Re: Shakespeare
Matt Kozusko (mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu)
Thu, 05 Nov 1998 13:31:12 -0500
Me:
> > Between, say, _Comedy of Errors_ and _King Lear_, Shakespeare's
Camille:
> 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.
Okay, let's make it _Comedy_ and _Winter's Tale_. I think the point
stands.
Hamlet as "thinking man's revenge tragedy"--perfect. Say Q1, which is
roughly half the length of the Q2 and F1 versions, is the "stage
version" of the play. The emphasis is on the revenge, and it's over
with in two hours. "To be or not to be" is shortened by some twenty
lines and much of the "poetry" in general is cut. Shakespeare would
recognize that his play had to be short and simple enough to please the
masses. Why, then, even write a four hour version that's twice as long
and overburdened with poetry? And why have a second four hour version
that changes a few things, cutting a speech here and adding one there?
What might be toward, that this cut-and-paste might make the bard joint
laborer on two plays?
--
Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu