. It just makes me laugh, and I have no problem being that childish. John Heywood was absolutely brilliant when he picked this title for his little play. The play itself is a wonderful piece of satire. This is by far the oldest play that I have read so far (published in 1544, I believe), so I was curious just what it might be like, and while it certainly wouldn't fit the conventions of the stage that we have become accustomed to (such as having a play entirely devoid of action - all the characters do is talk), I believe that this could still be a very enjoyable play to see performed. Anyway, as far as the plot is concerned, it is really just a series of jokes. There is a pilgrim, a seller of pardons (of the type that get you out of Purgatory), and apothecary, and a peddler. These then make up four P's (though I was a bit too dense to figure out why the play has two P's rather than one in the title). And what they do is all vie for who can be the greatest liar in regards to how his profession helps humanity. The tales they tell can be rather vulgar and scatological, but it really only adds to the glory of this simple, yet fantastic play. I have to admit that this is by far, the most enjoyable play that I have read this year, and I am seriously considering trying to read Heywood's other works.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
YOD 18: The Four PP
I love the title The Four PP. It just makes me laugh, and I have no problem being that childish. John Heywood was absolutely brilliant when he picked this title for his little play. The play itself is a wonderful piece of satire. This is by far the oldest play that I have read so far (published in 1544, I believe), so I was curious just what it might be like, and while it certainly wouldn't fit the conventions of the stage that we have become accustomed to (such as having a play entirely devoid of action - all the characters do is talk), I believe that this could still be a very enjoyable play to see performed. Anyway, as far as the plot is concerned, it is really just a series of jokes. There is a pilgrim, a seller of pardons (of the type that get you out of Purgatory), and apothecary, and a peddler. These then make up four P's (though I was a bit too dense to figure out why the play has two P's rather than one in the title). And what they do is all vie for who can be the greatest liar in regards to how his profession helps humanity. The tales they tell can be rather vulgar and scatological, but it really only adds to the glory of this simple, yet fantastic play. I have to admit that this is by far, the most enjoyable play that I have read this year, and I am seriously considering trying to read Heywood's other works.
. It just makes me laugh, and I have no problem being that childish. John Heywood was absolutely brilliant when he picked this title for his little play. The play itself is a wonderful piece of satire. This is by far the oldest play that I have read so far (published in 1544, I believe), so I was curious just what it might be like, and while it certainly wouldn't fit the conventions of the stage that we have become accustomed to (such as having a play entirely devoid of action - all the characters do is talk), I believe that this could still be a very enjoyable play to see performed. Anyway, as far as the plot is concerned, it is really just a series of jokes. There is a pilgrim, a seller of pardons (of the type that get you out of Purgatory), and apothecary, and a peddler. These then make up four P's (though I was a bit too dense to figure out why the play has two P's rather than one in the title). And what they do is all vie for who can be the greatest liar in regards to how his profession helps humanity. The tales they tell can be rather vulgar and scatological, but it really only adds to the glory of this simple, yet fantastic play. I have to admit that this is by far, the most enjoyable play that I have read this year, and I am seriously considering trying to read Heywood's other works.
YOD 17: Edward II
This was the final play of Marlowe's that I read while on my flights to and from Montreal. I had a nice volume of his plays that I sort of worked through, and though he has two other plays that I have not read (Dido and The Massacre at Paris), it feel like four-in-a-row by any playwright is enough, and so after The Tragedy of Edward II
, I moved on. As far as fatal flaws of tragic heroes goes, Edward's is not one that would go over too well as a fatal flaw now-a-days. Basically, his tragedy is that he is a homosexual, and his love of his young, lower class Gaveston keeps him from being able to focus on the proper running of a country. This really is the only thing that Edward has against him. His wife, the queen, is sad that he does not love her like he loves his lover, and the courtiers hate having some one beneath them being lifted up by their king. Edward has to focus on trying to handle their squabbles while finding time for his man, and because of this he compromises and puts aside his real duties, and fails as a king. In the end, I did enjoy the play, but I was not wowed by it in the same way that I have been by Marlowe's other plays; however, my admiration of him continues on.
, I moved on. As far as fatal flaws of tragic heroes goes, Edward's is not one that would go over too well as a fatal flaw now-a-days. Basically, his tragedy is that he is a homosexual, and his love of his young, lower class Gaveston keeps him from being able to focus on the proper running of a country. This really is the only thing that Edward has against him. His wife, the queen, is sad that he does not love her like he loves his lover, and the courtiers hate having some one beneath them being lifted up by their king. Edward has to focus on trying to handle their squabbles while finding time for his man, and because of this he compromises and puts aside his real duties, and fails as a king. In the end, I did enjoy the play, but I was not wowed by it in the same way that I have been by Marlowe's other plays; however, my admiration of him continues on.
YOD 16: The Jew of Malta
Continuing on with Marlowe, I now got a little racism with my tragedy (or would this play have been regarded as a comedy?). The Jew of Malta is a none too flattering portrayal of a Jew who happens to live in Malta. He is even named Barabas (so you know that all good Christians should despise him). The problem is, is that very few people in this play are very loveable, so really, the main reason that we should hate Barabas is simply because he is a Jew. The Christians and Muslims cheat and steal and lie and swindle, as does Barabas, but in the end, we are supposed to be glad when Barabas gets what's due him, because we should be happy whenever any Jew gets screwed. I wasn't too happy. I actually really liked Barabas, and because of this, I really liked all of the play except for the ending, when Barabas is betrayed. He makes for a much better hero than a villian (even with the poisoning of the nuns).
is a none too flattering portrayal of a Jew who happens to live in Malta. He is even named Barabas (so you know that all good Christians should despise him). The problem is, is that very few people in this play are very loveable, so really, the main reason that we should hate Barabas is simply because he is a Jew. The Christians and Muslims cheat and steal and lie and swindle, as does Barabas, but in the end, we are supposed to be glad when Barabas gets what's due him, because we should be happy whenever any Jew gets screwed. I wasn't too happy. I actually really liked Barabas, and because of this, I really liked all of the play except for the ending, when Barabas is betrayed. He makes for a much better hero than a villian (even with the poisoning of the nuns).
YOD 15: Tamburlaine the Great pt. II
Well, Tamburlaine the Great, pt. II, really picks up around where pt. I ends. They make for very nice companion pieces, and I would rather enjoy watching the two of them performed back-to-back. While the first of these two plays was just a list of Tamburlaine's triumphs, this second part deals more with Tamburlaine's inability to conquer forever. First, he is unable to keep his wife, whom he dearly loves, from dying. Then, he is disgraced to have one of his three sons show no interest in a soldier's life (so Tamburlaine kills him), and finally, he himself can't conquer an illness that he catches, and so he then dies. It's a play of losses really, after a life of nothing but victory. Tamburlaine's illness comes after he declares war on the gods, any god really, and finds that while he can conquer the temporal, the divine is a little more elusive. Oh well.
, really picks up around where pt. I ends. They make for very nice companion pieces, and I would rather enjoy watching the two of them performed back-to-back. While the first of these two plays was just a list of Tamburlaine's triumphs, this second part deals more with Tamburlaine's inability to conquer forever. First, he is unable to keep his wife, whom he dearly loves, from dying. Then, he is disgraced to have one of his three sons show no interest in a soldier's life (so Tamburlaine kills him), and finally, he himself can't conquer an illness that he catches, and so he then dies. It's a play of losses really, after a life of nothing but victory. Tamburlaine's illness comes after he declares war on the gods, any god really, and finds that while he can conquer the temporal, the divine is a little more elusive. Oh well.
YOD 14: Tamburlaine the Great pt. I
I know that I have fallen into the habit of posting all my drama readings at the end of the month in a scramble to try to catch up, but this time I actually didn't read any plays until the end of the month. I had some nice long flights to and from Montreal, and they allowed me to keep up with my drama reading in the very merry month of March. I realise that I said that I would be reading through Shakespeare's history plays, but I decided that I wanted a bit of a break from them, and so I moved on to the works of Christopher Marlowe. Oh, how I love Marlowe. Ever since I first read his Dr. Faustus, I was smitten. His ability to mix comedy and tragedy was perfect, and so I had been wanting to read more of his plays, and transatlantic crossings seemed like the right time. I began with Tamburlaine the Great, pt. I, and was rather pleased with what I found. Though the play basically consists of the shepherd Tamburlaine proclaiming how it has been fortetold by the gods that he will rule the world, rulers of nations stating that no shepherd will ever conquer them, Tamburlaine conquering them, and the cycle beginning again, the speeches are so beautifully written, and the characters are given wonderfully various ways of saying the same thing over and over again, that the play moves along at clipping speed, and the repetition never feels repetative. I imagine that with all of the action, on and off stage, that this would be quite the rolicking play to see performed. Anyway, it was an absolute delight, and so I moved on to part II.
, and was rather pleased with what I found. Though the play basically consists of the shepherd Tamburlaine proclaiming how it has been fortetold by the gods that he will rule the world, rulers of nations stating that no shepherd will ever conquer them, Tamburlaine conquering them, and the cycle beginning again, the speeches are so beautifully written, and the characters are given wonderfully various ways of saying the same thing over and over again, that the play moves along at clipping speed, and the repetition never feels repetative. I imagine that with all of the action, on and off stage, that this would be quite the rolicking play to see performed. Anyway, it was an absolute delight, and so I moved on to part II.
Monday, 28 February 2011
YOD 13: King Henry V
The trilogy of the tragedy of Sir John Falstaff continues with Shakespeare's King Henry V
. I don't know if I can forgive Prince Hal. I mean, Falstaff died of a broken heart, and there is no eulogy offered by him. He just becomes King Henry V and starts a war with France. How predictable is that? 'Hi I'm the new King of England, and I would like to have a little war in France to show how powerful I am.' Not original Henry V, although I guess ending your name in a number is not really a sign that you will be a beacon of originaltiy. But kudos to you for not liking the French. Way to embrace your Englishness. I'll just practice my Americanness by forgetting that Canada exists, and then we can both be stereotypes.
Anyway Henry V has jokes in French, so nicely done Shakespeare. It did help lessen the blow of Falstaff's death.
. I don't know if I can forgive Prince Hal. I mean, Falstaff died of a broken heart, and there is no eulogy offered by him. He just becomes King Henry V and starts a war with France. How predictable is that? 'Hi I'm the new King of England, and I would like to have a little war in France to show how powerful I am.' Not original Henry V, although I guess ending your name in a number is not really a sign that you will be a beacon of originaltiy. But kudos to you for not liking the French. Way to embrace your Englishness. I'll just practice my Americanness by forgetting that Canada exists, and then we can both be stereotypes.Anyway Henry V has jokes in French, so nicely done Shakespeare. It did help lessen the blow of Falstaff's death.
YOD 12: King Henry IV pt. II
Following on the heals of part one, comes part two of Falstaff's friendship with Prince Hal, not to mention a little war being raged by Henry IV. Shakespeare really does pick up with King Henry IV pt. II
right where he had left off with pt. I. The civil war rages on, and the real focus of the play continues to be Falstaff. And I really do love Falstaff.
However, this play ended on a bit of a sour note for me. No, it wasn't the death of King Henry IV (though he did seem like a good king, and I am glad that he ended up being able to keep England together despite the wars), but the banishment of Falstaff by Prince Hal when he becomes King Henry V. Prince Hal realizes that he has been a rogue and that it is time to grow up since he is now becoming king, but he does not allow his friends, chief amongst them Falstaff, the opportunity to change with him. He banishes them with the punishment of death if they disobey his decree. He then states that if he receives reports that they have changed their libertine ways, he may consider allowing them back in his company. But seriously, what a prick. What's good for the goose is clearly not good for the geese. I felt like he should have announced his change of heart and allowed them the opportunity to change their ways too, before passing judgment. Anyway, it all left a bitter taste in my mouth. What a lousy start to a reign, stabbing your friends in the back. Boo Hal, boo to you.
right where he had left off with pt. I. The civil war rages on, and the real focus of the play continues to be Falstaff. And I really do love Falstaff.However, this play ended on a bit of a sour note for me. No, it wasn't the death of King Henry IV (though he did seem like a good king, and I am glad that he ended up being able to keep England together despite the wars), but the banishment of Falstaff by Prince Hal when he becomes King Henry V. Prince Hal realizes that he has been a rogue and that it is time to grow up since he is now becoming king, but he does not allow his friends, chief amongst them Falstaff, the opportunity to change with him. He banishes them with the punishment of death if they disobey his decree. He then states that if he receives reports that they have changed their libertine ways, he may consider allowing them back in his company. But seriously, what a prick. What's good for the goose is clearly not good for the geese. I felt like he should have announced his change of heart and allowed them the opportunity to change their ways too, before passing judgment. Anyway, it all left a bitter taste in my mouth. What a lousy start to a reign, stabbing your friends in the back. Boo Hal, boo to you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)