Re: Shakespeare
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Thu, 05 Nov 1998 19:22:53 +1100
> It seems unlikely that Shakespeare would take no interest in his craft
> other than as a means of generating income, ceasing to pursue aesthetic
> ends beyond the point at which his lines could be seen to turn a
> profit.
True ... but just like certain auteurs I can think of, they generally
didn't go over too well with the audience. `Troilus and Cressida' for
example is an incredibly daring experiment - yet all the proof points to
the fact that it was probably never performed. Like any thing, it was those
plays which combined innovation with crowd-pleasing which came off best -
Hamlet would be an exemplar of this. A kind of `thinking man's revenge
tragedy.' I'm not saying Shakespeare didn't think at all about what he
wrote - but in some ways I think this is why he's such a genius. He'd go
with his first instinct usually, and finish scripts in a matter of weeks.
He didn't overintellectualise.
> Between, say, _Comedy of Errors_ and _King Lear_, Shakespeare's
> language goes from a crisp and sensible regular iambic pentameter to an
> obfuscated, irregular verse rich with difficult symbols and indulged
> passages. Such changes, presumably, did not cater to public demand.
I think also though that this change was brought in to reflect the theme of
the play - which is, of course, the inability of words to truly say what we
feel (a little Zen, eh wot?) - `Unhappy as I am, I cannot haul my heart
into my mouth' right down to the inarticulate `Howl, howl, howl!' which
says it all without saying anything. Which true, is a very audacious thing
for someone who had built their career on words to assert.
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
@ THE INVERTED FOREST www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest