II.i The opening of this scene was a big WTF for me. The whole thing is 9 parts comic relief, 1 part plot and characterization.
II.i.96 kind words for a kindred spirit. If what we hear of Patroclus is true, he pulls from the same bag of tricks.
II.ii.8-25 This is the second time that Hector is the voice of reason, the second good idea he has presented.
II.ii56 "Tis mad idolatry to make the service greater than the god." I put this on my Facebook page under favorite quotes now. Please hold.
II.ii.84-89 So Troilus is not without reason after all.
II.ii I'm just noticing that Troilus ends his important speeches in couplets, as Hector does not. A nice bit of characterization through form, for Troilus is the romantic, to be sure.
II.ii.118 This is the third time that Troilus' piece of the pentameter is a continuation, an interruption of Hector's line. I love this about Shakespeare. Although it is surely not the most obvious skill of his, it is one of the most unique.
II.ii.142-145 Troilus' apple did not fall far from Priam's tree; the latter shows both the poetic traits of the former in these 4 mere lines.
II.ii It's fitting that Hector is the only one to listen to Casandra, for his warnings go just as unheeded.
II.iii.28 A great and enduring curse: "thyself upon thyself!"
II.iii.81 this is the second time Thersites has mentioned bleeding someone dry. In Galenic terms, this is a great treatment for choler, from which several of the men suffer.
II.iii.185 Achilles, for instance.
II.iii an act of import, perhaps, but not one of great imprint.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Liveblogging Shakespeare: Troilus and Cressida
Dramatis Personae: I can't help but wonder if Shakespeare hasn't taken a liberty, setting the story in Hector and Paris' time. Researching . . . nope. Funny, it seems from Chaucer that it was set earlier. Researching . . .again, I am mistaken. Somehow this is comforting, for now I have a nice little context for the play.
Prologue: an interesting and appropriate choice to give the play a Greek chorus, ala Henry V.
P.10 Appropriate that this line about Paris, a pederast in some versions, ends in a female rhyme. this trick is common in pentametric verse, and Shakespeare does it elsewhere, notably in the notorious Sonnet 20. It is reasonable to assume that the trick is here purposeful, but the question arises in my mind, as it usually does when reading Shakespeare, "Do we give him to much credit?" Close reading of Shakespeare invariably reveals such tidbits, but on occassion they are so tenuous that one wonders if the reader/critic is not being a bit revisionist. Did Shakespeare really pay such attention to every syllable that we can attribute meaning to something this incidental? Does his intent even matter?
P.11 A perfect example. Does the truncation of this line, the tentativeness of it, have anything to do with the topic: Tenedos, or is it just the playwright's convenience? Does it matter?
P 15-19 If we attribute meaning to lines 10 and 11, we must not rest until these similarly irregular metrics are dissected. Yet, there is no apparent reason for it, other than that Shakespeare allowed himself some error.
P:22 A nice production option would be to steal Chaucer's conceit and have Troilus play the part of the prologue, seemingly narrating from heaven with a wise and understanding detachment.
P:29,30 a cute couplet. Stagecraft is war. Sometimes you are the victor and the play is a smash--you kill, in stage lingo. Sometimes not, and you die out there. Especially appropriate here, in light of T&C's status as one of Shakepeare's problem plays.
I.i.6-28 Already an example of Shakespeare's subtle and seemingly effortless characterization. Pandarus is characterized as earthy and practical, first by his concern with Troilus' armor, and later by his choice of metaphor. Not only that, the contrast between him and Troilus is established by the 6th line of the play; he speaks in prose, Troilus in verse.
I.i.33 Troilus is revealed to be other than a courtly lover here, for he is concerned with Cressidas orgasm.
I.i.42 a bit o foreshadowing here, in a pithy and aphoristic couplet.
I.i49 This early and off-handed mention of Cassandra feels like a master's smooth touch of exposition.
I.i.57-61 I just about threw up in my mouth here. Troilus is clearly being set up as a foolish and idealistic lover.
I.i.66 Shakespeare's experience as an actor is evident here. I can't imagine the actor's not taking a beat, so clear is the arc of the scene.
I.i.107 Is the "flood" in Shakepeare's version literal, as in most others, or figurastive. I only wonder because I know that Troilus does not drown in this version.
I.i.116-117 Again, the couplet holds a world of meaning. In some versions, Paris is Troilus mentor/lover. Troilus seeming contempt here, together with the line "gor'd with Menelaus horn" connotes, "Good. Let him get fucked for a change."
I.i.118 succesful characterization of Aeneas in one line. It could not be clearer that he is consumed with the game of war if Shakespeare had stretched this out for a page.
I can't believe that I spent that much time reading one scene. this is going to take forever, and cheap at that price.
I.ii.4 this line both sets up Hector as a foil to Troilus and touches on what may become a theme: patience. Every Shakespearean play has a word that unlocks its world, and this may be T&C's.
I.ii.7 While war is sport for Aeneas, it is "husbandry", marriage for Hector.
I.ii.17 I lost track for a moment and thought Cressida was playing the fool . . . she (as does Alexander) shifts to prose here.
I.ii.18 There is something in this characterization of Ajax; I can smell it.
I.ii the entire rest of the scene seems to be in prose. Does Cressida do so for her Uncle, who spoke thusly in the previous scene?
I.ii.244 The waiting for Troilus makes the audience (and Cressida) develop the same patience that he and Hector have want of.
I.ii.308 As if overpowering her Uncle's wit were not evidence enough of her canniness, here we have a couple more tokens. For one, she reverts back to verse for her monologue (Alexander never seems to have exited), and entirely of couplets at that, the first character in the play to do so. This shows not only her facility with language, but her clever tailoring of it to her audience. Of course, the content of her words is the real evidence of her mastery: it is she alone who has patience of all the characters revealed so far, and the wisdom to leverage it to maximum effect.
I.iii.1-8 I had to read this part four times. I wonder if Agamemnon's obscurity is part of his character.
I.iii.31-54 Nestor tries to match Agamemnon's tone, but his only trick seems to be substituting fancy words for simpler ones, especially nautical terms. On the surface, the speeches are analogous, but even his pentameter is inferior. He substitutes "Boreas" for "wind", "the strong-ribbed bark" for "boat", and "liquid mountains" for "waves", and that is the extent of his rhetoric. Not only is Agamemnon the source of the idea, but it is an idea, not a mere description. His smelted gold and winnowed chaff are poignant metaphors; Nestor just talks pretty.
I.iii.70-74 Again, Agamemnon is completely opaque.
I.iii.150-161 Patroclus' mockery may seem to have some truth in it. . .
I.iii.293-300 Again Nester parrots Agamemnon, but this time more touchingly. His affection for his late wife is apparent somehow, though not explicitly spoken.
I.iii.303 Ulysses, short of words, says it all. Somehow, Shakespeare makes it clear that this one word could mean but one thing: an idea.
I.iii.312 sure 'nuff.
I.iii.343 he hee. small pricks.
Prologue: an interesting and appropriate choice to give the play a Greek chorus, ala Henry V.
P.10 Appropriate that this line about Paris, a pederast in some versions, ends in a female rhyme. this trick is common in pentametric verse, and Shakespeare does it elsewhere, notably in the notorious Sonnet 20. It is reasonable to assume that the trick is here purposeful, but the question arises in my mind, as it usually does when reading Shakespeare, "Do we give him to much credit?" Close reading of Shakespeare invariably reveals such tidbits, but on occassion they are so tenuous that one wonders if the reader/critic is not being a bit revisionist. Did Shakespeare really pay such attention to every syllable that we can attribute meaning to something this incidental? Does his intent even matter?
P.11 A perfect example. Does the truncation of this line, the tentativeness of it, have anything to do with the topic: Tenedos, or is it just the playwright's convenience? Does it matter?
P 15-19 If we attribute meaning to lines 10 and 11, we must not rest until these similarly irregular metrics are dissected. Yet, there is no apparent reason for it, other than that Shakespeare allowed himself some error.
P:22 A nice production option would be to steal Chaucer's conceit and have Troilus play the part of the prologue, seemingly narrating from heaven with a wise and understanding detachment.
P:29,30 a cute couplet. Stagecraft is war. Sometimes you are the victor and the play is a smash--you kill, in stage lingo. Sometimes not, and you die out there. Especially appropriate here, in light of T&C's status as one of Shakepeare's problem plays.
I.i.6-28 Already an example of Shakespeare's subtle and seemingly effortless characterization. Pandarus is characterized as earthy and practical, first by his concern with Troilus' armor, and later by his choice of metaphor. Not only that, the contrast between him and Troilus is established by the 6th line of the play; he speaks in prose, Troilus in verse.
I.i.33 Troilus is revealed to be other than a courtly lover here, for he is concerned with Cressidas orgasm.
I.i.42 a bit o foreshadowing here, in a pithy and aphoristic couplet.
I.i49 This early and off-handed mention of Cassandra feels like a master's smooth touch of exposition.
I.i.57-61 I just about threw up in my mouth here. Troilus is clearly being set up as a foolish and idealistic lover.
I.i.66 Shakespeare's experience as an actor is evident here. I can't imagine the actor's not taking a beat, so clear is the arc of the scene.
I.i.107 Is the "flood" in Shakepeare's version literal, as in most others, or figurastive. I only wonder because I know that Troilus does not drown in this version.
I.i.116-117 Again, the couplet holds a world of meaning. In some versions, Paris is Troilus mentor/lover. Troilus seeming contempt here, together with the line "gor'd with Menelaus horn" connotes, "Good. Let him get fucked for a change."
I.i.118 succesful characterization of Aeneas in one line. It could not be clearer that he is consumed with the game of war if Shakespeare had stretched this out for a page.
I can't believe that I spent that much time reading one scene. this is going to take forever, and cheap at that price.
I.ii.4 this line both sets up Hector as a foil to Troilus and touches on what may become a theme: patience. Every Shakespearean play has a word that unlocks its world, and this may be T&C's.
I.ii.7 While war is sport for Aeneas, it is "husbandry", marriage for Hector.
I.ii.17 I lost track for a moment and thought Cressida was playing the fool . . . she (as does Alexander) shifts to prose here.
I.ii.18 There is something in this characterization of Ajax; I can smell it.
I.ii the entire rest of the scene seems to be in prose. Does Cressida do so for her Uncle, who spoke thusly in the previous scene?
I.ii.244 The waiting for Troilus makes the audience (and Cressida) develop the same patience that he and Hector have want of.
I.ii.308 As if overpowering her Uncle's wit were not evidence enough of her canniness, here we have a couple more tokens. For one, she reverts back to verse for her monologue (Alexander never seems to have exited), and entirely of couplets at that, the first character in the play to do so. This shows not only her facility with language, but her clever tailoring of it to her audience. Of course, the content of her words is the real evidence of her mastery: it is she alone who has patience of all the characters revealed so far, and the wisdom to leverage it to maximum effect.
I.iii.1-8 I had to read this part four times. I wonder if Agamemnon's obscurity is part of his character.
I.iii.31-54 Nestor tries to match Agamemnon's tone, but his only trick seems to be substituting fancy words for simpler ones, especially nautical terms. On the surface, the speeches are analogous, but even his pentameter is inferior. He substitutes "Boreas" for "wind", "the strong-ribbed bark" for "boat", and "liquid mountains" for "waves", and that is the extent of his rhetoric. Not only is Agamemnon the source of the idea, but it is an idea, not a mere description. His smelted gold and winnowed chaff are poignant metaphors; Nestor just talks pretty.
I.iii.70-74 Again, Agamemnon is completely opaque.
I.iii.150-161 Patroclus' mockery may seem to have some truth in it. . .
I.iii.293-300 Again Nester parrots Agamemnon, but this time more touchingly. His affection for his late wife is apparent somehow, though not explicitly spoken.
I.iii.303 Ulysses, short of words, says it all. Somehow, Shakespeare makes it clear that this one word could mean but one thing: an idea.
I.iii.312 sure 'nuff.
I.iii.343 he hee. small pricks.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Mark IV
13:1 This talk of stones reminds me of Peter
13:6 What are the "these things" that the disciples are expecting? Furthermore, why does Jesus act like the answer is to watch out for his return?
13:7-8 Is there any nonprophetic way to take this? At first, I thought he might be referring to his ascension, but it is clear that he means something a little further down the line. What is this presence? I don't see any way to take this that is less than millienalist.
13:9-20 The sad thing is that the Witnesses' explanation of these verse makes perfect sense.
13:23 "I have told you everything" is a pretty broad statement. everything about his messiahship?
13:24-27 This whole chapter is giving me a headache.
13:37 I guess the real question about all of this is has it been fulfilled, either at the occupation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. or otherwise, or is it more of an apocalyptic, end-of-times sort of thing? In any case, this whole chapter feels completely out of place.
14:5 I still remember a particular insight I had on this verse back when I was a Witness. The 300 Denarii was almost a years wages, so I figure that it represents about 20,000 modern dollars. This means that, while extravagant, it was not beyond the realm of something we would give to somebody we loved if we could afford it. It is not unheard of for somebody to buy a car as a gift, for example. What made this act astonishing was that the gift was, not money, but nard. It is revealing that the nard was in a sealed alabaster jar, one that required it to be broken open, not unscrewed. Some research reveals that Nard was stored in this way because it was an investment. this meant that using the nard on Jesus' feet was the equivalent, not of giving somebody $20,000, but of mailing a stamp worth that much, thus negating its value. It is not needless to say that nobody understood what the hell I was talking about when I made this comment.
14:9 I can picture the writer of Mark being present at this event, and being inspired to write it down.
14:20 Did Judas get revealed to the other disciples in this version?
14:33 Did he separate these three for a reason? Last time, it was rather significant (the transfiguration), so they may well have been remembering that moment here.
14:36 Who's to say what he prayed? nobody was there.
14:37 Did he set them apart to receive special adjuration? Double chastisement?
14:62 Aha! So he does say it!
14:68 Some rock!
15:5 Given Jesus' gift for stumping the Pharisees previously, it almost feels like he was afraid of being too convincing and ruining the prophecy.
15:14 Who are these people? Surely not the same Jews who welcomed him into the city with palm frinds just days before . . .
15:21 Evidently the experience inspired Simon to become a follower. Why else would Mark bother to mention him in such detail?
15:25 I didn't remember the Bible being this specific about the timing.
15:40-41 Evidently the apostles were still being timid . . .
16:misc. I have little to say about this chapter, partly because I am growing weary, and partly because it feels so off-handed. I had never read the section some texts include after verse 14, though, and I find it very revealing. Is the term of Satan's rule really over at this point?
To sum up: The book of Mark feels a little disjointed and cursory, but there are genuinely touching moments, and I declare my liveblogging a success. BTD:4
13:6 What are the "these things" that the disciples are expecting? Furthermore, why does Jesus act like the answer is to watch out for his return?
13:7-8 Is there any nonprophetic way to take this? At first, I thought he might be referring to his ascension, but it is clear that he means something a little further down the line. What is this presence? I don't see any way to take this that is less than millienalist.
13:9-20 The sad thing is that the Witnesses' explanation of these verse makes perfect sense.
13:23 "I have told you everything" is a pretty broad statement. everything about his messiahship?
13:24-27 This whole chapter is giving me a headache.
13:37 I guess the real question about all of this is has it been fulfilled, either at the occupation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. or otherwise, or is it more of an apocalyptic, end-of-times sort of thing? In any case, this whole chapter feels completely out of place.
14:5 I still remember a particular insight I had on this verse back when I was a Witness. The 300 Denarii was almost a years wages, so I figure that it represents about 20,000 modern dollars. This means that, while extravagant, it was not beyond the realm of something we would give to somebody we loved if we could afford it. It is not unheard of for somebody to buy a car as a gift, for example. What made this act astonishing was that the gift was, not money, but nard. It is revealing that the nard was in a sealed alabaster jar, one that required it to be broken open, not unscrewed. Some research reveals that Nard was stored in this way because it was an investment. this meant that using the nard on Jesus' feet was the equivalent, not of giving somebody $20,000, but of mailing a stamp worth that much, thus negating its value. It is not needless to say that nobody understood what the hell I was talking about when I made this comment.
14:9 I can picture the writer of Mark being present at this event, and being inspired to write it down.
14:20 Did Judas get revealed to the other disciples in this version?
14:33 Did he separate these three for a reason? Last time, it was rather significant (the transfiguration), so they may well have been remembering that moment here.
14:36 Who's to say what he prayed? nobody was there.
14:37 Did he set them apart to receive special adjuration? Double chastisement?
14:62 Aha! So he does say it!
14:68 Some rock!
15:5 Given Jesus' gift for stumping the Pharisees previously, it almost feels like he was afraid of being too convincing and ruining the prophecy.
15:14 Who are these people? Surely not the same Jews who welcomed him into the city with palm frinds just days before . . .
15:21 Evidently the experience inspired Simon to become a follower. Why else would Mark bother to mention him in such detail?
15:25 I didn't remember the Bible being this specific about the timing.
15:40-41 Evidently the apostles were still being timid . . .
16:misc. I have little to say about this chapter, partly because I am growing weary, and partly because it feels so off-handed. I had never read the section some texts include after verse 14, though, and I find it very revealing. Is the term of Satan's rule really over at this point?
To sum up: The book of Mark feels a little disjointed and cursory, but there are genuinely touching moments, and I declare my liveblogging a success. BTD:4
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Meanwhile,
I have been reading other things as well.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: A Study in Scarlet
As enjoyable as Sherlock Holmes' adventures are, I disagree with their place in the English literary canon. Take this, for example. There is nothing, to my eye, aside from the obvious skill in characterization, to set this apart from any other detective novel. Why are these considered anything other than well-written pablum?
Chris Hedges: I Don't Believe in Atheists
See, this is why I don't read much non-fiction. What is true for another current project, the Autobiography of Saint Teresa of Avila, is true for Hedges here: they have no sense of structure. Teresa had no access to an editor and a word processor, however, and her rambling is correspondingly excusable. Hedges has no such excuse. It's as if he felt irritated about something or, as in this case, someone, and just started talking about it. He makes a couple of good points, but he makes them repeatedly and in no particular order. As with so many before him, he doesn't even seem to see the virtue of a satisfying conclusion. this should be either chopped up and recooked, or boiled into a much thinner work.
Which is not to say that I disagree with him. Certain new (conservative) atheists are truly bags of bilious wind. But his raillery against them has the unpleasant flavor of a straw man argument, the very thing of which he is accusing them. In short, I'm sure it would be much more satisfying to have coffee with this man than to read a book written by him.
BTD: 3
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: A Study in Scarlet
As enjoyable as Sherlock Holmes' adventures are, I disagree with their place in the English literary canon. Take this, for example. There is nothing, to my eye, aside from the obvious skill in characterization, to set this apart from any other detective novel. Why are these considered anything other than well-written pablum?
Chris Hedges: I Don't Believe in Atheists
See, this is why I don't read much non-fiction. What is true for another current project, the Autobiography of Saint Teresa of Avila, is true for Hedges here: they have no sense of structure. Teresa had no access to an editor and a word processor, however, and her rambling is correspondingly excusable. Hedges has no such excuse. It's as if he felt irritated about something or, as in this case, someone, and just started talking about it. He makes a couple of good points, but he makes them repeatedly and in no particular order. As with so many before him, he doesn't even seem to see the virtue of a satisfying conclusion. this should be either chopped up and recooked, or boiled into a much thinner work.
Which is not to say that I disagree with him. Certain new (conservative) atheists are truly bags of bilious wind. But his raillery against them has the unpleasant flavor of a straw man argument, the very thing of which he is accusing them. In short, I'm sure it would be much more satisfying to have coffee with this man than to read a book written by him.
BTD: 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)