PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
PlayShakespeare.com: The Ultimate Free Shakespeare Resource
New

Janus

  Wednesday, 07 May 2008
  20 Replies
  8K Visits
  Subscribe
Janus is the God of doorways - and if Wells et al are right,

The Two Gentlemen of Verona

is the first play He wrote - in other words, my entrance into the Complete Works.

It is certainly a play which looks forward - there are countless points when reading and watching when you go - ah, that's in Romeo and Juliet, that's in A Midsummer Nights Dream, didn't that happen in The Merchant of Venice, or Othello ... that reminds me a little of the scene in Twelfth Night, or, surely that is a little like Hamlet's ....

But it's more than just action and incident, word and phrase - there is a usage of language and a usage of theatre that makes this a very Shakespearean play.

This is already Shakespeare the poet (in "http://bookreflect.blogspot.com/2008/04/nuclear-shakespeare.html"Brook's sense) - the resonance and reference looking back into experience and encounters.

This is Shakespeare digging into the works of other stage professionals - there is a strong link, I think, to Lyly - I couldn't stop thinking of the 'courtly' actions and the word play found in the older man's work and attempts to satisfy for Elizabeth's taste.

There is Greene, in the character and spirit of these two young men.

But it is not the 'borrowed clothes' plagiarism of A Groatsworth of Wit, which would suggest an insecurity - for this is quite a confident play - it is an early exploration of the power of the theatre to self reference - and to deepen and even create meaning through such reference. It is a shorthand - why waste time going over the same ground already covered. It is a playing with the audience - spot the quote (remember, education was mainly about quoting the right authority when you are debate).

Curiously enough - it is a play about leaving a woman you love to go to another city - and, to commit the sin of implied biography, I can't help linking this to the earlier sonnet (1- 145).

It is also very much a genre play, with a set of conventions to guide both the performance and the watching - and I suspect part of its unpopularity is due much more to the genre being out of fashion than with any quality of the play itself.

This is a play of wit - and therein lies another difficulty: Wit frequently requires a knowledge of and easy flexibility with language - and we are just too distant to take the 'set-piece' exchanges without a degree of study beforehand.

Above all else, this is an entertaining play - something doubted at times: I enjoyed watching it, I enjoyed reading it through.

Whether it is a play to be 'studied' is a different question - but then, I very much doubt whether any of the plays should really be studied - death by academia.

8)
15 years ago
·
#2440
sorensonian writes:
I think Peter Brook's quote is as spectacularly wrong as it can possibly be.


I find it rather strange that someone who spent so much energy on analyzing and interpreting would regard what he did as something separate from 'study'. Otherwise, how would he ever have seen the Forest for the Trapezes? :)
But the quote, as it stands out of context, may not be as uncategorized or sweeping as it appears to be.

Shakespeare made his works difficult precisely so that we would keep looking at them and trying to divine their underlying meaning.

I don't know that I can so so far as to agree with the hugeness of the idea of intentional difficulty being his overarching aim (although a mind that learned so much from glancing back would certainly have projected forward with the same philosophical keenness.) I don't discount...I'm just not sure.
But simply through the act and product of its own exercise, his kind of genius is difficult enough to grasp in itself. Whatever his personal and practical reasons were (it was a dangerous time for free thinkers) for appearing to be the obvious Cryptic we can, in many ways, justifiably discern him to be, multi-talented genius can also seem cryptic when it really is very clear. I believe the overriding cause to be, more simply, the nature that expression will take when it comes from the mind of a truly inspired Natural and Universal Philosopher. And it's clear that he chose to accept the mantle. Then how large must have been his philosophical vision?--you might be prompted to retort. You see--? Soon I'll write myself into agreeing word for word with you--only to have to explore it from the other side AGAIN.
This is what it's all about.
In short, figuring out this guy takes a little bit of study --from every approachable angle--as he approached what he saw. A true philosopher can do that--I believe he asks us to learn how to do the same.
Not that this hasn't occurred to you--his "written embassage" you speak of--I think it has more to do with how we think than it does with what we think.
15 years ago
·
#2441
1) I didn't understand 'Hot Button" - since looked it up and now do; Deny it too. If, on a post of how many words (?), after posting how many more in the BBC threads (?) the only thing picked up on is that last, throw away comment, my lamentations are justified.

2) Context for Brook was given in the link.

3) Pudding proof posted, in performances, for a better thread location for this discussion.
15 years ago
·
#2442
--It's clearly a hot button issue for you--or do you take up the majority of a page on your weblog with "throw away comment" subject matter?
The comment--ostensibly tacked on as "throw away"--seems to be an important enough point to include after "...how many words (?)"


--I apologize for not being privy to all the BBC posts. I thought this was "Play Shakespeare.com". I comment directly and on the spot to what I read here.

--Should I stay mum about the "Context for Brook..." given, or might I claim that the link was not the click that satisfies? I happen to disagree in a big way--where might I voice that disagreement, for all of those who, without any other link to click on, might take what's
there as gospel without another equally informed but conflicting viewpoint?


--I agreed, early on, that this possibly wasn't the ideal place to carry on the discussion, and my part in it would have ended there. But despite protests to the contrary, you displayed a need to carry it on with one-line exclamation-ended rejoinders-- to which no one dare respond?-- relevant to their finality, I guess? That's precisely why I had to, you see. :)

--Can't have your cake--and eat it too.
15 years ago
·
#2443
I apologize for not being privy to all the BBC posts. I thought this was "Play Shakespeare.com". I comment directly and on the spot to what I read here.


They are on Play Shakespeare - Janus was the second thread I started in 'Two Gentlemen' after writing the BBC Production thread and is a development on it.

As to the rest of your post - quite frankly, I don't understand much of what you are saying.

I say again - 'hot button issue' was totally new to me as a term - and the meaning obscure.

The end to my post was intended as a 'throw away' - whether anyone chooses to take it that way or not, is their problem. I clearly point out it is another question - which indicates, to me at least, that this issue is not what this post is about.

The Brook quote stands alone anyway - but I took the trouble to reference it in the shortest way possible, hyper-linking to a review of the article which it appears in. Agreeing or disagreeing with Brook is one thing, denying a context given is another.

If people persist in challenging what I post with new material, I reserve the right to reply - although not the duty.

I say again, it is a pity no one has taken up the idea of Two Gentlemen being 'Janus'-like.
15 years ago
·
#2444
Quotes from "Janus/Two Gentlemen..."

But it's more than just action and incident, word and phrase - there is a usage of language and a usage of theatre that makes this a very Shakespearean play.

This is Shakespeare digging into the works of other stage professionals - there is a strong link, I think, to Lyly - I couldn't stop thinking of the 'courtly' actions and the word play found in the older man's work and attempts to satisfy for Elizabeth's taste.

But it is not the 'borrowed clothes' plagiarism of A Groatsworth of Wit, which would suggest an insecurity - for this is quite a confident play - it is an early exploration of the power of the theatre to self reference - and to deepen and even create meaning through such reference. It is a shorthand - why waste time going over the same ground already covered. It is a playing with the audience - spot the quote (remember, education was mainly about quoting the right authority when you are debate).

It is also very much a genre play, with a set of conventions to guide both the performance and the watching - and I suspect part of its unpopularity is due much more to the genre being out of fashion than with any quality of the play itself.

This is a play of wit - and therein lies another difficulty: Wit frequently requires a knowledge of and easy flexibility with language - and we are just too distant to take the 'set-piece' exchanges without a degree of study beforehand. [/u]

Whether it is a play to be 'studied' is a different question - but then, I very much doubt whether any of the plays should really be studied - death by academia.
________________________________

The majority of your comments on the play are concerned with reference points only study will lead to. You even point that out (what I bolded) in what suspiciously looks for all the world like a summation of what has come before. Yet, you say the piece has nothing to do with it? How is it you read something other than what you yourself wrote? What did you do BUT study it? Why the attempt to dismiss that in your final "throw away" statement?
You know this already: Everything I underlined has everything to do with and is unobtainable without study, and is absolutely germane to being informed theatrically when it comes to Shakespeare's work.

Unless of course we take Brook at his word.
Wanna play Hamlet?--just imagine you're speaking (coining yet) the words of the greatest wordsmith that ever walked a stage, and forget--better yet, assiduously shun-- learning about any pertinent references that might help you understand in the slightest what the hell you might be talking about--ridiculous.

There--I addressed the majority of what you wrote.

If people persist in challenging what I post with new material, I reserve the right to reply - although not the duty.


I heartily agree.
15 years ago
·
#2445
Deny the lot - everything written there is a response to a performance, rather than a 'read' through: It is thinking about something I have watched, not 'studied'.

If you equate 'study' with thinking, then I understand your confusion - I do not equate them.

Children learn language, genre, and everything else without 'study' -

Shakespeare worked as an actor - he didn't need to 'study' the work he used, he acted in it.

I've never 'studied' Lyly - just read a couple of his plays (too few chances to see them).

True theatre professionals do not 'study' texts, they prepare them for performance - there is a world of difference (as someone who has taught both theatre and Literature, I know the difference.) If you care to purchase the book I reference on Brook, you'll see a difference.

I've known some very witty people who have never 'studied' wit. By the time they are 11 years old children can spot a joke.

I've known people who can spot a cowboy film at a thousand paces who have never 'studied' cinema and its genres.

The emboldened text is a 'lament' that we will never be able to reach the pleasure of the witty exchange - so maybe a cut is necessary rather than dry boring studious exercise.

We are still not talking about the play - which I think illustrates beautifully the dangers of 'study' and its nit-picking-ness (now, that WAS a hot button).
15 years ago
·
#2446
The way you mention 'study' in citation marks (scoffingly implying the word "so-called" in front of it) reminds me of a Steve Martin sketch called "Drivel" - a woman artist complains to her friend: "But, Rod, if you view my painting of a toaster without irony, it's terrible!"

So it would appear you have an ironic attitude to 'study', which begs the question what exactly you mean by 'study', if not the thing itself. In any case, it seems you have a pathological aversion to 'study' - whatever it is.
15 years ago
·
#2447
Pathology - the study of disease - yep, if this thread is anything to go by, 'study' is the cause of disease in the minds of those doing it.

Still not talking about the play - anything more pathological than that?

I must admit, I wondered when someone would notice the marks ... although the failure to appreciate their implication suggests a 'pathology' in the minds of 'others' rather than myself.
15 years ago
·
#2448
"Nit-picking"

QUOTE:If you equate 'study' with thinking, then I understand your confusion*** - I do not equate them.
________________________________________
Thanks for that condescending benefit of the doubt, but I'm not 'confused' about anything
***A Freudian might be interested in just who might be 'confused' here.
________________________________________
As to grammar lessons- 'study' this:
study : deliberate, meditate, reflect [on] (in other words-think about)
R2 V.v.i; AC V.ii.10; 2H6 I.i.88; LL V.ii.826; MM II.iv.7; Tem II.i.83
________________________________________
QUOTE: True theatre professionals do not 'study' texts, they prepare them for performance - there is a world of difference (as someone who has taught both theatre and Literature, I know the difference.) If you care to purchase the book I reference on Brook, you'll see a difference.
_______________________________________
Perhaps some day I'll rise to the level of a "true theatre professional"--maybe after I've 'studied' long enough to realize I've wasted my time 'studying' and teaching theatre-simultaneously 'Doing' It. (I do hope we can at least agree on what the word 'doing' means, without some immaterial homespun comparative overly-rationalized one-liner being offered as rebuttal.) I'll forgo the rest of the 'length-measuring contest' as to who might "know the difference" between what.
_______________________________________
QUOTE: Pathology - the study of disease - yep, if this thread is anything to go by, 'study' is the cause of disease in the minds of those doing it.

Still not talking about the play - anything more pathological than that?

I must admit, I wondered when someone would notice the marks ... although the failure to appreciate their implication suggests a 'pathology' in the minds of 'others' rather than myself.

__________________________________________
*** see 'confusion' above
More people should be interested in teaching careers; when you tell them you successfully became one without all that bothersome and 'nit-picking' 'study'.
15 years ago
·
#2449
"Theatre is doing"

An acquaintance of mine, who just happens to be a playwright (with an Oscar) refuses to allow his plays to be 'studied' - bit like Shakespeare I suspect.

'study' not study - grammar is descriptive not prescriptive - sorry to make such a 'nice' distinction.

Anyone reading the original post will notice I wrote 'study' and 'play' together - no qualms with other study areas and other 'studies' even.

I do hope you think but don't study when driving your car.

Still a failure to talk about the play.
  • Page :
  • 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Get the Shakespeare Pro app