mouthporn.net
#shakespeare – @cometomecosette on Tumblr
Avatar

Say, Do You Hear the Distant Drums?

@cometomecosette / cometomecosette.tumblr.com

An outlet for a California girl's passion for Boublil and Schönberg's musical "Les Misérables." See also my WordPress blog devoted to opera, Pamina's Opera House (www.paminasopera.com)
Avatar

Jean Valjean the Blocking Figure

(This is a 10-page pseudo academic essay I wrote just to process all my feelings about Valjean and Cosette. In the future I might write more in the same vein: e.g. “Javert the Obsessed Pursuer” or “Éponine the...” I’m not sure what, since she’s been reduced to so many things.)

The term “blocking figure” is one often heard in academia to describe a stock character of romantic comedy, both in the classical Roman plays of Plautus and Terence and in Shakespeare. This is the character, typically the father or guardian of one of the principle young lovers, who initially prevents those lovers from marrying, but is doomed to be thwarted in the end. He most often takes the form of the senex iratus – “angry old man” or “angry father.” In the classical Roman plays, he’s usually the father of the male lover, who disapproves of the female lover because she’s beneath their station. But in Shakespeare and in later examples such as Italian commedia dell’arte and opera buffa, he’s usually the girl’s father or guardian, who uses his patriarchal authority to withhold her from the boy. In some examples he knows about their love and actively opposes it; in others the lovers know instinctively that he will oppose it, forcing them to keep their romance a secret. This trope is hardly exclusive to comedy either and not even always male.

Avatar

Marius and a Shakespearean trope (warning: long and rambling)

I've been listening to the podcasts of Dr. Emma Smith’s Approaching Shakespeare lectures from the University of Oxford. In the lecture on Much Ado About Nothing, she points out an interesting trope found in Shakespeare’s comedies – as well as a wider cultural idea – that I had never really thought of before, at least not in depth. The trope is this: that in a man’s youth, male friendships and social bonds are his most important relationships, but that as he matures, those bonds “must” lose importance in favor of romance and marriage to a woman.

Smith cites this trope in Much Ado About Nothing to explain just why Claudio trusts Don John and not Hero (in his culture and stage of life, male “friends” are inherently placed above women; in the end he matures by learning John’s deceit and reconciling with Hero) and to interpret Benedick’s character arc too (moving from a misogynistic, male friendship-centered life, to embracing his love for Beatrice, and to choosing that love over male friendship by agreeing to kill Claudio). She also discusses the similar “love vs. friendship” themes in Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Two Noble Kinsmen, Love’s Labour’s Lost, All’s Well That Ends Well, The Merchant of Venice, and in a tragic variation, Othello. While she doesn’t mention this theme in Romeo and Juliet, I thought instantly of two essays I’d read in the past that highlighted Romeo’s dilemma of “Juliet vs. Mercutio.” This is definitely a recurring Shakespearean theme.

I wish I were taking a literature course, because I want to write an essay about Les Misérables’s use of this trope in Marius’s character arc. Particularly in the musical, where Marius is much more “as one” with his friends than in the novel and “love vs. revolution” (which is implicitly “love vs. friendship” too) becomes a central dilemma for him. I already have so many thoughts on the subject, but no definitive conclusions.

Avatar

What’s really interesting to me is that in Greco-Roman tragedies, the tragic hero’s fate is often inescapable. For example, it is prophesied that Oedipus will kill his father and marry his mother, and all his desperate attempts to avoid this fate ultimately lead to the prophecy coming true.

But in Shakespeare’s tragedies, and indeed many other Elizabethan and Jacobean tragedies, the tragic hero’s downfall is usually all too avoidable. The witches prophesy that Macbeth will become king, and Macbeth actively works to make that prophecy come true. For all the influence of the witches and Lady Macbeth, it is Macbeth himself who is responsible for his own demise, not fate or destiny or prophecy.

In classical drama, the tragedy is that the hero cannot escape his fate; in Shakespeare’s time, the tragedy is that he can - but he chooses not to.

This reminds me of a fantastic essay I once read about Oedipus Rex and Greco-Roman tragedy in general.

The author pointed out that the “hamartia” (usually translated as “tragic flaw”) that Aristotle said a tragic hero should have wasn’t necessarily a moral flaw. It could just as easily be a morally innocent error. Oedipus’s hamartia, if he has one, is most likely the simple fact that he doesn't know who his parents are, which of course is beyond his control.

BUT...

The author noted that the hero’s downfall usually is a moral flaw in Shakespeare’s tragedies. Macbeth’s ambition, Hamlet’s indecisiveness, Othello’s jealousy, Romeo’s impulsiveness, King Lear’s pride, etc. He argued that the concept of the “hamartia” as “tragic flaw” became popular not because it applied very well to the tragedies of Aristotle’s day, but because it applied so well to Shakespeare!

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net