Category Archives: Generic characteristics

A Lover’s Dilemma

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Generic characteristics, Imagery, Romantic comedy

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a tale of chaos and order, light and dark, sane and insane. The setting and environment help the reader understand the emotions the actors were portraying as they entered the woods.  Demetrius’ line 192 of Act 2 demonstrates his feelings as he enters the woods, “and here I am, and wood within this wood.” Here he means that he feels confused as if his transition to the woods has brought about this change.

Shakespeare sets the scene where the young lovers are out in the woods  unsure of their love. Puck the mystical fairy organizer even takes a jab at this by confusing the lovers with the spraying of his magical juice. Shakespeare takes you along this mystical journey into the woods and you are as lost as the characters.

The characters are Shakespeare’s version of young immature teens searching for love. The characters in the play old or young, mortal or immortal all become immature due to the chains of love.  Oberon, the mighty King of the fairies and Titania, Queen of the fairies are constantly at each other’s throats over the young changeling. Shakespeare captures the tension by having both enter the play from different sides. He then leads us to see the growing resentment in Oberon when he sets his henchmen Puck to spray into the Queen’s eyes and trick her into loving a transformed donkey. This immaturity is very strange and Shakespeare makes a mockery of the “love” going around.

The Curious Case of Nick Bottom?

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Generic characteristics, Tragicomedy

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.

Two Couples, Not Alike

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Psychological states, Romantic comedy

Though much of the comedy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream comes from the confusion that ensues between the four young lovers, I have to admit that their maturity and conviction at the beginning of the play is quite impressive to me. Hermia and Lysander seem so sure of their love for one another (that Hermia is willing to defy  her father and face potential celibacy or death to protect it.)

It is was when Lysander stated  “the course of love never did run smooth” that I felt it appropriate to take their characters and their love for each other seriously (as silly as it later becomes). Lysander expresses his understanding that the journey of love is never an easy one, yet he remains committed still. Knowing the hardships they will have to face, Hermia and Lysander make a vow of love to each other.

The next couple we are introduced to is Oberon and Titania who, while committed to each other by marriage, no longer seem a committed couple at all. As Puck explains, “And now they never meet in grove or green.” The two even come from separate entrances and seemingly cannot stand the sight of each other. Oberon even performs cruel tricks and spells on his once love.  By comparison the love between Hermia and Lysander seems far stronger than that of Oberon and Titania.

All that being sad, I think that these couples, being at different stages in their lives and at different ages, only reflect a common theme in reality: love is often  strongest when it is young .

 

Shakespeare disorients you in the most entertaining way.

A Midsummer Night's Dream, Psychological states, Romantic comedy, The role of the imagination

One of the things that I found the most compelling about A Midsummer Night’s Dream is how hysterically disorienting it can be. That goes for much more than the blatant confusions of the fairy-engineered chaos that ensues in acts two, three, and four. It really is not hard to catch yourself trying to figure out minor details, such as the moon position, and how it could possibly have such a prevalent theme of moonlight despite Theseus’ comments of, “four happy days to bring in another moon” to denote the time of the ceremonies.

Perhaps liberties were taken for the theme of moonlight, or there are alternate ways of interpreting what Theseus meant, but it would not be surprising if either were the case. Both fit into how disorienting it can be by adding to the numerous dualities in the play: sanity and insanity, civilization and wilderness, elite and commoner, and, of course, the confusion these dualities cause. I cannot imagine where we would be without the moon as a perfect scapegoat to explain the actions of the four youths in the woods and the mysterious disappearance of Bottom. Let’s also not forget about how disorienting of a time the players must have had trying to pull a performance together with their lead character off in the woods with a fairy queen and a horse head.

And, of course, what better to include in a play centered on marriage and love than a prominent theme of disorientation?  I would assume that it is safe to say that Shakespeare sought out to comment on the inner-complexities of love in this play in the same was as he did so with dreams and social standings. Whether it is Hermia and Helena caustically doting over each other’s opposing features, or subtle commentary on two men falling for the same woman, Shakespeare does not shy away from tackling dense topics in order to delve into social ideas that are certainly not unique or confined to the setting of the play. It makes these characters very real and believable in the cleverest of ways, and even gives a brief second of clarity, just as the last act of the play seems to do.