A Shakespearean story in which jealously and insecurity combines to create a unfortunate tragedy, there is no doubt that there is a light that shines within this piece that can go unnoticed if one does not pay close attention to detail. After King Leontes punishes his wife Hermione, eventually leading to her death, and sends his new-born infant out into the woods, one can only imagine the dread he must have felt after coming to his senses years later. The 2nd part of the play, which takes place nearly 16 years after Act 1, showcases a mischievous character named Autolycus who is viewed as a pickpocket con-man attempting to manipulate the characters within the play for his own benefit. Though unknown to himself he helps lead Perdita back to her biological father Leontes, which unravels numerous amount of heartfelt events towards the end of the play. The average audience member would view Autolycus as a comic relief based character that Shakespeare would utilize in order to lighten the mood of the story. Personally I see the character as a metaphoric angel type of being who slowly bring the conflict and tragedy of the story to a more dramatic, yet joyful conclusion. Shakespeare has a knack for puttting mischievous characters within his plays that eventually help in leading to a revelation or explaining the outcomes that are to follow (i.e. Puck in A Midsummer Night’s Dream). Though with Autolycus I sense an angelic presence in him as he leads to the revelation of Hermione (whether it be real or not) descending from her statue like state towards her husband and daughter. During this time of the holidays I would like to think of Autolycus as a fallen angel who has earned his way back into the heavenly gates, but my opinion is a little far fetched and is only going to be seen as a simple Winter’s Tale.
All posts by cm150489
No more Half Measures
In a play where lies, deceit, and disguises are at the core of the plot, there remains only one man who continues to carry on his personal values regardless of the pressure to conform to the higher ups that lay down the law of the land; his name is Lucio, the true hero (maybe anti-hero) of the story. A man who decides to play by his own rules, regardless of the inevitable consequences that’ll be handed down to him continues to express his charismatic and witty personality towards every other character throughout the play; therefore forcing them to come to terms with their own personal demons and desires. The way he subliminally “pimps” out Isabella to Angelo so that she can free her brother Claudio from prison, or how he casually talks to the disguised friar(the Duke in disguise) about how the Duke was a great leader not just because of his leniency but because how he also indulged in the pleasure of other women just like his fellow citizen. The term “sin” is blind to the of Lucio as he believes that it is not a sin to please ones desires, and that those who believe it to be so are clearly in denial of their own human wants and needs. Is Lucio a saint? Nope, but that is the reason he is the best and most relatable character within the play; he embraces his human instincts and does not sugar coat his opinion. The title of the play is Measure for Measure but a lot of the characters within this story take half measures, as they decide to not fully embrace there own beliefs and desires. Angelo wants to enforce the law against premarital sex, but can’t resist Isabella. Isabella wants to save her dear brother Claudio, but refuses to commit a single sin to save his life, but will deceive Angelo in the end. The Duke wants to infiltrate the community as a common man, but still has issues letting go of his ego. It is only Lucio who goes all in from the beginning until the end, and even though he is disciplined by the king his character never wavers. Is he immature and volatile? Indeed, but within the character of Lucio there are no half measures, only full and that makes him the ultimate hero of the story.
Hotspur…The son that the King always wanted?
Probably one of the most aggressive characters to play within Shakespeare’s King Henry IV Part 1, Hotspur’s “hot headed” demeanor is one of the most intriguing and entertaining factors of the entire play. It is almost like a New Year’s Eve countdown reading a scene with him in it, as the audience just waits for the inevitable moment when the soldier would lose his temper and lash out at who is within a 5-mile radius of him. Maybe that is the characteristic the drew King Henry towards him in the first place. While his son Hal had more of a laid back and intellectual savant type of personality, Hotspur’s aggressive nature was an attractive character trait for the King who knew that in order to rule you must have the will to act at all times.
Yet, what if King Henry did have Hotspur as a son? I believe that Hotspur would not have had the lazy and relaxed type nature of Hal, but would have been a very hyper and willing soldier who’d jump into action at the very first sign of disturbance or an altercation. At first I believe that King Henry would have appreciated Hotspur’s dedication to be the best, and probably would have promoted him to the highest rank of military order. But there is a down side to this alternative scenario; as I believe that while the King would have been proud of his soldier-like son; his life span would have also been shortened. Hotspur’s lust for power would have eventually boiled over to the point in which he would take action towards King Henry and take over the throne. It is a situation in which a character’s position does not change his personality, but only reveals it to a hire degree. Though King Henry did kill his uncle Richard in order to take over the throne himself; so therefore I guess he and Hotspur would’ve have still obtained that “like father, like son” quality.
The True Villain of The Story (Mystery Solved)
Within the story of Hamlet one is introduced to a grown man who is distraught and immature due to the death of his father, the late King Hamlet. Once Prince Hamlet is introduced in the story he is overly sarcastic and brooding, which he has all the right to be due to the recent death of his father. To tack onto the feelings of anger and despair the young prince has to now witness his mother (Queen Gertrude) enter into a relationship with his uncle (King Claudius), which would drive any son who loved his father as much as Hamlet did mad. Yet, this man did not attempt to look within the perspective of his mother and begin to ensue hatred upon her. This hatred is not due to the fact that she married Hamlet’s uncle, no that would not be enough anger to fuel the hatred that Hamlet possessed, but it was a result of the happiness that he saw from his mother once she was with Claudius. The way she looked at him was probably a way that Hamlet wasn’t accustomed to when his father and her were together. His father being the soldier that he was, most likely never opened himself up enough emotionally towards the queen for her to have such a connection. Therefore there love was probably a facade within their own eyes, and the only thing that truly linked them together emotionally was that of their son. Prince Hamlet’s first interaction with the ghost of his father was the downfall of the young man’s life, and in hindsight one of the most evil acts committed within the play. His dead father, who one could not clearly tell was from purgatory or hell, set his son in motion to not only lose his life, but go crazy in for process. Telling this man who is clearly not a soldier capable of killing willingly, but a student who uses his mind more than his fist, to kill his uncle who the ghost “assumes” killed him is an act of villainy unto itself.
I utilized the word assume due to the fact that the events the ghost tells Hamlet has no proof to validate it being true. Yes, maybe there was poison being used and it was poured down the ear of the late king, but the killer’s identity is only a figment of the dead’s king imagination. It is King Hamlet’s only logical choice, but as prince Hamlet has shown throughout the play, the logical choice is not always the best one. One must look at the play and look at how the events unraveled to the very end, for it is within the slightest details that the truth is revealed and that the true killer is unmasked. Prince Hamlet’s anger toward his mother while misguided was correctly placed, because I believe that she did love Claudius, and the only way she could have been with him was to get ride of the independent variable, which was her husband. Queen Gertrude was the true killer in this play, and I believe that Shakespeare has hidden this assumption within his literature for centuries. I believe she was the one who poisoned her husband, and Claudius knowing the situation took the pressure off of her and set himself up to be the bad guy. Though he was only the Macbeth to the Queen’s Lady Macbeth like tendencies. It is no wonder that the poisonous cup was ingested first by her, for karma has a clever way of coming back to where it all began; and it all started with her. She tricked Hamlet, the people of Denmark, and even her dead husband, but she couldn’t deceive fate. To quote Shakespeare himself “frailty, thy name is woman.“
The Curious Case of Nick Bottom?
The character of the “fool” has been a major staple within Shakespearean literature, as it presents a character that is “ahead of the curve”. Through several of his playwrights, regardless of the overall tone of his story, Shakespeare creatively found a way to insert a character that is so unique and unorthodox that the reader can’t help but gravitate to said character. A perfect demonstration of such a person is Nick Bottom from within A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Bottom (as Shakespeare so eloquently titles him throughout the play) is introduced as an immature, cocky, and jackass (both figuratively and literally) of a human being. His mindset is transfixed on the notion that he knows all compared to his other craftsmen counterparts. The true comedy roots from his total obliviousness to his animalistic transformation that occurs during the 3rd Act of the playwright. Shakespeare intentionally turns the characters head into that of a donkey, and therefore the effect the term “jackass” now has become a triple entendre (i.e. the relation to the characters name being “Bottom”, his head now being an actual Donkey a.k.a an ass, and the simple fact that his personality is that of a jackass unto itself).
Without a doubt this was extremely clever scripting by Shakespeare, but the true genius of this character comes towards the end of the play as one see’s the interesting transformation of Bottom. The interesting transformation is that there is no transformation; none of personality, action, or revelation. Aside from his brief change in physical appearance, the man we meet in the beginning of the story is the exact same man we are left with when the curtains close. THAT is what make this character so intriguing; the simple fact that within this play every person that wakes up from their “dream state” goes through some change in character but this one man. It seems that his foolishness is actually a synonym for a strong sense of wisdom. Bottom is able to remain true to his self regardless of the outlandish circumstances; he is also the only person to be aware of both the fairy world and the “real” world. If being a fool allows me to remain myself through the most drastic of situation then color me an insane fool. And with that I leave you with this:
“A Fool Thinks Himself To Be Wise, But A Wise Man Knows Himself To Be A FOOL”-Will Shakespeare.