Book 150: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof by Tennessee Williams.

“What is the victory of a cat on a hot tin roof?—I wish I knew... Just staying on it, I guess, as long as she can...” 

I've only had one other experience with Williams, and it was pretty positive. And when I decided to pull this title down for a read during the readathon a couple weeks, I was expected a fast read and nothing more.

I think I should have learned by now that all the plays on my list are there for a reason. I can't so easily dismiss them.

Beginning this one, I was struck by the similarities to another play on my list, The Little Foxes by Lillian Hellman. It took me a little while to place my reactions to Hellman's play aside in order to concentrate on this one, and once I did, I realized that a lot of the similarities were only on the surface (both focus on a dying cotton plantation owner and matter of inheritance). And I believe the years between the "publications" of each play show a remarkable different. Hellman's play, first written/performed in 1939, is definitely fiery and full of passion. There is a lot of scheming and plotting on part of the main female character to insure that she will be left wealthy. She pushes her family and insists on having everything she thinks she deserves.

And while Williams' play also has a strong female lead in Maggie, there seems to be a lot more at stake for the family members. There is a lot more depth to the backstory, and it appears that Williams play is more about the individuals than the plot. Each of the characters has a motive and a desire that is brought to the surface of the play, then they disappear a bit into the background. As I was reading, I kept catching glimpses of each struggle, all kind of bubbling there under the surface.

Essentially, the play is about Big Daddy and his fortune. He recently went to the doctor, and while most of the family knows the truth-that he is dying of cancer-he doesn't. So, his two sons and their wives are trying to win favor to get his inheritance. And as they push and prod him, all kinds of issues come out-alcoholism, infidelity, jealousy, repression, desire, and death. All of these issues influence the characters in different ways until it all comes out-the truth about Big Daddy's impending death, the truth behind a friend's suicide, secret desires, and a whopping big lie.

By the end, I was reading and flipping pages as fast as I could to discover what happened. It was fast-paced, tense, and incredibly unsettling, but I really did love it.

However, like all the plays I've read for this project, there is only so much I can interpret from reading the lines of the characters. I wish I could see all the plays on my list, then read them. I think I would pull far more from the performances. But I am glad I have one more by Williams to read-A Streetcar Named Desire-and a slew of other poems. :)

“In all these years, you never believed I loved you. And I did. I did so much. I did love you. I even loved your hate and your hardness.”

Book 142: Murder in the Cathedral by T.S. Eliot.

"The last act is the greatest treason, 

To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I really enjoy a lot of Eliot's poetry, and was blown away by "The Waste Land" when I read it a year or two ago. I have been meaning to read Murder in the Cathedral since I received it from my Blogger Secret Santa in December, and I finally got the opportunity a week or so ago.

I'm not sure what I was expecting. I knew that Murder in the Cathedral was a play, but I didn't know what it was about. It actually took me two reads to get a general idea of what the play was even talking about. 

Basically, the play is focused on Archbishop Thomas Becket, and focuses on his decisions and actions right before he is murdered and becomes a martyr. There is obviously a lot more history to it than that, which I am not 100% confident in discussing (it would make me sound like an idiot, trying to piece it all together).


In the first part of the play, Becket is determining which stance to take-to stay true to his own beliefs even if he knows he may pay for it, or to do what others want him to and sacrifice his own good faith in himself. The first half is his mutterings, as well as the temptations by his tempters-those who wish for him to make the decision other than what he is comfortable with. 


The second part is of his death. Four knights come to murder him. They all give big long speeches on why, and the event takes place off the page.


In the midst of these two chunks the chorus speaks...and tells the audience to "stay awake" among other things. 


The whole thing was a little confusing, the language heavy, and I was left completely unsure of what was going on. Thus, the second read. It started to make a little more sense, and I pulled out some other pieces to put together what I've just shared with you. 


I was really intrigued by the lines I shared above-the whole idea of standing up for what is right when you know that bad things will happen to you if you do. I think we have all thought of making that kind of stance at some point in our lives-sticking up for what is right in light of being the only one on that side. Or, of only doing the right thing, but to make some kind of gain in the process. I always wonder about the choices I would make if I were to be in that position. I hope I would make the right and honest choice, but you never know what will happen in times of stress, you know?


Anyway, this is another of those plays that I think I would understand more seeing it performed. Perhaps sometime in the future I'll have that opportunity. 

“Unreal friendship may turn to real
But real friendship, once ended, cannot be mended”

Book 141: The Little Foxes by Lillian Hellman.

 I wanted something short to plow through during the readathon on Saturday, and The Little Foxes has been staring at me since I finally bought a copy. This was the hardest play to find, since it doesn't seem as well-known as the others on my list. In fact, the only edition I could find to purchase was the edition used for productions (seen below). I also read online about the movie adaptation with Bette Davis, now on my list of movies I need to watch at some point.

The Little Foxes was first published in 1939. The movie adaptation came out in 1941, so I have to assume it was well received in play format.

Like all the plays I have read for the challenge, this one would also be even more spectacular to see live. While you can get a lot out of reading the text of a play, there is less description. You can only get that by watching the actors.

The play is set around 1900 in a small Southern town. All of the main characters are from the Hubbard family. Ben, Oscar, and Regina are siblings who are fairly well off in the town. From the observations and statements made by two minor characters-Addie, Regina's maid and Birdie, Oscar's wife-it appears the Hubbards are not well liked in town. The men go out shooting and throw away their kills, even though they could be put to better use for the poorer families in town. They also appear to be rather haughty, looking down on the others they interact with.

At the beginning of the play, the Hubbards are entertaining a rich Northerner who wants to build a cotton mill down by the cotton fields. He is will to put in 49% of the cost if the three Hubbards will put in the remaining 51%. All the events after this revolve around the issue of money. Both Ben and Oscar have their share, but Regina must beg for her portion from her husband, who is laid up in a hospital with a heart condition.

This is where the action really begins. Regina is a slimy, self-centered witch who insists her husband leave the safety of the hospital to come home and give her the money she "needs" for this business venture. After sending her young teenage daughter, Alexandra, so go get him, all three of the Hubbards are waiting to pounce on him the moment he gets home.

The actions after that just show how much greed can push people to doing horrible things. The play really speaks to the power money has over us all, and how if we let it, it can ultimately destroy us. It also speaks a bit about family relationships. I think we all know that going into business with a family member isn't always the best idea...

More importantly, I found it interesting to view the events from Alexandra's point of view. At one point, she is used as a pawn to get more money into the deal. She is also used by her mother to bring home her father, since she is the only one to convince him to come home. At the end, I really felt for her and what she witnessed-the pure evil of her mother and uncles.

I also found Birdie to be an interesting character. As Oscar's wife, she is supposed to be a well-respected and loved woman. But her husband seems to despise her, and she turns to alcohol to cope with a lot of her problems. I cannot imagine being trapped in such a marriage, or knowing your husband only married you to get to your money. Of all the characters, I found Birdie to be the most honest.

In all, I really enjoyed this play. It was a fast read, and I enjoyed the way Hellman brought me into the living room of the Hubbards (the only setting for the play). It IS interesting to think that all kinds of things go on behind our neighbors' walls, and we don't really know what kind of people they are. I think this is definitely a play worth reading if you get the chance. I am also going to be on the lookout for a performance at some point. I would have killed to see the original performance with Tallulah Bankhead as Regina. She was such a wonderful actress, and I can just see her in the role.

As a side note, if you can find an edition that was NOT a production version of the play, I recommend it. My edition had a LOT of stage directions, to the point that it was distracting from the text. I didn't need to know when an actor walked upstage or downstage between words, etc.

Has anyone read or seen this one?

Book 136: A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

For those of you who are getting tired of the Shakespeare, be happy since this is my last post on one of his plays. Yep, play #11 for the event is A Midsummer Night's Dream. I purposefully left this one for last. Besides Romeo and Juliet and Much Ado About Nothing, I know this play the best. I've lost count of how many times I've read it or seen the movie. It is a fabulous example of Shakespeare at his best and one of the "funnest" plays I've read.

This is a play that focuses on the connection between the fairy realm and that of mortals. But there is also a sub-plot that focuses a bit on class issues. I'll touch on that in a minute.

The main plot focuses on 4 humans who wander into the forest. The two men, Demetrius and Lysander, are both in love with Hermia. Only one of them (Demetrius) has the favor of her father, and she loves the other (Lysander). There is also Helena, who adores Demetrius.

The four of the them are wandering around the forest, fighting over each other. They gain the attention of Oberon, king of the fairies, and his friend Robin Goodfellow (he is also called Puck in many editions). Oberon wants to fix the problem by having Demetrius fall in love with Helena using a flower powder, but Robin screws up the instructions and winds up having both men fall in love with Helena. So now, instead of the two men chasing Hermia, they wind up chasing Helena. It causes some funny interactions, but eventually Oberon straightens out the problems, leaving the couples paired off and ready to return to Athens to get married. In typical Shakespearean comedy fashion, it all works out.

The sub-plot focuses on an acting troupe. They are also in the woods at the same time as our four lovers, practicing for a play to perform before the King and Queen of Athens. They serve as the clowns in the play-causing mischief, etc. There are some hilarious scenes with these characters. I love when one, Bottom, is given the head of an ass and Titania, Oberon's wife, falls in love with him due to a spell. I am sure that for viewers back in the Globe, seeing that on stage was a riot.

But they really steal the play with the last Act of the play. They finally "perform" the play they've been practicing live in front of our two couples and the Royal couple. Before they perform, they give a little prologue, assuring the ladies that it is an actor, not a lion, who is roaring at them, and that the "wall" in the play is a man who is only symbolizing the wall. Hilarious. I am sure that with the right staging, etc, this was the highlight of the play in Shakespeare's time.You also get this gem as one of the characters in the play dies...

“Thus I die. Thus, thus, thus.
Now I am dead,
Now I am fled,
My soul is in the sky.
Tongue, lose thy light.
Moon take thy flight.
Now die, die, die, die.”

Ah, so funny. But, while this whole scene is certainly funny, it is important to at least notice the undertone. All of the characters in the acting troupe are from the working class. Their main goal in performing before the King and Queen is to earn the opportunity to make more money. They are at the mercy of those higher than themselves. Their bits of stupidity and hilarity are caused by their lack of education and knowledge about acting. I also think that Shakespeare uses them to poke fun at unprofessional acting troupes. I believe that Shakespeare and many of his contemporaries were showing that actors were higher than the everyday man. But those are my guesses.

The other piece of the play that I love are the ending lines, which I'll also end with. They say a lot about the play, but I also find them a fitting closure for my discussion on Shakespeare's plays this month.

“If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumbered here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
If you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.”

Book 135: Othello by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving."

Othello is the last of the "great" Shakespearean tragedies that I've read (those tragedies include Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet). I knew I wanted to end my reading of the tragedies with this one because I knew I would love it. It is a play that is often talked about, and I have been lucky not to have it spoiled for me.

Like The Merchant of Venice, I read it without doing research beforehand. I think the fact that I understood it and knew what was going on speaks to how reading so many plays has helped my knowledge of Shakespeare's sentence structure. It also kept up a bit of mystery as I read, as I didn't know what would happen.

I am glad that I saved it, and that I finally read it since it is a play that is part of the curriculum for the district I have been working in. It was about time that I read it!

Anyway, the play is about Othello, a Moor from Africa who has become one of the greatest generals in Venice. By the end of the play, he has a huge downfall. At the beginning of the play, everything seems to be going wonderfully for Othello. Beyond his military accomplishments, he recently married Desdemona. There is a bit of hoopla about the marriage because of the difference in their races, but Othello and Desdemona seem happy at the beginning.

Of course, it all spirals down from there. Othello has to choose a new lieutenant and selects his friend Cassio over Iago. This pisses of Iago, who determines to bring Othello down from his lofty perch. Iago is really the mastermind behind all of the tragedy in the play, as he is determined to seek revenge on both Othello and Cassio.

All of these little details wind together-the race issue especially. Since Othello is black, he subjected to a lot of racism, especially given Desdemona's own color. There are many comments throughout the play that focus on the color of Othello's skin and his relationship with Desdemona. Some of these are incredibly sexual and conniving (and most are said by Iago).

Where it all falls apart is when Iago convinces Othello that Desdemona and Cassio are sleeping together. Othello turns into a madman, agonizing over what he thinks is happening. What really struck me about this change was that Othello took Iago's word over anything Desdemona had to say. It seemed as if he didn't care to learn the truth from Cassio or Desdemona before condemning them for their transgressions.

“O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;
It is the green-ey'd monster, which doth mock
The meat it feeds on. That cuckold lives in bliss,
Who, certain of his fate, loves not his wronger:
But O, what damnèd minutes tells he o'er
Who dotes, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves!"

In the end, it all ends in murder and suicide (Shakespeare was a fan of suicides it appears).

This play? Fantastic. I was blown away by the power and evilness of Iago. He might be the best Shakespearean villain. Every move was calculated and he truly used the circumstances of Othello's life and appearance to his advantage. He knew every weakness, the racism, and the insecurity against Othello to bring him down from his lofty heights.

Now I see why this play is the perfect choice for high schoolers. As I was reading, I continually thought of ways to discuss the major issues here: prejudice, the importance of reputations, and learning the full story before acting on information. And while I still think there are better Shakespearean tragedies, this really is a great choice for high school students. There is so much here to discuss.

A bit of me is sad that this is the last of the big tragedies-those most well-known and read-but I am excited to get to the smaller ones in the future and see what other kinds of torture Shakespeare wants to inflict on his characters.

“I hold my peace, sir? no;
No, I will speak as liberal as the north;
Let heaven and men and devils, let them all,
All, all, cry shame against me, yet I'll speak.”
 
What did you think of this one? Love it? Hate it?

Book 134: The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“All that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life has sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold
Had you been as wise as bold,
Your in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been in'scroll'd
Fare you well: your suit is cold.' Cold, indeed, and labour lost: Then, farewell, heat and welcome, frost!”
The Merchant of Venice is yet another Shakespearean play that I was unfamiliar with. Unlike some of the others that I read for the first time, I really knew nothing about the play before I started. I was surprised to get into the play and see what it was about.

The play focuses on the "merchant" only slightly, which is what confused me. For being the title character in the play, the merchant, Antonio, does not appear to be the central focus on the play.

Basically, the play starts with a young man, Bassanio, asking Antonio for money. Antonio agrees to sign for a loan from Shylock, a wealthy Jew, to help Bassanio have the opportunity to go and woo his love Portia. Shylock has it out for Antonio, so part of the terms of this loan is that if Antonio fails to pay it back, Shylock can take a pound of flesh from the merchant.

After the loan is in place, Bassanio travels to Portia to win her. There are, of course, some other suitors, who all fail miserably at the test put in place to "win" dear Portia. I was a little amused at the test and found it interesting that her future husband would be determined by his ability to figure out a riddle. If my own father left that kind of a trap for my future suitors, I would have had a fit. It all seems to work out, as Bassanio manages to figure out and he wins dear Portia.

Meanwhile, poor Antonio is in a bit of a bind back home. His ships haven't returned, and lo and behold! No money to pay back Shylock!

This is where the play gets really interesting. I had to reread the last couple of Acts a few times because I was pretty enthralled with events and how Shylock was portrayed. As a Jewish character, Shylock was shown as a dark and mischievous fellow-only concerned with his money and revenge. And Shakespeare really portrays him as being that way. I'm aware that a lot of Jewish characters in literature are portrayed that way. In fact, I was reminded of Fagin from Dickens' Oliver Twist. In both Shakespeare and Dickens' work, the Jewish characters were portrayed in this slimy, disgusting way. Obviously in today's day and age, that kind of..antisemitism is inappropriate and offensive. But, you can't help but be a pit in awe of how these characters appear. I was particularly struck by these lines by Shylock...

"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge."

Interesting, right? I also have to point out that this speech is in prose, which Shakespeare usually leaves to those of the lower classes in his plays. I had to think a lot about what Shakespeare was really trying to say here. On one hand, you have a character being portrayed in a dark light-he is obsessed with revenge, is shown as being a lower class, and is constantly being called out for being a Jew. On the other hand, he says things like this. He appears to be a sympathetic character. This side makes sense to my 21st century mind, but what kind of impact did his speech have on those who first saw the play performed? Did they question the right for a Jewish character to speak this way? Did it hit home for any of them? I wonder.

I also love that Portia seemed to hold a lot of power in the end of the play. Again, there was a bit of cross-dressing and Portia winds up at the trial to determine the fate of poor Antonio and Shylock. This scene was by far the most interesting-to see how words were twisted to get a desirable result. This whole scene helped show how the play really focuses on the power of language. One bit of intent left out of speech and everything can come crashing down.

I particularly fell in love with Portia's "mercy" speech...

“The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice.”

Lovely, isn't it? No wonder it is one of the most famous bits from the play.

I could go on, but I feel I would talk in circles. This is definitely one I am going to return to sooner rather than later. There is so much to explore and question. :)

Book 131: King Lear by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“Who is it that can tell me who I am?”

 I think I have become a bigger fan of Shakespeare's tragedies than his comedies...which is saying a lot because I love Shakespearean comedies. But there is something so dark and twisted about some of these tragedies, and I just can't get enough.

King Lear is the story of an aging King, named Lear, who determines to divide his kingdom among his three daughters while he is still living. He must think that they will take care of him in his old age and allow him to continue wandering and such until he eventually passes.

The play opens with King Lear discussing this with his three daughters; Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia. One at a time, the daughter "confess" their unconditional love towards their father in exchange for getting their portion of the kingdom. Goneril and Regan proceed to flatter the aging king and pretty much lie to his face. When it comes time for Cordelia to speak, she refuses to flatter and to lie. Instead, she speaks simply and honorably, saying that while she loves her father, she isn't going to be false. This sends Lear into a bit of a grumpy mood. He banishes one of his loyal friends, Kent, for sticking up for Cordelia. He then decides to divide the kingdom in two for Goneril and Regan, leaving poor Cordelia without an inheritance. Luckily, the King of France heard the exchange and still loves Cordelia, so he whisks her away to marry.

Obviously, tragic things begin to happen. Now in charge of the kingdom, Goneril and Regan begin to mistreat their father. He gets into an argument with Goneril about how many men he can have attending to him. When she says no, he stomps off like an angry child to Regan. The two women agree that Lear is crazy and old.

In the midst of all that drama, there is also a side plot with the two sons of the Earl of Gloucester. One is legitimate and one is not, and of course, the illegitimate son starts some shenanigans to hurt his brother. This whole side plot winds up interweaving into the story of the two older daughters, as they begin to fight over men who aren't their husbands, reject their father, and start fighting.

It is a bit of a mess and I haven't even touched on more than two acts worth of information. The characters are all quite despicable, except for Cordelia and Kent (the rejected friend of King Lear). The rest of them are all quite awful-they manipulate each other and hurt poor old Lear. The older daughters, Goneril and Regan are flirtatious and conniving as they try and steal husbands and suitors...while being married.

And since it is a tragedy, it doesn't end well. Of course there is a bit of redemption, but there is also a lot of bloodshed and sadness at the end. And a few suicides in true Shakespeare fashion. The whole thing is depressing, but fascinating. You immediately get drawn into the chaos of this messed up and tragic family.

There are a lot of interesting characters in this one, which might be why I love it so much. First, the female characters are amazing and have some great lines. I kind of like how snotty and obnoxious both Goneril and Regan are and how they compare to Cordelia. I also loved Lear. I mean, he was probably crazy and seemed a bit nuts in parts, but in a way, I felt like he just needed a hug and someone to love him a  bit. Poor old coot.

But hands down, the best characters are Edgar and Kent. Edgar is the legitimate son of that Earl I mentioned above, and he has a scene near the end of the play where he talks with his father. It was a breathtaking scene-probably my favorite of the whole play. Kent, banished by Lear, takes on a disguise for the rest of the play and finds a place back in Lear's confidence. He is one of those loyal friends who continues to protect against the odds. I love that kind of loyalty in a character.

So yes, great play and one that I definitely want to see live!

“The weight of this sad time we must obey,
Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say.
The oldest hath borne most: we that are young
Shall never see so much, nor live so long.”

Book 130: Hamlet by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“This above all: to thine own self be true,

And it must follow, as the night the day,

Thou canst not then be false to any man.”

It has been a long time since I've read Hamlet, so when I cracked it open poolside while in Florida, I wasn't sure what to expect. On one hand, I remembered that I really enjoyed it the previous times I've read it, but I couldn't remember why. And I also felt that it could never live up to its reputation. I mean, besides Romeo and Juliet, what other Shakespearean play is so much a part of popular culture?

Take this little speech..

“To be, or not to be: that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

No more; and by a sleep to say we end

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come..."

(It goes on quite a bit longer...).

That speech is quoted and manipulated SO MUCH that many of us immediately recognize it. And before I reread Hamlet, that speech had lost a bit of meaning for me. But after diving deep into the play, I realized that Hamlet really is a phenomenal work and one that deserves the recognition it has.

For anyone unfamiliar with the play, Hamlet is about the young Prince of Denmark, Hamlet, who discovers early on that his father was murdered by Claudius, his uncle. Hamlet's father appears in ghost form and bids his son to do away with the traitorous king. In the process, Hamlet appears to go a bit crazy (if seeing ghosts wasn't enough to mark him insane). He begins to mutter to himself, and that passage above takes place when he is in the midst of his contemplations.

And obviously, in true Shakespearean tragedy form, all hell breaks loose. Claudius becomes suspicious of Hamlet's motives and conspires to off him. Hamlet kind of loses it and freaks out. His poor mother, who is married to Claudius, gets caught up in the middle. By the end, there is a lot of blood and death.

The whole play is fantastic and while it is one of the longest plays, it doesn't feel that way. There is constantly action and deception to propel it forward. I don't think any one part lagged!

On this reread, I paid closer attention to one character-Ophelia. She must have slipped under my radar on my earlier reads, but this time, I was really drawn to her. Ophelia is Hamlet's love interest. In the midst of his confusion and madness, he turns away from her and pushes her aside (he tells her to go to a nunnery). He also kills her father-maybe on accident, maybe on purpose. This drives Ophelia into complete insanity. She wanders in and out of scenes singing songs. These little pieces really drew me in, and of all the characters, she is the one I sympathized with most.

When she dies, there is confusion about whether it was suicide or accidental, but the description of her death is somewhat beautiful...

"There is a willow grows aslant a brook

That shows his hoar leaves in the glassy stream.

There with fantastic garlands did she come

Of crowflowers, nettles, daisies, and long purples,

That liberal shepherds give a grosser name,

But our cold maids do “dead men’s fingers” call them.

There, on the pendant boughs her coronet weeds

Clambering to hang, an envious sliver broke,

When down her weedy trophies and herself

Fell in the weeping brook. Her clothes spread wide,

And mermaid-like a while they bore her up,

Which time she chanted snatches of old lauds

As one incapable of her own distress,

Or like a creature native and indued

Unto that element. But long it could not be

Till that her garments, heavy with their drink,

Pulled the poor wretch from her melodious lay

To muddy death."

After finishing the play, I went and looked at some of the depictions of her death done by artists. I think the innocence of her passing is what resonates in these images...the whole beauty destroyed by ugliness idea.

Sad, tragic, and eerily beautiful, right? She was the only character who I felt sorry for, and I have a feeling I'll be thinking about her for a little while longer.

"Too much of water hast thou, poor Ophelia,
And therefore I forbid my tears."
Anyway-fabulous play and one that I would love to teach in the future. There is a lot of passion simmering under the surface, and I think discussing whether Hamlet was truly mad would be an interesting conversation to have with teenagers. I also think that teens would have a lot to say about poor Ophelia and her death.

What do you think of this one?

Book 129: Richard III by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“Now is the winter of our discontent

Made glorious summer by this sun of York;

And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house

In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.”

I've always kind of ignored Shakespeare's history plays. Even though I love history and the eras Shakespeare writes about, I shy away from the plays. In a way, I feel like I don't know enough to "get" them.

But when I stop thinking of the history aspect and start focusing on the characters and action...I fall in love.

This play, Richard III, will probably remain a favorite of mine. I wasn't sure what to expect going in, since I had never read it before, but I was intrigued by the darkness. It also opened with the above quote. I was intrigued from the beginning (especially after having read The Winter of Our Discontent by Steinbeck last year-cool to see where the title came from).

Considering I had no idea what was going to happen, I was surprised by the amount of blood, murder, and deception in the play.

Basically, our pal Richard wants the throne, and he will stop at nothing to get it. He is an evil, miserly sort of fellow, and will stop at nothing to get what he thinks he will deserve. The play is full of his conniving and monologues...

“And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stolen out of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.”
I was truly impressed by the amount of evil one character possessed. He slowly begins "taking out" those who are next in line, as well as marrying whoever he thinks will help him win the throne.

This is a bloody, bloody play. I lost count of how many people dear Richard offed. It seemed that as soon as someone seemed slightly uncomfortable with his thoughts and plans, they were next on the "hit" list if you know what I mean.

I love that Shakespeare played up his villainy throughout the play with well-crafted lines to show the audience how sick and twisted dear Richard was...

“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry 'content' to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions."

 What a sneaky little man.

I also love that this play didn't feel like history to me. Instead, it truly read as one of Shakespeare's tragedies (I think it is often referred to as The Tragedy of Richard III). The one main fault I had with the other history play I've read so far, Antony and Cleopatra, is that the action was very spread out to take in the scope of the historical events. In Richard III, I didn't feel that gap and the play flew by (I read it in one sitting). I was impressed with the way Shakespeare condensed and molded the events into 5 acts. There was plenty of action to keep the play steadily progressing forward, and I find myself not being able to find fault in it.

By the end, since I didn't know what was going to happen, I was pleased to see I was rooting for the right people. :) And I also loved this line, said in the very end by dear Richard as things seems to unravel before him...

"A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!"

And, as silly as that line sounds, I think it really speaks a lot to who Richard was. He would stop at nothing and would let nothing get in the way of his becoming king. To let a silly thing, like not having a horse, stand in his way must have been irritating and frustrating. It really speaks to his ambition and drive.

And now, having finished this one, I am curious to see if any of Shakespeare's other historical plays can live up to this one. It blew me away-this is definitely one to make a priority!

Book 128: Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare (Shakespeare Reading Month).

“Be not afraid of greatness. Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them."

I decided to read Twelfth Night after finishing As You Like It on purpose. Since As You Like It contains some gender switching, I decided to read the other play known for its play on gender right after. I haven't read Twelfth Night before, but I was familiar with the story and eager to jump in.

In Twelfth Night, Viola is shipwrecked in a new land. She assumes her twin brother, Sebastian, drowned at sea, so she determines that the best way to keep her identity safe for a period of time is to dress as a man and find work. She ends up under the employment of Duke Orsino, and he soon finds a lot to value in his new servant. The Duke doesn't know that Cesario is really Viola, but it all comes out eventually...

The Duke bids Cesario to woo the lovely Olivia, and this is where the plot gets a little convoluted. Olivia ends up falling in love with Cesario (Viola) and not the Duke. Olivia also has some lovely drunk relatives who have plans for her married future, so of course, all of the characters end up swapping partners, falling in love, and being generally confused.

This was a marvelous play! I was cracking up in any of the scenes featuring Sir Toby Belch (Olivia's uncle) and Sir Andrew Aguecheek (his friend). Both characters spend quite a bit of the play intoxicated, and offer quite a bit of amusement and chaos to the proceedings. Their conversations and mixed-up words are some of the funniest bits of the play!

Another portion that I really enjoyed is when Viola's actual brother, Sebastian, shows up in town with his servant Antonio. As Sebastian and Viola, stilled dressed in her disguise as Cesario, interact with the other characters, there is a great deal of confusion and mix-ups with the relationships. I liked that we, as the audience, get to know Sebastian in the end. Sometimes Shakespeare throws in characters at the end without defining them, but this is not the case with Sebastian.

In the end, everything manages to work out. The characters pair off as they should and the sneaky villains are punished. It was just what I expected from a Shakespearean comedy, and it is definitely a play I will revisit again. I loved the female characters, and I'll admit that I fell in love with both of them. Both were witty and clever-pushing the boundaries of acceptability for females in their time.

I find that I am constantly surprised by the power and wit of Shakespeare's female characters, and that has been especially true in this and As You Like It. I wonder, did Shakespeare do the gender switching because it was actually males reading the parts? Or did he really love and push for women to take on that level of strength and wit in their everyday lives? I wonder...

Anyway, fabulous play, and definitely one that I will read again and again! I hope you'll also give it a chance.

“This fellow is wise enough to play the fool;
And to do that well craves a kind of wit:
He must observe their mood on whom he jests,
The quality of persons, and the time,
And, like the haggard, check at every feather
That comes before his eye. This is a practise
As full of labour as a wise man's art
For folly that he wisely shows is fit;
But wise men, folly-fall'n, quite taint their wit.”

Shakespeare Reading Month Master Post:

Welcome to the master post for Shakespeare Reading Month 2012!

I am excited that it is finally January 1 and this event is underway. :) It seems we have been talking about this for months, right?

The plan for this month is pretty simple. First, you need to read something Shakespeare-it could be a play, some sonnets, a biography, etc. Once you have read a piece, you need to write a post of some sort. Once written, come back to THIS master post and complete the linky to your post. I will have a link to this post at the very top of my blog page for easy access. Please make sure you link your posts!

At the end of the month, I will pull a random number. The winner will receive a Penguin clothbound edition of Shakespeare's The Sonnets and A Lover's Complaint (the link will take you to the Penguin.com info page for the edition). The giveaway will end on February 1, so make sure you link everything before then! I will also ship internationally if you live outside the U.S. :)

Sound good?

Now read, read, read! :)

IMPORTANT: When you submit a link below, please include your name and the title of the play/piece you are reviewing where it says "your name." This will make it easier for others to find your reviews!

My Shakespeare Picks.

Since posting about my Shakespeare Reading Month on Tuesday, I have had a few people requesting my reading pile!

While nothing is set in stone, I am planning on reading some of the plays on my list that I haven't gotten to just yet, as well as his sonnets. I may even pick up a biography. However, my main goal are the plays, so here are the titles I haven't gotten to just yet!

• A Midsummer Night's Dream (one of my all-time favorites)
  
• Antony and Cleopatra (I will definitely be getting to this one)
  
• As You Like It (really looking forward to a reread)
  
• Hamlet (I might watch the Mel Gibson film...just for a giggle)
  
• Henry IV (read this one in college)
  
• King Lear (read this one in college)
  
• The Merchant of Venice (I've never read this one-I KNOW!)
  
• Othello (Haven't read this one either-I KNOW!)
  
• Richard III (started this during readathon)
  
• Twelfth Night (I know NOTHING about this one!)
  

I also have a couple of plays picked out, just in case and if a miracle happens, for if/when I finish the pile above:

• The Taming of the Shrew (Haven't read this since high school)
  
• Henry VIII (because its King Henry VIII!!)
  
• Love's Labor's Lost (one of my favorites from my college Shakespeare class)
  
• Coriolanus (REALLY want to get to this one with the movie coming out)
  
• The Comedy of Errors (I don't know this one as well!)
  

For those of you participating, have you thought about which plays you are going to read?

Anyone have thoughts on any of these?

Book 116: Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare.

“Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.”

I had decided all the way back in August that I would attempt to read a number of Shakespearean plays for the October 22nd Readathon. By the time the day came around, I was a little grumpy, so I only read one. But what a play it was!

This was only the second time I have read Julius Caesar. The other time was in college for a project (we had to create a wiki with assignments on it for the play-and I feel I should tell you I just spent 10 minutes searching for the wiki but it appears to have been taken down. Bummer). I was partners with this guy named Frank and he is the one who picked the play. It was his "FAVORITE" so we had to do it.

I obviously had to read it before I could make lessons for it, so I read it over a long weekend and I kind of loved it. I wish, that instead of the whiny Hamlet that we read when I was a senior in high school, we would have read this one!

Julius Caesar is about the plot to kill and overthrow the great Caesar. The play opens with a sense of slight mystery. There are plots among many of the statesmen, who all come to a consensus that Caesar is power-hungry and will destroy what they have built. They come to this conclusion based on what they want to see...so it all seems ridiculous.

We also get the strange man saying to Caesar,

“Beware the ides of March.”

This crazy old coot attempts to warn Caesar of what may come, but it seems Caesar doesn't care. After all, he continues to meet with those closest to him, not seeing that they may be in on the plot.

The first time I read this, I was surprised by how quickly the assassination of Caesar comes. I thought it would be near the end of the play-you know, a good, dramatic bloody end. I was surprised to find that the murder and assassination of Caesar actually happens in Act 3 scene 1, only halfway through.

But of course, Caesar delivers one of the best lines of the plays when he looks at his friend and confident and says,

"Et tu, Brute?"

(translates to "And you, Brutus?").

That line got to me the first time, and it did this second time around as well. There is something about a big manly man like Caesar being betrayed by a friend that bothers me. It goes to show you that while you may think a friend has your back, they may be plotting to stab you in it (that was my attempt at a bad joke. sorry).

In any case, the play is actually fairly straight-forward after the murdering. The men responsible realize they must get the rest of the Romans on their side, so they send Mark Antony to speak to them. This is where he delivers his famous speech,

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ... The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it ..." (it continues...)

And instead of bringing the Romans to the side that the conspirators want, Antony succeeds in swaying them against the conspirators, just as they deserve. The mob of Romans attacks and drives the conspirators from Rome...

The last two acts detail what happens to the nasty conspirators after they leave Rome, and I don't want to give away what happens for anyone who doesn't know. But the end is good, and sets up Antony for Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra (which I haven't read just yet. Maybe it will be next).

What I love most about reading Shakespeare is what I pull from it on each reread. And while I know Shakespeare is best when seen live, there is something about diving headfirst into the language that I really love. He was a master!

And while I think I am getting pretty good at pulling meaning and making my own interpretation of his words and phrases, it helps to have a good edition.

I have two sets of editions that I read from-either Folger's or the Barnes and Noble Shakespeare series. I really like both, and both have their upsides and downsides. The image of the open book shows the inside of my Barnes and Noble edition of Julius Caesar.

It is a well-done edition. I love that the right page is the play, and the left side contains corresponding notes. It makes references easier to follow and the explanations aren't dumbed down. The Folger's editions are similar.

As I continue to read more of Shakespeare's works, I find myself looking less and less at that left page. Perhaps that has to do with my comfort level, or I just think I know more than I do... ;) But really, I feel very comfortable with the Bard, and he has become a bit of a comfort read for me, if I dare to say that.

Anyway, I leave you with this. Julius Caesar is really a marvelous play-with a great deal of plotting, intrigue, scandal, and action. I am sure that if I ever have the opportunity to see it live, I will. But you should also give it a try sometime!

I leave you now with three things. First, the knowledge that I am hosting a month-long Shakespeare event (details to come) in January-so you should read this then, a picture of one of my kitties cuddling with my copy of the play, and a last few lines.

“There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.”

Book 112: "The Eumenides" (The Oresteia) Finished.

The last piece in the Oresteian trilogy by Aeschylus is "The Eumenides." When we left off in "The Libation Bearers," Orestes had exacted revenge on his mother for killing his father. After the murder of his mother and her lover, Orestes was chased off by the Furies, since now his mother's death must also be avenged.

In this third and final piece, Orestes escapes to Athens and pleads for Athena's help. A trial is held and not only is Orestes tried for the murder of his mother, but also Apollo (who offered him guidance). It is an interesting court scene, with Athenians serving as the jury.

I really enjoyed this piece of the trilogy. It finally puts an end to the circle of violence (to recap: Agamemnon sacrificed one of his daughters before leaving for the Trojan War, Clytemnestra and new lover murdered Agamemnon and Cassandra on their return from the war in revenge, and Orestes murders Clytemnestra and lover because they murdered his father. Complicated? yes).

During the trial, Apollo defends Orestes and basically explains that in a marriage, a man is more important than the woman-so defying the husband is worse than defying the wife. I thought this was an interesting way of proving a point, and while I certainly believe that partners in marriage are equal, it wasn't so in older societies.

Anyway, Orestes trial comes to a vote and the vote is tied. Athena sets a precedent and acquits Orestes, proclaiming that in hung juries, the accused should always be acquired from that point forward (she says something about not being too harsh).

While the first piece of this trilogy was by far my favorite, I would have to say that this comes in a close second. There is a lot of imagery in this scene as Orestes tries to escape the Furies and their need for vengeance. I also really enjoyed seeing Athena again. She has a huge role in The Odyssey and seems to be one of the Greek gods that interferes in a positive way in mortals' lives (at least from what I have seen).

The trilogy was fascinating, but now I need to read Electra and others to see what happens to Orestes' sister, as well as different takes on the family saga. And, once more, I was reminded that Greek works are not as difficult as I seem to think they are. Sure, they read differently, but that is solely because they are meant to be performed out loud. I never have to struggled through them like I think I am.

I also highly recommend the translation I read (by the wonderful Robert Fagles), as it really does capture the "out loud" qualities of the trilogy.

Book 112: "The Libation Bearers" (The Oresteia).

"The Libation Bearers" or "The Choephori" is the second in the Oresteia trilogy by Aeschylus. In the first play, "Agamemnon," we saw Agamemnon come home from the Trojan War to be murdered in his own house by his wife and her new lover.

This second play picks up where the first left off. Orestes, Agamemnon's son, arrives at his father's grave to mourn. He is accompanied by a friend, and they hide as Orestes' sister, Electra, also arrives at the grave with a company of women mourners (also known as the libation bearers). The siblings meet and once they prove their identity to one another (I think, from what I can remember, that Orestes was banished from home at some point).

Once the siblings known one another, there is a really long exchange between Electra, Orestes, and the libation bearers where they recall a dream, interpret it, and decide that Orestes must avenge his father's death and kill Clytemnestra (his mother).

Orestes and his friend disguise themselves, for back to his home, convince Clytemnestra that Orestes is dead, and eventually murder Clytemnestra and her lover. At the end of the play, Orestes is chased by the Furies while the chorus explains that rather than ending the cycle of violence, it continues as Orestes should not have killed his mother for killing his father.

Confused? I was a bit. But, I enjoyed seeing what happened after the first murder of Agamemnon. And from what I recall from The Odyssey, Agamemnon doesn't tell Odysseus what has happened to his son.

What I was surprised to see (and I really shouldn't have been), was the level of interference, again, from the gods, as well as from the dead. When they are consulting the dream, they think of what Agamemnon and the gos were prefer, rather than what might be just. This goes back to the whole "eye for an eye" ordeal, in that by taking revenge, you end up in an endless cycle (isn't this why gang violence gets so out of control?). Yes, of course Clytemnestra wasn't right in killing her husband to be with her lover, but it also isn't up to Orestes to take it into his own hands.

After all, isn't this why we have law and government? So that they can "clean up" the mess we make?

Anyway, it was interesting to see Orestes out his mother for the murderess she is. He really digs into her and rips her apart before doing the dead.

But what I really enjoyed about this play was the chorus and the libation bearers. One of the things I should have remember from reading Lysistrata earlier this year is that the chorus not only tells the audience backstory and much-needed information, they also interact with the characters on stage. I almost began to see them as the conscience for each of the characters as they grappled with their decisions.

Well, there is one more piece to go, and I know it'll start with Orestes still fleeing from the Furies, who want vengeance on him for murdering his mother. And since I am unfamiliar with what happens next, I am curious to see how it all plays out!

Book 112: "Agamemnon." (The Oresteia)

One of my favorite books in The Odyssey is when Odysseus travels to the land of the dead. There, he meets many figures from his past, including the great hero, Agamemnon. There, Odysseus learns what happened to Agamemnon when he returned home from Troy. When Agamemnon tells Odysseus of his murder and betrayal by his wife, it sets up the ending books of The Odyssey and what Odysseus finds when he returns home.

The fallen hero, Agamemnon, is the feature of the first of Aeschylus' triology The Oresteia. The first play is fittingly titled Agamemnon. It is short and can be easily read in one sitting. And like Homer's works, it should really be read out loud (it was performed after all). I read it out loud to my cats, but I am sure your plants would benefit as well (and no, my cats did not like my reading. They slept).

I was pretty excited to dive into this play. Since I have a deep and abiding love for The Odyssey, I am pretty familiar with what ghost Agamemnon tells Odysseus. But I have always wanted to know more. I got more.

The drama begins with Agamemnon's wife, Clytemnestra, declaring that Troy has fallen and Agamemnon will return home. She also boasts of some "inappropriate" things to the Chorus, who chastise her to the audience. It is here that we get the back story of Agamemnon.

His brother, Menelaus, is the man who WAS married to Helen, before she ran off with Paris to Troy. As Menelaus' brother, he had to go to war as well, and commanded much of the battle over Troy. The important backstory is what he did before he left. After seeing an oracle before departing, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter to get a fair wind to Troy. Needless to say, Clytemnestra is not too happy with him. And she probably has reason to be angry.

When Agamemnon does return in the drama, he has little to say to Clytemnestra. You would think that after being gone for ten years he would have tender words for his wife, but he doesn't. Instead, the scene is tense. It also doesn't help that he brought a war prize home with him, a girl named Cassandra, who also happens to be a prophet of sorts. After Agamemnon and Clytemnestra venture indoors, Cassandra begins to prophesize, basically affirming that Clytemnestra has taken a lover and they plan to murder Agamemnon. She also utters that their son will avenge Agamemnon's death. Then she also goes inside.

The Chorus discusses this until two cries are heard from Agamemnon, and yep, his body is brought out at the hands of Clytemnestra and her lover. They have also murdered Cassandra.

The play more or less ends there, and it gives greater detail to the story Agamemnon tells Odysseus in The Odyssey. After being away from home for ten years, Agamemnon was betrayed in his own home. Again, I can't help but compare this to Odysseus' own homecoming to Penelope and the anxious feeling he must of had in his stomach. In Odysseus' case, however, he was gone 20 years. Interesting in comparing the two, right? I was fascinated!

What I loved most about diving into this was the further depth I got in this area of Greek history. I also like that the two writers, years and years apart, give us the story of his death in different ways.

In any case, I am looking forward to the second part, The Libation Bearers, to see how Agamemnon's son avenges his death.

Book 112: The Oresteia and Book Stats.

Title: The Oresteia
Author: Aeschylus (A really long time ago. Wikipedia tells me he was born around 525 B.C. and died in 455 B.C.)

First Published: Again, wikipedia gives me a date of 458 B.C. as for when it was performed, but who really knows?

My Edition: Penguin Classics-Robert Fagles translation (pictured at right)

Pages: 336

Other Works Include: The Persians, Seven Against Thebes, the Suppliants, Prometheus Bound

I feel guilty for neglecting the ancient works on my list. I really do have a large number of them left. And it isn't that they are terrifying, but rather than I feel like I am diving into some really intense history.

I knew I wanted to read a piece that was new to me, and I remember quite a few bloggers raving about Aeschylus during the Classics Circuit tour, which is why it has been on my nightstand for months (much like Ceremony was). So now that it is dusted off, time to give the old Greek a go.

What is really interesting about this one is that it is a trilogy (the only complete set surviving). That is pretty cool (like a really early version of The Hunger Games? I should probably go hang my head in shame for comparing this to modern fiction, huh?). It is amazing we have these works at all, considering that many of them have been destroyed or lost as thousands of years have gone by!

I want to just mention that it seems like the Greeks and some other Ancients always appear "difficult." I don't think a lot of us jump in without acknowledging that we are reading pieces that are old. And I mean OLD. But in my experience reading old epics, like Homer, they are very accessible, especially with a great translator. I cannot rave enough about Robert Fagles. If he has translated a work, that is the edition I want. Anyway, the moral is: don't be scared of the old stuff. Most of it almost seems modern! They were scandalous people, those Greeks! :)

Book 106: The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams (Finished).

"In memory, everything seems to happen to music."

The more plays I read, the more I realize that I know nothing about drama. I wish I would have taken a course in it in college, but at the time, plays really didn't interest me.

I do know that Tennessee Williams is one of the big ones, one of those playwrights most people have at least heard of. In addition to this play, I have A Streetcar Named Desire and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof left on my list. And if they are even half as good as this play, then I am in for an amazing treat.

The Glass Menagerie is a play that should probably be seen rather than read. It is full of musical cues and lighting to emphasize different aspects of the play and characters. What I love best, however, is that the play is performed like a memory. The music and lighting are the products of Tom Wingfield, our narrator and leader through the production.

It begins with Tom explaining that what we are about to see is based on memory-this is what he remembers and finds important for us to see. I love this introduction he gives us,

"Yes, I have tricks in my pocket, I have things up my sleeve. But I am the opposite of a stage magician. He gives you illusion that has the appearance of truth. I give you truth in the pleasant disguise of illusion."

It is obvious from the beginning that Tom has left the family. He mentions in a roundabout way that this is how he remembers them, leading us to believe he hasn't been back. But that's okay, because we learn why.

The play only contains four characters, Tom, his mother Amanda, his sister Laura, and a friend from work named Jim. The family was abandoned by Tom and Laura's father before the play begins. And it is apparent from the beginning that Amanda has worked hard to maintain what little they have. But she is obsessed with the past and what she used to have (in one scene, she decks herself out in a silly gown, much to the embarrassment of Tom). It is clear she wants bigger and better things for her children.

Tom seems to have his head on straight. He works hard in a warehouse doing who knows what. He spends his spare time writing and seeing movies. It is clear he wants more than what he is doing, but he seems to be biding his time, waiting for the right moment. We also know, based on their altercations, that Amanda does not approve of his choices. She wants him to continually support herself and Laura. This leads to a lot of uncomfortable moments.

Laura, on the other hand, is an extremely shy and sheltered kind of a person. She stays at home with her mother, plays the piano, and has a large collection of glass animals that she cherishes. It is clear that she just can't function outside the home. But Amanda wants her to marry, to have possessions and a wonderful life, like she once had.

This is where the conflict comes into play, where everything shatters. Amanda convinces Tom to bring a friend home from work to introduce to Laura as a suitor. So Tom does, and Jim arrives at the house for a meal and to get to know Laura. This is where everything breaks apart, the family splits, and Tom eventually leaves.

What stood out to me most in this play was what was said between the lines. Being set in the 1930s, this play definitely addresses the ideas of an American Dream and consumerism. The characters, Amanda in particular, want things that they cannot afford. She continues to dream big, even when it cannot become a reality for her.

I loved this. I loved the way it was written, that it flashes between Tom speaking to the audience and scenes in the home. I love that it addresses issues that are American and universal all at once. Most of all, I loved Laura. I felt for her shy little self as she struggles to voice what she wanted. I felt her pain in the last scenes and understood her in a way that Amanda and Tom could not. It was just a beautiful play, and I know that I must go see it performed. It touched a very human part of myself, as cheesy as that may sound.

But most of all, I can't wait to see what Williams' other plays are like and if they punch as much emotional impact as this one did.

"I didn't go to the moon, I went much further—for time is the longest distance between two places."

Book 99: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? by Edward Albee (Finished).

"Dashed hopes and good intentions. Good, better, best, bested."

In one word? Amazing. Or maybe...phenomenal.

Really, this is one of the craziest and most dramatic plays I have ever read. I would kill to see this performed. It is violent and raw and so unbelievably in your face the entire time. I found myself flipping pages at a frantic rate because I just had to know how it would all end.

The play centers on four characters: George, a university history professor; Martha, his wife and the university president's daughter; Nick, a new faculty member; and Honey, his somewhat...dimwitted wife. The four find themselves at George and Martha's home after a party where absolute insanity begins and ends.

From the beginning, you know that George and Martha have an interesting marriage. And with company over, you would expect for them to be a little more...cordial to one another. But the play simmers with rage and violence beneath their exchanges and while at times I laughed, you have to wonder what kind of things they have been through to hurl such words at one another.

"I said I was impressed, Martha. I'm beside myself with jealousy. What do you want me to do, throw up?"

As the play progresses, George and Martha continue to make their guests drunker and more uncomfortable with their interactions. It is then that I, as the audience, became aware of the parallels and differences between the two sets of couples. There are obvious tensions between George and Martha, as he did not live up to what she wanted him to be. Nick and Honey seem like a younger version of them-happy on the outside, but there is turmoil beneath.

That is what makes this work. Since the reader is inside the house with these four characters, we are seeing a side of humanity and marriage that is usually glossed over. On the outside, George and Martha must seem like a couple who has it all. Secure jobs, a son, a marriage of 23 years....but as their games progress over the course of the night, it is evident there are so many problems between the two. Anger. Resentment. It is as if Albee is uncovering a dark secret.

And while the play is funny (at one point George calls Honey "monkey nipples"), it is also squirm in your chair uncomfortable. And it is meant to be. People don't laugh and joke about their serious problems this way, do they? And they certainly don't air their dirty laundry in front of people they just met....or do they?

The result is a play that had me reading until late at night, desperate to reach the final page and the ending that shocked me. By that point, each character had reached their limit-their true, raw self that they could no longer hide behind pretensions and false images. By the end, everything was in the open and on the table, whether it should be or not.

Hands down, one of the best plays I've read. And you better believe that I am going to get my hands on a copy of the film version as soon as I can (1966-Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor).

I also want to point you in the direction of Adam's review. He is much more eloquent than I am. :)