocked me out. Days of the daze, looking back it seems that I might have been dreaming? I mean, I understood what generally was happening, but Shakespeare's style is more unorthodox than I had anticipated. Themes interrelated; for example, it's a playwright, has a play within its text, and the overall storyline is loosely based on the play within the playwright. This, I understood when reading.

Contrary to my understanding, there was a lacuna where my brain must've been moonstricken because I could not figure out the fairies' purposes. After I finished Act III Saturday afternoon I asked my friend for some help dissecting the differentiated realities (dream/sleep vs. real/awake) and roles. He, having not read Shakespeare for some time, advised that they might represent "the changing of the seasons," but instead they're purposes run more parallel with what's going on in the story. The Fairy King wants a Fairy Queen as do the other two aristocrats and four lovers.

A great deal can change overnight, but how much of what's changed is real? How much a dream? The fairies actions fabricate, yet balance, the emotions of the lovers. It's a true comedy because everything falls into place. Lysander loves Hermia, that's real. Hermia loves Lysander, that's real. Helena loves Demetrius, that's real. Demetrius loves Helena, that's debatable.

Finally, I'm curious to find if there are any parallels that conjoin Puck and the Mechanicals. Does Puck's story overlap with any of the actors' or their production's story, "Pyramus and Thisby"? Why these two? The obvious similarity, Puck is a jester and the troupe are the comic relief. It seems as if they're all individuals, lower workers, and/or wildcards.

Pr'experience

It all started Freshman year of high school, there bout. Romeo & Juliet was the text. Then to Hamlet, round Sophomore year, and it's references and usage have yet to cease over the past several years (including primarily my College Sophomore year). Junior year it was King Lear. Senior year, Much Ado About Nothing was all the rage, but I missed out on Macbeth when it was free on stage. Although!, Othello's production was creatively wild because it was re-made, adapted Native style. I think back on what I've experienced with Shakespeare, and realize that I took R&J and King Lear for granted. Later on in my experience you notice my maturity, I suppose maturity is what you could call it. I look back and really appreciate my studies/experiences with Hamlet, Much Ado About Nothing, and Othello.

More recent thoughts: To improve at poetry has been a recent goal of mine. Over Christmas break instead of reading more I was writing raps and rhymes. So maybe once in a while I should improv (or structure in a timely fashion) a standard, A-G, Shakespearean sonnet.

To keep up my wishful thinking here's...Sonnet #1

I want your eyes, mind, and even ears all in

It's a new world, from plays to sonnets

The first few lines of my Shakespearean

Scribblin' lining up like bolts and what? Knuts

Yo, in the hole you gots only pens and pulp

If symbols and meanings come between us

Then it's the squirrel's world, nuts and bolts

Feed the needful thing, pursue it like Venus.

Think a Costanza extravaganza

Think Seinfeld, Much Ado About Nuttin'

I double-dipped with a pun last stanza

Have some food for thought! Drink up, too! Glutton!

I'm tired, going nuts, a crazy fella

Third time's a charm, paronomasia.