Book 5: Finished.

I finished “Much Ado About Nothing” while at work this afternoon—in my defense it was raining and there was not much else to do. And besides, I only had about 30 total pages left.

I knew I was going to enjoy the play, as it’s my favorite and it simply can’t disappoint. I particularly love the character of Dogberry, the constable, who muddles his words and offers the right timing in his lines. The clowns in all of Shakespeare’s plays are wonderful—Dogberry is just my favorite. Especially in this passage right here:

“Don Pedro:
Officers, what offense have these men done?

Dogberry:
Marry, sir, they have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily, they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves,” (5.1.207-212).

If read that passage aloud, it is much more humorous. I read it to Kyla and Scott while at work today and while they chuckled, I think it was more at my amusement.

There are some other lines that I just love:

“Beatrice:
I love you with so much of my heart that none is left to protest,” (4.1.282-283).

“Benedick:
Shall quips and sentences and these paper bullets of the brain awe a man from the career of his humor?” (2.3.224-226).

I also love the banter between Beatrice and Benedick, especially at the beginning of the play. Their conversations are so witty and it seems as if they just continue to try to get the last sting in.

Beautiful.

The reason I love this play so much is the language and the two love stories. On one hand, you have Hero and Claudio. Claudio sees Hero and decides he must marry her, which is all fine and dandy until Don John the Bastard steps in and interrupts their happiness. Claudio and Hero seem to have that typical Shakespearian romance—they meet and fall instantly in love with no real development—not like Beatrice and Benedick, who while still end up together, take a little longer to get there.

I see the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick being just a little more believable than that of Hero and Claudio, just because I know that it takes work to make a relationship succeed.

The only other thing I really want to mention is that I notice a plot device being used in this play that is also used in “Romeo and Juliet.” In both plays, a female character—Hero and Juliet—fake their own death at the advice of a friar. So here is the question I pose: Why are the friars convincing these young women to pretend to be dead? I asked this at work and Nicole and Kyla both said something about the Freudian aspects of the friars manipulating the love and relationships around them. I’m not sure if I agree or not, but I did notice the similarities. I can’t call to mind any other repeats of the same situation in another Shakespeare play, but perhaps you might know of another example.

I just find it interesting that a plot device was used twice. These things amuse me.

I suppose you could say I am making much ado about nothing.

Hehe.

Alas, time to move away from Shakespeare and on to something a little more sinister.

Frankenstein, anyone?

Book 5: Reading Shakespearian Plays.

Reading a 300 page romance novel is not the same as reading a 300 page document on the history of the Phillips screwdriver; just as reading a 700 page novel by Charles Dickens is not the same as reading a 700 page Harry Potter novel. Just because a book is longer does not mean it is automatically more difficult to read. Instead, it’s about the content and the time period of the piece that determines the difficulty of the reading.

For a more personal example, I stayed up all night and read the last Harry Potter book in one sitting the night it came out. It took me roughly 7 ½ hours to get through it. And I know for a FACT that it would take at least twice that to read through a novel by Dostoevsky simply because of difficulty. Since many of the books on this classics list are written in a completely different time period, they require much more concentration than if I were to pick up the latest Nora Roberts book (which my mom surely has). I am sure that you can all relate to an experience in high school where a certain book or piece just took forever to get through because of the complexities of language.

This brings me to Shakespeare and plays in general. Obviously, reading a play is far different that reading a novel. In a novel, the author gives the read cues as to emotion, etc. In a play, all you really have to go by is dialogue and the few stage directions.

Here is an example:

“Why are you always leaving me?” she cried, stomping her feet like the immature teenager she is whilst tears streamed down her cheeks, “Am I not enough for you? Just tell me now so I don’t have to pretend anymore.”

In this first example, you, the reader, have some clear clues to go by. First, you know that the speaker is a she and she is undoubtedly crying. She also seems to be speaking to a partner of some sort who is “leaving her.” You can also tell that she feels inadequate and insecure by how and what she is saying to the unknown speaker. These feelings might be an indication of her age, which is that of a teenager. These are clear clues that paint a picture in your head of the scene taking place.

Now, here is another example:

“I will live in thy heart, die in thy lap, and be buried
in thy eyes—and, moreover, I will go with thee to thy uncle’s,” (v.ii. 87-88).

First, the language is completely different (this is from “Much Ado About Nothing”) and that has to be first deciphered like this:

“I will live in your heart, die in your lap, and be buried in your eyes—and, moreover, I will go back with you to your uncle’s.”

Well, that seems a little better now that I got rid of the “thy” and “thees.” But from these lines, who is speaking? Just looking at the dialogue you can’t tell if it’s a man or a woman, how old they are, or to whom they are speaking. It’s slightly trickier than the scene above. The playwright is counting on the performance to deliver these words in the manner they deserve. On a simple read through, it is hard for the read to find the passion in the words alone. They reader, or viewer, is meant to see and feel the passion through a performance.

I say and explain all this in hopes of making a few points.

First, that a play is meant to be performed rather than read.

Second, that Shakespeare’s plays are truly difficult to understand and read because of the language.

Third, anyone who can read a Shakespeare play straight through and understand all the nuances and emotions of the characters and tells you so, is most likely lying (and you can tell them I said so).

Luckily for people who want to read Shakespeare (not so much for other plays), many publishing companies are finding ways to help the reader. I own a complete set of his plays, which are all just straight versions of the dialogue, but there are editions that have the play on one page in its original text and “modern speech” on the opposite side to decipher the meaning. I own an edition that has footnotes to explain puns and out of date slang so that I can fully understand what is being said.

I’m not going to lie, reading Shakespeare is hard. Not only are you forced with the basic challenges of trying to ascertain emotion and passion from only dialogue, you are also contending with a different kind of English than what you speak today.

I think that is the main reason why people find Shakespeare difficult. When I taught “Romeo and Juliet” to ninth graders, I had to explain everything because of the language gap. To many, it just seems like another language entirely and even words like “you” seem to complex to comprehend.

So, if you are looking to broaden your horizons and read some Shakespeare, try one of the new versions of the play of your choice that has a breakdown of outdated words and modern translations. While some “book snobs” might tell you that’s cheating, its not. It simply makes a very difficult text more attainable.

Have at it!

Book 5: "Much Ado."

Much to my surprise, the poll ended and “Much Ado About Nothing” was chosen as my first play by William Shakespeare to read. I was hoping for something else to pull ahead and win, but it seems as though I was destined to read this.

I actually really like this play and in fact, it’s my favorite of Shakespeare’s plays (that I’ve read thus far). I really enjoy his comedies and I think they are far more entertaining than his tragedies, or his histories. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy a good gloomy story like “Macbeth,” I just prefer something a little lighter—and a play where everything does get resolved in a pleasant way in the end.

I first read “Much Ado about Nothing” in high school. In my A.P. English class senior year, my teacher showed us the 1993 film version which is an excellent adaptation of the play. It’s fairly accurate. I also love the fact that it combines well-known Shakespearian actors with Hollywood actors. There is a big difference. The version I am speaking of has the following cast members: Kenneth Branagh as Benedick (you might recognize him as Gilderoy Lockhart from the HP movies), Emma Thompson as Beatrice, Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, Keanu Reeves as Don John the Bastard (a very funny performance by the way), and Kate Beckinsale as Hero (one of my favorite actresses).

One of the reasons I love the film so much is that it really captured the essence of the play. On later readings, I could remember moments and scenes from the film that made the play come alive in my head. Also, I just loved seeing Keanu Reeves in a role “pre-Matrix.”

Anyway, even though I was initially said that I was re-reading one of my favorite plays so early on in this project, it will be a good place to start. I can save the challenge of reading something completely new for the next Shakespeare selection.


*I should point out now that I know that this is not a "book" as the title indicates. But for the purposes of this blog and keeping track of what I am reading, each piece that I am reading is simply being called a "book." It makes sense in my head.*

Book 4: Finished.

With the weather acting a little odd recently in Michigan, I have been plagued with some headaches (fronts moving in give me instant headaches). After finishing my DJ paperwork for my upcoming wedding last night with Matt, I attempted to go to sleep to get rid of the ache. I ended up waking up at 12:30 and for the life of me, I could not get back to sleep.

I ended up grabbing Pride and Prejudice with the intentions of reading until I felt sleepy. I usually read before bed anyway and I was thinking that my body just missed that routine. I didn’t end up going to bed until 2:00 when I shut the back cover of the book. I couldn’t help it. I got sucked in and I just finished it.

I’ve read it quite a few times, but I still get so moved by Darcy’s actions in the last half of the book. More than anything he wants to win her over and he wants to show her the man he can be. It just touches me every time.

I’m glad to be done with Pride and Prejudice. It’s a favorite of mine and I’m glad I got the opportunity to read it again, but its time for something more. And for me to gain new favorites.

Book 4: Author Criticisms.

I like knowing how authors view the work of other authors. I think what they have to say about another’s work reflects on their own. I also find it humorous to see whether I agree or disagree with what they have to say about books and plays that I consider to be my favorites.

In my edition of Pride and Prejudice, there are a number of quotes in the back from other authors about her work (this is a fun addition to the Barnes and Noble Classics Editions, of which I own many and really like). Austen is obviously well-known and her work is loved. So in addition to the praise, I also wanted to post some of the more…scandalous things that other authors had to say about her work. Many of these authors are on my list and whether I have read their work or not, their words will be on my mind when I finally get around to their pieces.

Enjoy.

Lady Byron:

"I have finished the Novel called Pride and Prejudice, which I think a very superior work. It depends not on any of the common resources of novel writers, no drownings, no conflagrations, nor runaway horses, nor lap-dogs and parrots, nor chambermaids and milliners, nor rencontres [duels] and disguises. I really think it is the most probable I have ever read. It is not a crying book, but the interest is very strong, especially for Mr. Darcy. The characters which are not amiable are diverting, and all of them are consistently supported."

Charlotte Bronte:

“Anything like warmth or enthusiasm, anything energetic, poignant, heartfelt, is utterly out of place in commending these works: all such demonstrations the authoress would have met with a well-bred sneer, would have calmly scorned as outré or extravagant. She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well. There is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy, in the painting. She ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him with nothing profound. The passions are perfectly unknown to her: she rejects even a speaking acquaintance with that stormy sisterhood ... What sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study: but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushes through, what is the unseen seat of life and the sentient target of death--this Miss Austen ignores....Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete and rather insensible (not senseless woman), if this is heresy--I cannot help it.”

Walter Allen:

“More can be learnt from Miss Austen about the nature of the novel than from most any other writer.”

Sir Walter Scott:

“Also read again, and for the third time at least, Miss Austen's very finely written novel of Pride and Prejudice. That young lady had a talent for describing the involvement and feelings and characters of ordinary life which is to me the most wonderful I ever met with. The big Bow-wow strain I can do myself like any now going, but the exquisite touch which renders ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting from the truth of the description and the sentiment is denied to me. What a pity such a gifted creature died so early!”

Anthony Trollope:

“"Miss Austen was surely a great novelist. What she did, she did perfectly. Her work, as far as it goes, is faultless. She wrote of the times in which she lived, of the class of people with which she associated, and in the language which was usual to her as an educated lady. Of romance, -- what we generally mean when we speak of romance -- she had no tinge. Heroes and heroines with wonderful adventures there are none in her novels. Of great criminals and hidden crimes she tells us nothing. But she places us in a circle of gentlemen and ladies, and charms us while she tells us with an unconscious accuracy how men should act to women, and women act to men. It is not that her people are all good; -- and, certainly, they are not all wise. The faults of some are the anvils on which the virtues of others are hammered till they are bright as steel. In the comedy of folly I know no novelist who has beaten her. The letters of Mr. Collins, a clergyman in Pride and Prejudice, would move laughter in a low-church archbishop."

Ralph Waldo Emerson:

"I am at a loss to understand why people hold Miss Austen's novels at so high a rate, which seem to me vulgar in tone, sterile in artistic invention, imprisoned in their wretched conventions of English society, without genius, wit, or knowledge of the world. Never was life so pinched and narrow. ... All that interests in any character [is this]: has he (or she) the money to marry with? ... Suicide is more respectable."

E.M. Forster (who wrote A Room with a View which I just finished and loved):

“I am a Jane Austenite, and therefore slightly imbecile about Jane Austen. My fatuous expression, and airs of personal immunity — how ill they sit on the face, say, of a Stevensonian! But Jane Austen is so different. She is my favorite author! I read and reread, the mouth open and the mind closed. Shut up in measureless content, I greet her by the name of most kind hostess, while criticism slumbers.”

Mark Twain (who has many things to say about many authors—remind me to mention his hatred of Cooper when I get to it):

“To me his prose is unreadable -- like Jane Austin's [sic]. No there is a difference. I could read his prose on salary, but not Jane's. Jane is entirely impossible. It seems a great pity that they allowed her to die a natural death.”

“I haven't any right to criticize books, and I don't do it except when I hate them. I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read 'Pride and Prejudice' I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone.”

And my favorite, from W. Somerset Maugham:

“Nothing very much happens in her books, and yet, when you come to the bottom of a page, you eagerly turn it to learn what will happen next. Nothing very much does and again you eagerly turn the page. The novelist who has the power to achieve this has the most precious gift a novelist can possess."