Shakespeare, in general
so i went into highschool thinking english was a used for clarity and to express ideas from point A to point B
then i came out of highschool realizing that language was a texture and had as many bumps and holes as anythign else out there– just another thing to be manipulated .
shakespereare was just the master manipulator in some ways - and i dindt like it because i didnt realize
so much of plot and device and shape of english comes from him
and then i went into college not enjoying the picking apart and the.. general… obvious-ness? of shakespeare (Tho i did like that his plays were very fast. none of this tension building and on and on climax climbing.
foreshadowing in 2 lines yes, 500 page monologues? no)
then i am in shakespeare classand… yknow? things like… “virtue is a fig!” and “who cannot be crushed by a plot” and “simply the thing i am shall make me live” (othello/alls well that ends well, respectively) make me that shakespeare felt highs and lows in acute manner… in 1600.
so reading hamlet again was good; though in all of shakespeare, it seems as if there is a theme of doubleness/straightforwardness. what DOESN’T have to do with appearance and dissembling the interior??
or maybe its my prof who loves to dwell on such things
This entry was posted on Monday, November 22nd, 2004 at 11:38 am and is tagged with master manipulator, reading hamlet, alls well, highs and lows, anythign, monologues, othello, climax, shakespeare, virtue, tho, clarity, holes, texture, appearance, tension, shape. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback.