According to sources at No Sweat Shakespeare, --Shakespeare Text Speak (or shkspr txt spk!) Aug. 30 2009, politicians in the U. S., New Zealand, Australia, and England, have criticized teachers for accepting certain assignments from their students. What's on these allegedly dubious homework "papers"? It looks something like this: "wot dis iz, iz d nu way 2 rIt shkspr. ts al d rAj."
Ts..."shkspr txt spk"
Of course, the completeness of my NU ShksprEn DicshnarE/Texticon, being temporarily limited to the wrdz & frAzs in the examples you see below, forces me to improvise. So I make no claim to--accuracy, in my attempts to dEsIfr & cumpOz, from the nonetheless uncommon wealth of the wrdz bElO, thOse I have to invent in order to ...cumUnicAte...properlE in dis xItn nU lngwj. JEz, I could be taking a really big chance at botching up shksprz lines and not even know it. I'll try to be more careful az I bEcum mo ("more"? like "mo" in Shakespeare's text? --must be a mistake.) mor adep @ T. I wdnt wnt 2 apEr az thO Im a ejit. For "brevity's sake" I'll move on, old style, and try incorporating the astounding & innovative qualities of this new...sorry... nU lngwj az I gO. (langwj?--that's..."langwidge"-for the benefit of the uninitiated, spelin-chalnjd, or jis plAn slO. )
Witness how the upcoming lines from Hamlet, arguably the most famous in all of English Literature, are gracefully transformed and rendered, az dA (they) simultAnEuslE, economically, and summarily xcize d OvrblOn syllabic detritus and mellifluous superfluity so often left behind as the result of unnecessary alliterative and assonant bombast; itself, native to self-centered poetic genius; the traces of which, as anyone az familiar az dEz students must be with Shakespeare must know, can sometimes, tragically, go unnoticed by more lax, incautious editors. Not so here; as beautifully, in its cumplEte and unXprgatd poetic magnificence, the brilyinz of shkspr is lifted to new hItes upon the wings of brevity.
Without further adU. Here, not 2 2 sollid...sallied, or sullied, by the flesh of my halting hand of ignorance; an actual, authentic 2 !!! excerpt from "d trjdE of hmlt prnz of dnmk", as tranzpOzd by-- "shkspr txt spk"--an xcIting, nU, & Rtfl lngwj.
‘2 b, r nt 2 b dat iz d Q wthr ts noblr n d mnd 2 sufr d slngs & arowz of outrAjs fortn r 2 tAk armz agnst a C f trblz, & by oposn nd em?’
Once more, proof of Shakespeare's skill with words, imagery, and their power to leave one speech-LESS . . .... that power further enhanced by "shkspr txt spk".
Still unconvinced? --And for those who might think I'm kidding, I can assure you, according to the folks at No Sweat Shakespeare (who seem behind it 100%) this is true-form, actual, and authentic Shakespeare, so defined and accepted today, within some of the halls of academia.
For the incredulous--or yet to be impressed--among us (unyieldingly cretinous though ye may be) I can identify with your skepticism, even while blinded by this technique's stunning impressiveness as an instructive and enlightening tool. Claimed by its proponents as "...an additional language the [students have, ...one] that their critics don't." ...[have]...and...well, I digress.
Here's another example of the exemplary form and movement we all expect from a true shksprEn Tragedy; its essence and clarity served up to us in no time, and in a more potent, concentrated dose, thanks to "shkspr txt spk". May it serve to bend the unswerving and most stubborn opinion of even the most draconian critic. ("Doubtful" of its great usefulness or legitimacy.)--And, as the nO swt shkspr ppl are keen to infer about critics--envious, no doubt--of those few, those happy few, conversant-lucky in this new Art in Language).
From The Tragedy of Macbeth:
2mrw & 2mrw & 2mrw crEpz n dis pety plAs frm dA 2 dA 2 d lst silabl of rcrdd tIm & al our ystdAz hv lItd f%lz d way 2 dsty def…tis a tAl tld by an ejit, ful of snd & fury sgnfyn nutin.’
...And Nutin from Nutin leaves...NUTIN.
(Disclaimer: No further editing, whatsoever, of the previous content--either on my part--or on anyone else's part, for that matter--could have possibly occurred.)
Let's get real.
One "matter of fact" question in the article that plays apologist for this..."uddr nonsnz" makes me seriously question the motivation of anyone who might champion a practice such as this: "But what could be more relevant to the modern teenager?"
As if bastardizing words while poking at a cell phone is an unquestionable and better-functioning conduit to learning how those words sound and what they mean.
I have a question for them: What could be more IR-relevant to developing an ease and familiarity with the mellifluent phrasing, vocabulary, imagery, and laudable, erudite, and Truly-Accomplished "Word-Play" in Shakespeare's work, than to waste precious learning-time and effort in attempts to turn it into a series of UN-pronounceable, stunted, grunts and tics; so malformed and transmogrified, that they look and sound as though they were uttered by a lot of ILL-literate, "F%lsh Ejits"? (If I may be allowed Teacher's permission to whet an almost blunted purpose; as I remember that I am also allowed their permission--even within the scope of such seemingly misplaced authority in the granting of permissions --to Spell It Out for Them : Foolish Idiots).
Furthermore, are we actually doing anything worthwhile towards making anything more understandable, when the greater focus is on making it "relevant" to someone's lifestyle? --Particularly when, by allowing the practice of the habits of that lifestyle such permissive pervasiveness, it so skews and maltreats the material itself? Aren't we sending the signal that what's more important is their pacification, at any cost, to them and to us? (As it's likely that they spend more time focusing on altering the very thing we would teach them, than on the actual, unadulterated article itself.) And then, to lend it the legitimacy of sanctioning its submission IN THE PLACE of, and EQUAL TO, the Art we would teach them; telling them, in effect, that whatever they do To that work of art has no real affect; not even on our own respect for it...Tsk...tsk...tsk..."Shkspr txt spk"...THAT.
JM
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Shakespeare Transmogrified (Introduction)
Part one in a series of articles devoted to unmasking Shakespeare's Hand in his works.
(transmogrify-tranz mog' re fie'- v. to change in appearance or form, esp. strangely or grotesquely; transform.)
What a wonderful word. It's even juicier as a noun: transmogrification. Reminds me of an old horror flick--Lon Chaney Jr.and his Transmogrification into...The Werewolf!
I learned what the word meant because of a fellow who, like Shakespeare, was a wonderful genius at painting descriptive pictures and outlining the quirkiness of his Characters--with Words. (was that a subconscious attempt at a pun? ...or the quirkiness of his words with characters...get it?--characters--letters?...sorry)
This Author, as did the Bard two hundred plus years before him, capitalized the first letter of some of the words he wanted to stand out on the page. Most Editors, who know better, have since 'emended' the results of this practice for him; likewise, for Shakespeare. They always use the word "Emended" when speaking of any duty associated with supervising the compilation and publication of works by Shakespeare--even when describing wholesale and unnecessary alterations. It's less offensive, softer, and less direct than the apparent black sheep of this particular Synonym Family..."Corrected". That would more than imply, directly, that someone was wrong about something.---Wouldn't---It?
And although there is some legitimate discussion around the fact that it was a common practice of the time to capitalize some words we wouldn't find the need to give Proper Noun status in our (also "emended") grammar books, and unanswered questions about what exactly happened to copies of the Plays when in the care of sometimes sleepy, or possibly overzealous, typesetters in the printing shop, there is more than enough evidence in the Doing to indicate, to some of us, that there is value in the investigation... Vocally and Aurally.
Far from being 'incorrect', our "mystery author", Charles Dickens--at one time in his life an aspiring actor himself--also knew about the importance of getting and holding the attention of his readers. Until his dying day (and that's not too far short of being literal) he would read his work Out Loud to huge audiences, playing ALL of the Characters he'd created--male, female, or child. (Maybe he capitalized the words as reminders to himself as to what to do with this or that word at his speaking engagements--nahhh) He knew that if you wanted a reader to audibly capture the sounds you heard in your head as the writer; if you wanted them to also appreciate the rhythms you felt in the words as you wrote them, something had to be done, On the Page, to Point Them Out. (see how I sneakily...snuck...that right in there? --Subb-tal, huh?).
Although you can still see this practice in action in original printings of his Sonnets, presumably (and I use the preceding word with some caution) meant to be 'read', when it came to his Plays, Will had the Listener in mind.
When referring to a visit to the Theatre, Elizabethans spoke in terms a listener might use: "Yesterday I went to hear the Tragedie of Macbeth." or "Will you go with me tomorrow to hear Henry V?" They loved their language, the way it sounded, the shape of a phrase. It was, literally, "Music to their ears". And Shakespeare was their Mozart/Beethoven/Mahler, Stokowski/Ormandy/Shaw, Rachmaninoff/Horowitz/Pavarotti--Composer/Conductor/Player--all rolled into one. Examples of the nearest approximation of Shakespeare's actual notation on the page cannot be found in a popular publishing house edition. The closest we can come to discovering possible indications of his hand, on the printed page, can be evidenced only in the First Folio of 1623 and some of the "good" Quarto publications.
Because of so many ongoing structural and internal "emendations", of every kind, applied to his compositions over the centuries passed since they were first printed for publication, the copy of Romeo and Juliet most of us will have been directed to buy in our local bookstore has been...transmogrified--and not only in terms of capitalization. Verse structure (the overall page layout and format, (measures), and thus, phrasing, expression, line completions, pauses (rests)--the instrumentation and implementation of dynamics in a scene can be affected); punctuation (dynamic markings altered; ritardando, staccato, legato, largo, prestissimo, adagio, along with stops and rests); spellings (possibilities of applying color, sound, voicing, expression, and dynamics); ALL of which affect Rhythm, Tempo, and Interpretation--Logistically, Practically, Emotionally, and Intellectually. All of these major components (and others, to be outlined in this series) affect not only the ability of the performer to successfully interpret and present the work; they also alter the end result of what audience members or readers not only see, but also hear, respectively, either in their ears or in their heads (and sometimes both). Notwithstanding gross and obvious errors in printing or transcribing--and they do exist--would we presume the greater right to move any of the other little dots and rests around on the page, in some cases altering the melody, rhythm, and tempo of, shall we say, The Resurrection (Symphony 2) by Gustav Mahler, or Missa Solemnis, by Ludwig van Beethoven?
Yes, Shakespeare's plays are great Literature. What is quite amazing to me, is that the literary aspect of his work is only a by-product of Shakespeare's genius; of his then-immediate intentions, which were to produce the best damned version of whatever, ever Heard. And because his Words were meant to be Spoken Out Loud, by an Actor--the Instrument of the Stage--it behooves us to sit up and take notice as to how Shakespeare the Conductor, aka Director, might have been just a little interested in how his Players Voiced his Notes and played his tunes. With very little time to rehearse his part, what better way to instruct the Player of an Instrument, than to write those instructions on the page in front of him-- into the work itself? JM
(to be continued)
(transmogrify-tranz mog' re fie'- v. to change in appearance or form, esp. strangely or grotesquely; transform.)
What a wonderful word. It's even juicier as a noun: transmogrification. Reminds me of an old horror flick--Lon Chaney Jr.and his Transmogrification into...The Werewolf!
I learned what the word meant because of a fellow who, like Shakespeare, was a wonderful genius at painting descriptive pictures and outlining the quirkiness of his Characters--with Words. (was that a subconscious attempt at a pun? ...or the quirkiness of his words with characters...get it?--characters--letters?...sorry)
This Author, as did the Bard two hundred plus years before him, capitalized the first letter of some of the words he wanted to stand out on the page. Most Editors, who know better, have since 'emended' the results of this practice for him; likewise, for Shakespeare. They always use the word "Emended" when speaking of any duty associated with supervising the compilation and publication of works by Shakespeare--even when describing wholesale and unnecessary alterations. It's less offensive, softer, and less direct than the apparent black sheep of this particular Synonym Family..."Corrected". That would more than imply, directly, that someone was wrong about something.---Wouldn't---It?
And although there is some legitimate discussion around the fact that it was a common practice of the time to capitalize some words we wouldn't find the need to give Proper Noun status in our (also "emended") grammar books, and unanswered questions about what exactly happened to copies of the Plays when in the care of sometimes sleepy, or possibly overzealous, typesetters in the printing shop, there is more than enough evidence in the Doing to indicate, to some of us, that there is value in the investigation... Vocally and Aurally.
Far from being 'incorrect', our "mystery author", Charles Dickens--at one time in his life an aspiring actor himself--also knew about the importance of getting and holding the attention of his readers. Until his dying day (and that's not too far short of being literal) he would read his work Out Loud to huge audiences, playing ALL of the Characters he'd created--male, female, or child. (Maybe he capitalized the words as reminders to himself as to what to do with this or that word at his speaking engagements--nahhh) He knew that if you wanted a reader to audibly capture the sounds you heard in your head as the writer; if you wanted them to also appreciate the rhythms you felt in the words as you wrote them, something had to be done, On the Page, to Point Them Out. (see how I sneakily...snuck...that right in there? --Subb-tal, huh?).
Although you can still see this practice in action in original printings of his Sonnets, presumably (and I use the preceding word with some caution) meant to be 'read', when it came to his Plays, Will had the Listener in mind.
When referring to a visit to the Theatre, Elizabethans spoke in terms a listener might use: "Yesterday I went to hear the Tragedie of Macbeth." or "Will you go with me tomorrow to hear Henry V?" They loved their language, the way it sounded, the shape of a phrase. It was, literally, "Music to their ears". And Shakespeare was their Mozart/Beethoven/Mahler, Stokowski/Ormandy/Shaw, Rachmaninoff/Horowitz/Pavarotti--Composer/Conductor/Player--all rolled into one. Examples of the nearest approximation of Shakespeare's actual notation on the page cannot be found in a popular publishing house edition. The closest we can come to discovering possible indications of his hand, on the printed page, can be evidenced only in the First Folio of 1623 and some of the "good" Quarto publications.
Because of so many ongoing structural and internal "emendations", of every kind, applied to his compositions over the centuries passed since they were first printed for publication, the copy of Romeo and Juliet most of us will have been directed to buy in our local bookstore has been...transmogrified--and not only in terms of capitalization. Verse structure (the overall page layout and format, (measures), and thus, phrasing, expression, line completions, pauses (rests)--the instrumentation and implementation of dynamics in a scene can be affected); punctuation (dynamic markings altered; ritardando, staccato, legato, largo, prestissimo, adagio, along with stops and rests); spellings (possibilities of applying color, sound, voicing, expression, and dynamics); ALL of which affect Rhythm, Tempo, and Interpretation--Logistically, Practically, Emotionally, and Intellectually. All of these major components (and others, to be outlined in this series) affect not only the ability of the performer to successfully interpret and present the work; they also alter the end result of what audience members or readers not only see, but also hear, respectively, either in their ears or in their heads (and sometimes both). Notwithstanding gross and obvious errors in printing or transcribing--and they do exist--would we presume the greater right to move any of the other little dots and rests around on the page, in some cases altering the melody, rhythm, and tempo of, shall we say, The Resurrection (Symphony 2) by Gustav Mahler, or Missa Solemnis, by Ludwig van Beethoven?
Yes, Shakespeare's plays are great Literature. What is quite amazing to me, is that the literary aspect of his work is only a by-product of Shakespeare's genius; of his then-immediate intentions, which were to produce the best damned version of whatever, ever Heard. And because his Words were meant to be Spoken Out Loud, by an Actor--the Instrument of the Stage--it behooves us to sit up and take notice as to how Shakespeare the Conductor, aka Director, might have been just a little interested in how his Players Voiced his Notes and played his tunes. With very little time to rehearse his part, what better way to instruct the Player of an Instrument, than to write those instructions on the page in front of him-- into the work itself? JM
(to be continued)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
This Time I Will Mention Oedipus
--something on "incestuous" abomination and Hamlet's projected "obsession" with it, his procrastination, and the hierarchy of his concerns.
The Trial of Bastardie (London, 1594)
The Triall of Bastardie: that part of the second part of Policie, or maner of Gouernement of the Realme of England: so termed, Spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall. Annexed at the end of this Treatise, touching the prohibition of marriage, a Table of the Leuitical, English, and Positiue Canon Catalogues, their concordance and difference. By William Clerke.
Table of prohibited marriages.
[Listed in the same tables as the abomination of marrying your own aunt, daughter-in-law, grand daughter, sister, mother, or daughter, along with several other possible "incestuous" unions.]:
A man may not marrie his
{Sister., Wife's Sister.,Brother's Wife.
}The equall collateral line, and first degree.
30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinances, that ye doe not any of the abominable customes, which have been done before you.
This is real bad stuff then, regardless of our viewpoints on any of it--as attested to by King Hamlet's Ghost: To Hamlet:
"I that incestuous, that adulterate Beast
With witchcraft of his wits,hath Traitorous gifts.
Oh wicked wit, and Gifts, that have the power
So to seduce? Won to this shamefull Lust
The will of my most *SEEMING VERTUOUS Queen: [my emphasis]
Oh Hamlet, what a falling off was there,
From me, whose love was of that dignity,
That it went hand in hand, even with the Vow
I made to her in Marriage; and to decline
Upon a wretch, whose Naturall gifts were poore
To those of mine. But Vertue, as it never will be moved,
Though Lewdness court it in a shape of Heaven:
So Lust, though to a radiant Angell link'd,
Will sate it selfe in a Celestial bed,
& prey on Garbage." [Note which words are Capitalized]
Following the description of the "incestuous", "murderous", "adulterer's" crime:
"Oh horrible, Oh horrible, most horrible:
If thou hast nature in thee beare it not;
Let not the Royall Bed of Denmarke be
A Couch for Luxury and damned Incest."
It sure seems as though the former King Hamlet has a few "issues" himself re: Claudius sleeping with his wife--Hamlet's Mother. I think Hamlet finds it not a little important,after the somewhat repetitive,insistent, horrible moans of his father about the vileness of all this. I also think he finds it extremely disgusting to even think about--never mind LIVE WITH under the same roof and scrutiny of an entire kingdom's eyes. (Hamlet's not alone in the disgust department over this somewhat "questionable union".) And he can't get away from it! And since his Too, too solid Flesh" rant about it, the shame, anger, and disgust quotient has been magnified a hundred fold by this latest revelation. But he has to Eat It All, like a good-little-boy-Prince(-who-should-be-King-too):) ("But breake my Heart, for I must hold my Tongue.") His desire to go back to Wittenberg has already been pronounced,"...most retrograde to OUR desire." Mummy's too.
Later, though they may also be his own feelings as well (and the feelings of anyone who might put themselves in his place) Hamlet recounts his father's sentiments; anger, pain, and utter disgust about his mother's actions--her betrayal, incestuous behavior, and *"seeming vertue". Imagine having to confront your mother--Queen or no Queen-- with these things? --After she's "summoned you", obviously to tell you what a bad little Prince YOU'VE been? What size head of steam might that gather?
And his final words to Claudius, THE VERY ONE, HIMSELF, HE, ACTUAL ARTICLE, THE "...incestuous, adulterate [murderous] Beast":
Ham. "Heere thou incestuous, murderous, Damned Dane,
Drink off this Potion: Is thy Union heere?
Follow my Mother."
Laertes. "He is justly served.
It is a poyson tempr'ed by himselfe:
Exchange forgiveness with me Noble Hamlet;
Mine and my Fathers death come not upon thee,
Nor thine on me."
Once again, in the oft-repeated words of he whom Hamlet avenges, and WHILE stating the very reasons he's been asked to do it, WITH his mother's death to add to the mix. Although they may be his thoughts as well, Hamlet reiterates the words his father can't say.
As to his belated decisions to go stabbing about; Circumstance has pretty much dictated things. NOW in front of ALL, witnesses to the treachery, with Laertes dying testimony,(the guy whose father he mistakenly killed) no less, his mother another victim of the "Incestuous, murderous, Damned Dane",...the oft-overlooked (possibly because it was always missing?) item in the arsenal of "facts" used to condemn him for his procrastination--"Proof"--isn't something he needs anymore.
His feigned madness, by the way, was a common practice among royalty when the intrigue and safety issues for particular "chosen ones" got a little dicey. It was used as a means of protection, especially from one's bloodthirsty relatives eager to climb the political ladder "legitimately". (the insane were protected from recrimination for their actions, which, could include getting in the way of those potentially dangerous "loved ones" while they were seeking out a solution to what could happen to them as a direct result of their "kind affection") I may have mentioned Hamlet's behavior re: Polonius' body--"Don't kill me yet...I'm still crazy, see?."
He was protecting himself the whole time, just in case the "murderous" persona in the "incestuous, murderous, damned Dane" decided it might suddenly resume killing people "too much in it's way"; especially those "would have beens", "wannabees", or possible "should have beens" named "Hamlet". You think he didn't know Claudius kept him around to "watch" him? Anyone who thinks Hamlet could have simply, with impunity, "enacted revenge" without explaining or proving anything, simply because he's The Prince with a beef, hasn't read the play. He can't trust anyone. Not even his own mother. And his only witness to anything he knows...? --a ghost!
As far as how we can tell anything about what Hamlet's thinking by "how he says it"--that would have to do with the way the relationships have been handled by the PRODUCER/DIRECTORS--the "Concept People"-- throughout the play; and also, by the way the line itself has been delivered. Any actor who puts undue emphasis on the word "incestuous" for reasons of "proving" something Psycho-sexual--perhaps that Hamlet could easily exchange names with Oedipus and no one would notice-- clearly cares more about impressing the audience with some more sensational "point" than, well, for one thing, their ability to scan and read verse convincingly with any accuracy.
The Trial of Bastardie (London, 1594)
The Triall of Bastardie: that part of the second part of Policie, or maner of Gouernement of the Realme of England: so termed, Spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall. Annexed at the end of this Treatise, touching the prohibition of marriage, a Table of the Leuitical, English, and Positiue Canon Catalogues, their concordance and difference. By William Clerke.
Table of prohibited marriages.
[Listed in the same tables as the abomination of marrying your own aunt, daughter-in-law, grand daughter, sister, mother, or daughter, along with several other possible "incestuous" unions.]:
A man may not marrie his
{Sister., Wife's Sister.,Brother's Wife.
}The equall collateral line, and first degree.
30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinances, that ye doe not any of the abominable customes, which have been done before you.
This is real bad stuff then, regardless of our viewpoints on any of it--as attested to by King Hamlet's Ghost: To Hamlet:
"I that incestuous, that adulterate Beast
With witchcraft of his wits,hath Traitorous gifts.
Oh wicked wit, and Gifts, that have the power
So to seduce? Won to this shamefull Lust
The will of my most *SEEMING VERTUOUS Queen: [my emphasis]
Oh Hamlet, what a falling off was there,
From me, whose love was of that dignity,
That it went hand in hand, even with the Vow
I made to her in Marriage; and to decline
Upon a wretch, whose Naturall gifts were poore
To those of mine. But Vertue, as it never will be moved,
Though Lewdness court it in a shape of Heaven:
So Lust, though to a radiant Angell link'd,
Will sate it selfe in a Celestial bed,
& prey on Garbage." [Note which words are Capitalized]
Following the description of the "incestuous", "murderous", "adulterer's" crime:
"Oh horrible, Oh horrible, most horrible:
If thou hast nature in thee beare it not;
Let not the Royall Bed of Denmarke be
A Couch for Luxury and damned Incest."
It sure seems as though the former King Hamlet has a few "issues" himself re: Claudius sleeping with his wife--Hamlet's Mother. I think Hamlet finds it not a little important,after the somewhat repetitive,insistent, horrible moans of his father about the vileness of all this. I also think he finds it extremely disgusting to even think about--never mind LIVE WITH under the same roof and scrutiny of an entire kingdom's eyes. (Hamlet's not alone in the disgust department over this somewhat "questionable union".) And he can't get away from it! And since his Too, too solid Flesh" rant about it, the shame, anger, and disgust quotient has been magnified a hundred fold by this latest revelation. But he has to Eat It All, like a good-little-boy-Prince(-who-should-be-King-too):) ("But breake my Heart, for I must hold my Tongue.") His desire to go back to Wittenberg has already been pronounced,"...most retrograde to OUR desire." Mummy's too.
Later, though they may also be his own feelings as well (and the feelings of anyone who might put themselves in his place) Hamlet recounts his father's sentiments; anger, pain, and utter disgust about his mother's actions--her betrayal, incestuous behavior, and *"seeming vertue". Imagine having to confront your mother--Queen or no Queen-- with these things? --After she's "summoned you", obviously to tell you what a bad little Prince YOU'VE been? What size head of steam might that gather?
And his final words to Claudius, THE VERY ONE, HIMSELF, HE, ACTUAL ARTICLE, THE "...incestuous, adulterate [murderous] Beast":
Ham. "Heere thou incestuous, murderous, Damned Dane,
Drink off this Potion: Is thy Union heere?
Follow my Mother."
Laertes. "He is justly served.
It is a poyson tempr'ed by himselfe:
Exchange forgiveness with me Noble Hamlet;
Mine and my Fathers death come not upon thee,
Nor thine on me."
Once again, in the oft-repeated words of he whom Hamlet avenges, and WHILE stating the very reasons he's been asked to do it, WITH his mother's death to add to the mix. Although they may be his thoughts as well, Hamlet reiterates the words his father can't say.
As to his belated decisions to go stabbing about; Circumstance has pretty much dictated things. NOW in front of ALL, witnesses to the treachery, with Laertes dying testimony,(the guy whose father he mistakenly killed) no less, his mother another victim of the "Incestuous, murderous, Damned Dane",...the oft-overlooked (possibly because it was always missing?) item in the arsenal of "facts" used to condemn him for his procrastination--"Proof"--isn't something he needs anymore.
His feigned madness, by the way, was a common practice among royalty when the intrigue and safety issues for particular "chosen ones" got a little dicey. It was used as a means of protection, especially from one's bloodthirsty relatives eager to climb the political ladder "legitimately". (the insane were protected from recrimination for their actions, which, could include getting in the way of those potentially dangerous "loved ones" while they were seeking out a solution to what could happen to them as a direct result of their "kind affection") I may have mentioned Hamlet's behavior re: Polonius' body--"Don't kill me yet...I'm still crazy, see?."
He was protecting himself the whole time, just in case the "murderous" persona in the "incestuous, murderous, damned Dane" decided it might suddenly resume killing people "too much in it's way"; especially those "would have beens", "wannabees", or possible "should have beens" named "Hamlet". You think he didn't know Claudius kept him around to "watch" him? Anyone who thinks Hamlet could have simply, with impunity, "enacted revenge" without explaining or proving anything, simply because he's The Prince with a beef, hasn't read the play. He can't trust anyone. Not even his own mother. And his only witness to anything he knows...? --a ghost!
As far as how we can tell anything about what Hamlet's thinking by "how he says it"--that would have to do with the way the relationships have been handled by the PRODUCER/DIRECTORS--the "Concept People"-- throughout the play; and also, by the way the line itself has been delivered. Any actor who puts undue emphasis on the word "incestuous" for reasons of "proving" something Psycho-sexual--perhaps that Hamlet could easily exchange names with Oedipus and no one would notice-- clearly cares more about impressing the audience with some more sensational "point" than, well, for one thing, their ability to scan and read verse convincingly with any accuracy.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Wisdom From "Down-Under"
Many belated thanks to Flloyd Kennedy for a visit and her concurrence and very knowledgeable comments re: my post " 'Translating" Shakespeare' " 8/16/09.
Fortune has favored us from Down Under with input from Flloyd and her knowledge about the importance of Shakespeare's Words. (As much as I'm tempted, I'll forgo a quip here about "Fortune's Favours"-Hamlet 2.2.227-232.) uh...Maybe it's too late :-)
Wait--did I say 'her' ? Before we get into a discussion on the problems someone might think I have concerning 'gender issues', "Flloyd"--with 2 LLs--Kennedy is a noted Acting/Voice Instructor/Performer/Playwright ("The Fall of June Bloom: A Modern Invocation") from Australia. She's taught verse speaking at RSAMD, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, and, in addition, has taught most of the other subjects related to speaking from a stage, at other notable educational institutions. She's also recently hung around with one of my heroes, Patsy Rodenberg, Director of Voice at London's Royal National Theatre, and author of the books The Actor Speaks and Speaking Shakespeare, among others. (ask me if I'm jealous; even a little bit)
However...moving on...Flloyd is quick to point out that in Australia, they're not so 'gender-specific' as we might have a tendency to be. "Actor", for instance, can mean either a male or female thespian. I've always preferred to not make that particular distinction myself. (Wonder if I have any 'joey' blood in me, mate?).
As an actor, director, and instructor of a technique developed from the First Folio of 1623 (the very first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays) I also find much in common with her philosophy and viewpoints on the ART of Acting.
I capitalize 'ART' because that's really what it is. This is especially so when it comes to acting Shakespeare. And far from what seems to be the most popular and prevalent wisdom relative to a Method of acting, (here in America at least) Flloyd recognizes the importance of a TECHNIQUE of Acting; one which also employs the Words, and values them as the Tools of the Trade they most certainly are. She also recognizes the danger of messing about with the words and/or ignoring their importance. Inherent in that danger, we, as actors, put ourselves at peril's mercy if we lose our connection to the very definite networking structure set up intrinsically within the words themselves--the voice/body/emotion/mind connection. This is so important, not just for Shakespeare or Acting in general. It's a vital component in any kind of Communication using Words as the Vehicle. It also directly affects how the communication is received, understood, interpreted, and appreciated--audience, reader, student, et al. (If you hang out here long enough, you'll probably get tired of hearing me babble about it).
Learning and Knowing HOW to "Speake the Speech"--Ham.3.2.1--is every bit as important as knowing what the speech means, or knowing how it's supposed to make us "feel". Knowing how to handle the words frees us, so that we can "feel"; and, in fact, it can be a definite source of incredible inspiration for that feeling. For both actor and observer, AND for the student/reader as well, the ability to banish the confusion, correct the misconceptions, and find the key to great understanding resides in Shakespeare's Form: His usage of particular words, sentence and verse structure, his genius as an Architect in putting them all together, and the connection to Voicing Them, in a sculpturally sound and highly communicable way.
So before we throw up our hands in disgust, annoyed with how difficult Shakespeare's words are (and believe me, I understand the feeling--I once felt the same way) maybe a little investigating into how they work might be the Thing: THE Ticket to The Play.
Click this post's title and read Flloyd Kennedy's comments on Words and "Translating Shakespeare". Visit her blog (http://beinginvoice.wordpress.com/) and tell her I sent you.
Hang out a little there--and here. Shakespeareplace is a new-borne Blog; there's a lot more to come on this very important subject.
JM
Fortune has favored us from Down Under with input from Flloyd and her knowledge about the importance of Shakespeare's Words. (As much as I'm tempted, I'll forgo a quip here about "Fortune's Favours"-Hamlet 2.2.227-232.) uh...Maybe it's too late :-)
Wait--did I say 'her' ? Before we get into a discussion on the problems someone might think I have concerning 'gender issues', "Flloyd"--with 2 LLs--Kennedy is a noted Acting/Voice Instructor/Performer/Playwright ("The Fall of June Bloom: A Modern Invocation") from Australia. She's taught verse speaking at RSAMD, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, and, in addition, has taught most of the other subjects related to speaking from a stage, at other notable educational institutions. She's also recently hung around with one of my heroes, Patsy Rodenberg, Director of Voice at London's Royal National Theatre, and author of the books The Actor Speaks and Speaking Shakespeare, among others. (ask me if I'm jealous; even a little bit)
However...moving on...Flloyd is quick to point out that in Australia, they're not so 'gender-specific' as we might have a tendency to be. "Actor", for instance, can mean either a male or female thespian. I've always preferred to not make that particular distinction myself. (Wonder if I have any 'joey' blood in me, mate?).
As an actor, director, and instructor of a technique developed from the First Folio of 1623 (the very first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays) I also find much in common with her philosophy and viewpoints on the ART of Acting.
I capitalize 'ART' because that's really what it is. This is especially so when it comes to acting Shakespeare. And far from what seems to be the most popular and prevalent wisdom relative to a Method of acting, (here in America at least) Flloyd recognizes the importance of a TECHNIQUE of Acting; one which also employs the Words, and values them as the Tools of the Trade they most certainly are. She also recognizes the danger of messing about with the words and/or ignoring their importance. Inherent in that danger, we, as actors, put ourselves at peril's mercy if we lose our connection to the very definite networking structure set up intrinsically within the words themselves--the voice/body/emotion/mind connection. This is so important, not just for Shakespeare or Acting in general. It's a vital component in any kind of Communication using Words as the Vehicle. It also directly affects how the communication is received, understood, interpreted, and appreciated--audience, reader, student, et al. (If you hang out here long enough, you'll probably get tired of hearing me babble about it).
Learning and Knowing HOW to "Speake the Speech"--Ham.3.2.1--is every bit as important as knowing what the speech means, or knowing how it's supposed to make us "feel". Knowing how to handle the words frees us, so that we can "feel"; and, in fact, it can be a definite source of incredible inspiration for that feeling. For both actor and observer, AND for the student/reader as well, the ability to banish the confusion, correct the misconceptions, and find the key to great understanding resides in Shakespeare's Form: His usage of particular words, sentence and verse structure, his genius as an Architect in putting them all together, and the connection to Voicing Them, in a sculpturally sound and highly communicable way.
So before we throw up our hands in disgust, annoyed with how difficult Shakespeare's words are (and believe me, I understand the feeling--I once felt the same way) maybe a little investigating into how they work might be the Thing: THE Ticket to The Play.
Click this post's title and read Flloyd Kennedy's comments on Words and "Translating Shakespeare". Visit her blog (http://beinginvoice.wordpress.com/) and tell her I sent you.
Hang out a little there--and here. Shakespeareplace is a new-borne Blog; there's a lot more to come on this very important subject.
JM
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Hamlet: "Woman-Hater" (promise I won't mention Oedipus)
A hot topic over at the shakespearegeek blog nowadays is " They Say He Made a Good End" http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2009/08/they-say-he-made-good-end.html which has evolved into something like "Hamlet VS Ophelia". As usual I'm all over it over there--me and my big mouth. Check it out. Duane (the geek) has put up some great clips on it as well.
But I thought since I already had started a sort of Hamlet vs Ophelia thing here, I'd also comment on it here, while continuing the train of thought about Hamlet's "character".
'Interesting' that in his anger with Ophelia, marriage and betrayal is the subject matter Hamlet picks to focus on "--we will have no more marriages", etc.. Gee, what would have made that occur to him, now believing he's been betrayed by not one, but TWO women he loves? Think maybe he had ideas about Ophelia and Marriage? Apparently Mom knew enough at Ophelia's graveside to wish it had come to what she thought Hamlet and Ophelia were all about. What could be more obvious? Also, consider his tirade (mysterious to many) berating himself, stating in effect that as not worth anything--"What should such Fellows as I do, crawling between Heaven and Earth. We are arrant Knaves all, believe none of us"...etc. Is he angrily, yet wryly, commenting on how he's "not good enough" for Ophelia, in her eyes? Mightn't it seem so to him?
And of the gifts she attempts to return: "No, no. I never gave YOU aught." ...I loved YOU not; to the point that she's acting like (and has been acting like) no one he now "knows" at all; AND-- "Gee Ophelia, I guess with all of my insistence, with all of my pleadings, with everything we've had, IF you can STILL believe the relationship isn't worth it, and in addition, have NO good reason for believing that I'm not worth your trouble--or if you have a reason, refuse to share with me why this is SO-- "Well then, (tongue in cheek) I MUST NEVER HAVE "loved" you, since you seem to be insisting on it so strongly. OK, you're right-- Since you won't, let's see if I can come up with a why or two as to my "never loving you".
Hamlet's sarcasm is always logical. He seems to be saying (possibly): "It's now ALL I CAN THINK OF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL!--get it Ophelia? (If, then, therefore) He uses the same formula of reasoning later on with his mother.
These important people in Hamlet's life are constantly forcing him to ask, "WHY?!...HOW...COULD YOU POSSIBLY DO THIS?!--It MAKES NO SENSE!" And "maddening"? (and quite literally, it is) is the fact that neither of them ever gives him an answer! (however we may justify their reasons for it, Hamlet's left blind, because he doesn't know what they--or WE--know).
This is too often forgotten or conveniently ignored by the conclusion-jumpers, psychoanalysts, and theoreticians. They're too busy at playing needle-in-the-haystack, mountain-out-of-a-molehill with Hamlet to notice any other character's flaws or transgressions.
You know, like Mom's an adulterer with Dad's brother, married him only 2 months after Dad "died", and Ophelia not only snubbed him for reasons he will never know, but also becomes a spy against him in the deadly game he plays with the court! Likewise they pay less attention to the words if they don't happen to "fit" the particular theory about Hamlet with which they happen to be enamored (or mired in) at the time.
It appears to me that some try first to simply foist a supposed penchant for meanness and cruelty on everything he says and does, without putting themselves in his place. How mundane and thoughtless, as though this were a daily soap opera, and as if Hamlet had their values and customary judgment and behavior. They'll "give him" that--the cruelty and pettiness in human nature; but never along with it, the strength of hurt or reaction a normal human being would have when faced with similar crushing circumstances.
However; back to his wit: His mercurial thought processes would immediately latch onto the now-available and pertinent subjects (marriage, betrayal, deception) as the vehicles; his perception would make the relationships in a split second, and his delivery would be as swift --and deadly-- as ever.
But as with his mother, these "witticisms" would be anything but subtly communicated, channeled as they are through the great anger that the realization of betrayal and its emotional pain would cause him. To keep his usual cool, dry, witty head with these particular individuals (Ophelia and Gertrude) is impossible anyway, and even if possible, a measured reaction would cost him too much, for many reasons; one of which would be that it would be misinterpreted; taken as his "normal" sarcasm when it comes to attempting to reveal truths. And yes he is "mad" --as in the later case with his mother --quite mad--insane with anger and hurt-- in this moment with Ophelia.
These instances are the only times I can think of during which he couldn't be supposed to be "faking madness". --Why?
Both of these women have left a thinker of serious proportions without the means to parse out what has happened to him! Their behavior is "insane" to him. He responds accordingly, himself insane in the moment from the realization that they will never help him understand WHY they've done what they've done. There is an Answer--they just won't give it to him!
This point would be scanned: What they've done appears to him to be partly driven by insane decision-making on their part, and they've driven him insane partly by WHAT it is, and partly by refusing to help him figure out the "WHY?" it is.
And he stands too much to lose in either case to not make known to them the damage he's received at their hands. They are too important to him and he loves them both too much not to let them know just how much they've hurt him. (...and, also... could they just be reasonable...and stop it...please?).
But in the case of both Ophelia and Gertrude, other than to "wonder" what might be wrong with him, There is No Response.
It's only fair to recognize that their decisions to stay mum are, at times, directly affected by the circumstances bearing on the two women. But Fate and their unwillingness (the hesitance sometimes justified, sometimes not) combine to never allow them to explain, even if they would--or could--or, possibly, to give Hamlet the time to batter down the bulwark of what is--to him--abject denial of the truth--and the results of that denial--of their (as far as he knows) obviously intended actions.
For once again, one of the greatest instruments of Tragedy in the play--Time-- fails to mesh with The Moment in which, ironically, it's simultaneously occurring. Everyone in the play, at one or more points, either lacks timing, or the intervention of Fate, Circumstance (or both) forces that lack of timing; they all pay dearly for it. Hamlet sees and knows, presciently, in his gut, from the very beginning of the play, the terrible, destructive power of this lack of synchronization, and the effects it may likely have: "The Time is out of joint."
But I thought since I already had started a sort of Hamlet vs Ophelia thing here, I'd also comment on it here, while continuing the train of thought about Hamlet's "character".
'Interesting' that in his anger with Ophelia, marriage and betrayal is the subject matter Hamlet picks to focus on "--we will have no more marriages", etc.. Gee, what would have made that occur to him, now believing he's been betrayed by not one, but TWO women he loves? Think maybe he had ideas about Ophelia and Marriage? Apparently Mom knew enough at Ophelia's graveside to wish it had come to what she thought Hamlet and Ophelia were all about. What could be more obvious? Also, consider his tirade (mysterious to many) berating himself, stating in effect that as not worth anything--"What should such Fellows as I do, crawling between Heaven and Earth. We are arrant Knaves all, believe none of us"...etc. Is he angrily, yet wryly, commenting on how he's "not good enough" for Ophelia, in her eyes? Mightn't it seem so to him?
And of the gifts she attempts to return: "No, no. I never gave YOU aught." ...I loved YOU not; to the point that she's acting like (and has been acting like) no one he now "knows" at all; AND-- "Gee Ophelia, I guess with all of my insistence, with all of my pleadings, with everything we've had, IF you can STILL believe the relationship isn't worth it, and in addition, have NO good reason for believing that I'm not worth your trouble--or if you have a reason, refuse to share with me why this is SO-- "Well then, (tongue in cheek) I MUST NEVER HAVE "loved" you, since you seem to be insisting on it so strongly. OK, you're right-- Since you won't, let's see if I can come up with a why or two as to my "never loving you".
Hamlet's sarcasm is always logical. He seems to be saying (possibly): "It's now ALL I CAN THINK OF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL!--get it Ophelia? (If, then, therefore) He uses the same formula of reasoning later on with his mother.
These important people in Hamlet's life are constantly forcing him to ask, "WHY?!...HOW...COULD YOU POSSIBLY DO THIS?!--It MAKES NO SENSE!" And "maddening"? (and quite literally, it is) is the fact that neither of them ever gives him an answer! (however we may justify their reasons for it, Hamlet's left blind, because he doesn't know what they--or WE--know).
This is too often forgotten or conveniently ignored by the conclusion-jumpers, psychoanalysts, and theoreticians. They're too busy at playing needle-in-the-haystack, mountain-out-of-a-molehill with Hamlet to notice any other character's flaws or transgressions.
You know, like Mom's an adulterer with Dad's brother, married him only 2 months after Dad "died", and Ophelia not only snubbed him for reasons he will never know, but also becomes a spy against him in the deadly game he plays with the court! Likewise they pay less attention to the words if they don't happen to "fit" the particular theory about Hamlet with which they happen to be enamored (or mired in) at the time.
It appears to me that some try first to simply foist a supposed penchant for meanness and cruelty on everything he says and does, without putting themselves in his place. How mundane and thoughtless, as though this were a daily soap opera, and as if Hamlet had their values and customary judgment and behavior. They'll "give him" that--the cruelty and pettiness in human nature; but never along with it, the strength of hurt or reaction a normal human being would have when faced with similar crushing circumstances.
However; back to his wit: His mercurial thought processes would immediately latch onto the now-available and pertinent subjects (marriage, betrayal, deception) as the vehicles; his perception would make the relationships in a split second, and his delivery would be as swift --and deadly-- as ever.
But as with his mother, these "witticisms" would be anything but subtly communicated, channeled as they are through the great anger that the realization of betrayal and its emotional pain would cause him. To keep his usual cool, dry, witty head with these particular individuals (Ophelia and Gertrude) is impossible anyway, and even if possible, a measured reaction would cost him too much, for many reasons; one of which would be that it would be misinterpreted; taken as his "normal" sarcasm when it comes to attempting to reveal truths. And yes he is "mad" --as in the later case with his mother --quite mad--insane with anger and hurt-- in this moment with Ophelia.
These instances are the only times I can think of during which he couldn't be supposed to be "faking madness". --Why?
Both of these women have left a thinker of serious proportions without the means to parse out what has happened to him! Their behavior is "insane" to him. He responds accordingly, himself insane in the moment from the realization that they will never help him understand WHY they've done what they've done. There is an Answer--they just won't give it to him!
This point would be scanned: What they've done appears to him to be partly driven by insane decision-making on their part, and they've driven him insane partly by WHAT it is, and partly by refusing to help him figure out the "WHY?" it is.
And he stands too much to lose in either case to not make known to them the damage he's received at their hands. They are too important to him and he loves them both too much not to let them know just how much they've hurt him. (...and, also... could they just be reasonable...and stop it...please?).
But in the case of both Ophelia and Gertrude, other than to "wonder" what might be wrong with him, There is No Response.
It's only fair to recognize that their decisions to stay mum are, at times, directly affected by the circumstances bearing on the two women. But Fate and their unwillingness (the hesitance sometimes justified, sometimes not) combine to never allow them to explain, even if they would--or could--or, possibly, to give Hamlet the time to batter down the bulwark of what is--to him--abject denial of the truth--and the results of that denial--of their (as far as he knows) obviously intended actions.
For once again, one of the greatest instruments of Tragedy in the play--Time-- fails to mesh with The Moment in which, ironically, it's simultaneously occurring. Everyone in the play, at one or more points, either lacks timing, or the intervention of Fate, Circumstance (or both) forces that lack of timing; they all pay dearly for it. Hamlet sees and knows, presciently, in his gut, from the very beginning of the play, the terrible, destructive power of this lack of synchronization, and the effects it may likely have: "The Time is out of joint."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)