Hi Anna Marie! How are you liking A Midsummer Night's Dream? I think it's got a crazy set up already-- and I'm only one act in.
The love quadrilateral between Hermia, Lysander, Helena, and Demetrius is kind of confusing. Although, I do enjoy the relationship between Helena and Hermia. The way they speak is friendly and relatable, as evident when Helena says "O, that your frowns would teach my smiles such skill!" (1.1.198). I hope nothing happens that causes them to turn on one another. Do you think Helena is planning something that will lead to fighting between the love quadrilateral? Helena says that she will tell Demetrius about Hermia & Lysander and she seems to be harboring ill will towards Hermia, saying that "[she] is thought to be as fair as [Hermia]" (1.1.233) and "Love can transpose to form and dignity" (1.1.238). Will this tear their friendship apart?
Scene two takes us to a completely different and seemingly unrelated place as we are introduced to Quince, Bottom, Snug, Flute, Snout, and Starveling. How do you think they'll tie into the plot? What are they doing here? I enjoyed when they were arguing over who had to play Thisbe, "Nay, faith, let me not pay a woman" (1.2.45) but I don't completely understand why they're relevant yet. What are your thoughts?
Hi Verity!
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning in A Midsummer Night's Dream, I found it comical. Everything seemed so over the top, and I often found myself drawing parallels between it and the British Comedy we are doing for play pro: Tom Jones. I like how dramatic Hermia is, especially in the first scene when we are introduced to her dilemma in regards to Lysander and Demetrius. When Lysander and Hermia are left alone, she says to him, "Belike for want of rain, which I could well/ Beteem them from the tempest of my eyes" (1.1.130-131). She reminds me of my in middle school, when I was overdramatic about everything, especially concerning boys (but never in middle school did I have the dilemma she has). Perhaps her character isn't meant to be as comical as I find her, but the from the beginning of the play, everything moved so quickly and all I could do was read all of the lines in a pompous tone. But I mean honestly, Hermia is so over the top. She literally says: “My good Lysander!/I swear to thee, /By Cupid’s strongest bow, by his best arrow with the golden head, /By the simplicity of Venus’ doves, /By that which knitteth souls and prospers love… /Tomorrow truly will I meet with thee” (1.1.168-178). In that quote, she goes on for another five lines before ending with her resolution.
You make an interesting point about Hermia and Helena. I too don't want anything to happen to their friendship, but also I am one who tries to avoid conflict, yet I do think that conflict between the two would thicken the plot.
Also, I literally love Helena’s first little monologue to Hermia. I just read it in a sing song voiced, and I love how it rhymes. I think it makes her character more likable.
With scene two, I have no idea how the characters will relate, but already I cannot decide if I love their names or hate them. The whole group seems “mischievous” but in a good way, if that makes sense. Like they have good intentions but act immaturely. I’m not sure if I'm describing it right.
Anyway, What is your opinion of Helena, and separately what is your opinion of Hermia? Do you think this will be a play dominated more by the female or male characters?
I like the comparison you drew to middle school. It's comical in a way, although very accurate. Everything about A Midsummer Night's Dream is chaotic in the same way middle school is. Feelings are being tossed around, someone is in love with someone who's in love with someone ELSE, and everything is confusing. Even the jealousy between Titania and Oberon is reminiscent of preteen years. Especially when Titania asks Oberon "What, jealous Oberon? [Fairies,] skip hence. / I have forsworn his bed and company" (2.1.63-64). Maybe that's just me, but when I was in middle school, I would always tease boys.
DeleteI think that's exactly what Shakespeare was going for, in a way. There's no linear love story, not even with the King and Queen of the fairies. Do you agree that Shakespeare was trying to capture a more chaotic side of love? When Lysander confesses his love for Helena she asks him "What though he love your Hermia? Lord, what / though? / Yet Hermia still loves you. Then be content." (2.2.114-116). This contrasts heavily with some of Shakespeare's more famous plays, especially Romeo & Juliet. I think he was trying to point out that love isn't always beautiful or tragic. Sometimes it's like middle school; chaotic and all over the place. Although you could argue that it's just more of the same. Where do you stand?
The question you asked is actually very interesting. I'm not sure if this is going to be a male-dominated or female-dominated play. I believe that, with all the exposition we are given about Puck, he's the main character. We are told that he is "that merry wanderer of the night. / [He jests] to Oberon and make him smile..." (2.1.44-46), therefore, we are supposed to like him the most. Despite this, the amount of strong female characters makes me feel otherwise. Hermia, Helena, and Titania all have distinct story lines that will most likely be resolved and the male characters (example: Puck) do not. What do you think? Do you agree?
Verity,
ReplyDeleteI like that you extended the comparison to Middle School- it got me thinking about it a lot more and has made me look at the play in a different way. As I read the play, I find myself wishing that I could watch it. I feel like I am missing out on a lot of the humor and the “dreaminess.” I also would like to hear how the actors say their lines. Particularly, when I read the lines that rhyme, I tend to slip into a sing-song voice that gets annoying after a while.
Another thing I find myself reminded of, oddly, is the book series Percy Jackson and the Olympians. I think its the silliness of the fairies, and the dynamic between Oberon and Tatiana that reminds me of the gods and demigods. Especially when Tatiana and Oberon are accusing each other of loving Hippolyta and Theseus, it makes me think about the gods their complicated relationships with humans. I wonder if Rick Riordan had any sort of inspiration from A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
So when Oberon tells Puck to start putting the love potion/flower on people, you know something is going to go wrong. Oberon says, “And with the juice of this I’ll streak her eyes, /and make her full of hateful fantasies.” The fairies’ reactions to things seems very “middle school” to me. Poor Helena and Hermia end up suffering for the mistakes of the fairies (which I have a hard time blaming Puck for, Oberon should have been more specific).
Your analysis of the female vs male characters seems to be pretty accurate. It is odd to me that Puck did not make an appearance until Act II if he is so important, and we still have yet to see the relevance of Quince, Bottom, Snug and Flute. What do you think of their role so far? Do you have any predictions for when they come back in?
Anna Marie,
DeleteI've never read Percy Jackson, so that smilie is pretty much lost on me. I'll take your word for it, though. I do, however, like the word "dreaminess" to describe A Midsummer Night's dream. The complicated plot and the whimsical relationships cause everything to feel like a dream. One of my dreams, anyway; two nights ago I dreamed that Danny Devito was married to Marilyn Monroe. Weird. In addition, the location is otherworldly; the "haunted grove" (3.2.) that is the deep forrest creates an illusion of wonder & magic.
Going back to the conversation about women in this play, I find the conversation Bottom, Quince, Snout, and the others share regarding the noble ladies interesting. They rehearse giving the warning "'Ladies,'--or 'Fair-ladies--I would wish / You,'--or 'I would request you,'--or 'I would / entreat you,--not to fear, not to tremble: my life / for yours." (3.1.) to the noblewomen before the play. I wonder if this is supposed to be as comical as it is; were women really that cowardly at this time? I know women didn't really attend plays during this time, so is there some truth here? Do Helena and Hermia reflect this? And Titania?
Speaking of comedy, what happened to Bottom?! Puck is really pushing the line here. I'm not sure what he expects to gain by pulling pranks on other people. What do you think? Do you think Shakespeare is trying to make a point about frivolous romance? Puck says "Lord, what fools these mortals be!" (3.3.), as if what they're after is meaningless. Is this perhaps a social commentary?
Verity,
DeleteI am one who hates miscommunication because it leads to conflict, and this act was a prime example of that. We see what happens when the miscommunication between Oberon and Puck leads to him putting the love potion in the eyes of both Lysander and Demetrius. Poor Helena, because she herself was already having to deal with the idea that man she loves was to be married to her best friend, and NOW she thinks everyone is making fun of her, AND her best friend is joining them. I feel for the girl, but less so for Hermia. For some reason she just rubs me the wrong way. Of course she is confidant and that is important, but I don't think she approaches this situation in a good way— she just expects it to work out for her in the end, and for her to get what she wants.
Okay, so Puck. He was an immature jerk in this. WHY IS HE BEING TRUSTED TO DO THESE JOBS. And he is just so proud of turning Bottom into part donkey: “I led them on in this distracted fear, /and left sweet Pyramus translated there: /When in that moment, so it came to pass, /Tatiana walked, and straightaway loved an ass” (3.2.31-34). Speaking of Bottom, I thought it was interesting that you brought up the comedy of them talking about the ladies and their incompetence in recognizing the action in the play as not real. I think this is meant to be comical, but because they are thinking their acting is far better than it actually is, which Puck calls out.
Your question about social commentary: I think it is quite possible Shakespeare is doing so. But I think what makes this particularly comical is the fact that he calls out the frivolous nature of young, fast love.
Verity— I am having trouble thinking of a question, but Ill just ask a broad one. What do you think of Puck and his role in the play?
For the most part, I agree with you on the idea of miscommunication. However, I feel that all the confusion is wrapped up quickly enough to keep me from getting irritated. Additionally, I feel like no serious consequences came from the miscommunication (and by that I mean no one died), which is the case in other Shakespearian plays. For example, Romeo and Juliet's miscommunication leads to deaths that could've been avoided had everyone been honest. Act IV is a short conclusion to "So musical a discord, such sweet thunder." (4.1.). Just like a dream, everything goes back to... normal(?) in the end.
DeleteAs for Puck, I can't bring myself to dislike the little guy. Sure, he's a prankster, but nothing he did actually hurt anyone. Quince exclaims at the end of the play "O most courageous day! O most happy hour!" (4.2.), reaffirming the readers that everything is alright. On that note, Puck's constant monologuing from earlier in the play about foolish humans makes me realize how frivolous the love quadrilateral is. In a way, Puck fulfilled his role perfectly-- at least to me.
Lastly, I really enjoyed the dreamlike feel of the play. With the lovers waking up together in the forrest, it makes me wonder; did all of that even happen? It did, obviously, but everything about the ending is surreal in a fantastical way. Additionally, I find it interesting that Theseus says their story is "like a tangled chain; / nothing
impaired, but all disordered." (5.1.). Having a grounded character disregard the tale as a dream makes it seem even more unreal.
What did you think? Did you enjoy the ending? Everything turned out okay; did that make the miscommunication worth it, or more frusterating, since nothing came of it? Thoughts???
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteVerity,
ReplyDeleteI was also struck by how quickly everything was resolved, and how effortlessly (as opposed to other plays by Shakespeare). I think this is meant to add to the humor— I picture everything as being overdramatic, especially the quadrilateral and Oberon and Tatiana. Especially when she and Bottom are sitting in the grove, and she says: “Come, sit thee down upon this flow’ry bed, /While I thy amiable cheeks do coy, /And stick musk roses in thy sleek smooth head. /And kiss thy fair large ears, my gentle joy” (4.1.1-4). But for some reason I do not picture Puck as being so, I just picture him as always ready to find humor in things.
I was struck by how the play seemed to lack a main character. I think Puck is the closest thing to that, and in the Epilogue his speech is the last thing we hear, but the play didn't revolve around Puck— Puck revolved around the play.
Okay, so the ending, with the play and everything, was weird. I found less humor in that, although my opinion might be changed if I were to watch. I do wonder about how actors play these characters. I think it would be better to watch than read. I was certainly expecting more conflict, because thats how most Shakespeare plays go.
Strangely, I thought the Epilogue was funny, because why would this play be offensive? It seems like what is happening is that Puck is adding to the humor of how Bottom and the boys treated their audience, and in the end treats us the same. Thanks so much Verity for being my MOR partner!
Well done. I kept wanting to explore the questions you gave each other, but then I read on and you successfully explore the good stuff yourselves! When in doubt while reading a Shakespearean comedy, it's probably supposed to be funny (exception: in Much Ado about Nothing, Hero's getting humiliated at her own wedding is not supposed to be funny). Puck seems to fit the role of the Shakespearean "fool" who is always allowed to speak the truth and go around the normal rules of society (there isn't one in Hamlet but in Twelfth Night and King Lear and others there is). One of the core things that distinguishes a Comedy from a Tragedy is that people don't have to fundamentally change or realize things in Comedy (although the audience still might). Good focus on big ideas as they rise from the text itself. Grade on Portals.
ReplyDelete