Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Frequent Contributor
stratford
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎01-27-2007
0 Kudos

Re: The preferred

It did and it didn't. Your explanation was fine--as far as it went. And I immediately said so at the very beginning of my post. But the entire expressed confusion turned around the meaning of the word "preferred." My post addressed that issue at some length. Your post didn't address that issue at all. Therein, I believe, is the difference. But I don't think it has anything to do with your English, which is just fine.



Choisya wrote:
How strange - I thought my explanation said the same thing and made sense too! It must be my English.:smileyvery-happy:




cheryl_shell wrote:

Laurel wrote:
Stratford, your preferred explanation makes perfect sense. Thank you!







I would agree! That's how I see it, too.






Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux



LizzieAnn wrote:
I laughed at the play within in play. Especially with the comments made by Theseus, Lysander, Demetrius, and, to a lesser degree, Hippolyta. Especially the comments the tree men make about the lion, and how they anticipate the ending of the play when Thisby finds Pyramus.

Pyramus says (5.1.280-4)

Eyes, do you see
How can it be?
O dainty duck! O dear!
They mantle good,
What, stained with blood!

I don't understand how the mantle is stained with blood. Thisby runs off when she sees the lion, who then bites & shakes her fallen mantle. Are we to assume that the "lion" had a bloody mouth before scaring of Thisby and that's how the mantle becomes bloody?

Also, I found the craftsmen's play reminiscent of Romeo & Juliet. They love each other but are kept apart; he believes she's dead and kills himself; she founds him dead and kills herself.

I also found it odd that neither Hermia nor Helena have any dialogue in this Act.

I love Puck's famous speech at the end (5.1.425-440) - it's not only lyrical when it's read, but it's also lyrical in content. It's my favorite piece of dialogue in the entire play.

Message Edited by LizzieAnn on 02-26-200707:43 PM






It's obviously a bad play they perform but still more entertaing than the other suggested possibilities. I was reminded about the interactions actors/public we spoke of and here it is very evident in the comments they make (& LizA mentions).

ziki
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux



Everyman wrote:
LizzieAnn wrote:
I laughed at the play within in play. Especially with the comments made by Theseus, Lysander, Demetrius, and, to a lesser degree, Hippolyta.


It's tempting to wonder to what extent audience commentary was a regular part of S's plays.




right , just what I said before I saw your post here.
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux

It is a parody of a play...my one fav is:

The: If we imagine no worse of them than they of themselves, they may pass for excellent men.

That's deadly and so bitingly accurate in life.

ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux

From all the commentaries, including contemporaneous ones, it appears that the Elizabethan audience were fully involved with the plays and shouted out many comments. That is why the Gobe Theatre here has 'groundlings' who are encouraged by actors walking among them to shout and to comment on the action etc. Without that encouragement the modern audience would be far too polite to do so.

http://www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/designshake/design/audience.htm




ziki wrote:


Everyman wrote:
LizzieAnn wrote:
I laughed at the play within in play. Especially with the comments made by Theseus, Lysander, Demetrius, and, to a lesser degree, Hippolyta.


It's tempting to wonder to what extent audience commentary was a regular part of S's plays.




right , just what I said before I saw your post here.


Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

involving the audience

quote from teh link posted by choisya:

"Often all the energy has to come from the stage - everyone else is in darkness, passive in their seats; but here, the audience isn't divided by darkness from the actors. That makes them integral to the action - as powerful, if not more so, than the players."

This is shown well in the MND 'play in play' part.

I didn't much study the history of theater but while dancers/musicians could perform for a king, comedians traveleld around and met an audience that was less sofisticated.
Maybe SHKS came somewhere in the middle of that scale because he also introduced some classic themes.

it all makes sense....

ziki
perhaps I am just reinventing the wheel here but as I have none I gotta do so
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux

[ Edited ]

Laurel wrote:
I've always wondered about this, too. How did Bottom know what was going on? Perhaps he was just being Bottom and stating what he wished to be true.



friery wrote:
Isn't there an anachronism in this act? In 5.1.46-7, Philostrate gives Theseus a list of candidates for the evening's entertainment. Theseus then discusses them and dismisses all but the Mechanicals' play.

However, in 4.2.37-9, Bottom says to his fellow players,

.................................../Get your ap-
parel together, good strings to your beards, new
ribbons to your pumps; meet presently at the
palace; every man look o'er his part; for the
short and the long is, our play is preferred.

Doesn't this indicate that Theseus has made his choice? (And Philostrate certainly hadn't chosen them--he argues against the play.)







Maybe they just all had to be present on the spot and depending on Thesseus's momentary choice those particular performers went on, others were waiting. It's not like today you cue in order to see Madonna, Madonna was in line to perform for you. Thesseus could switch channels like we do on TV today so Philo had to have all the performes gathered and available.
perhaps Bottom was just confident about the quality of the play, sure they will be chosen...

ziki
dunno
just speculating

Message Edited by ziki on 03-06-200704:17 AM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux



Choisya wrote:
I see them as candidates going for a job interview at the Palace, waiting to be chosen alongside other hopefuls, all probably getting a meal at the palace. Philostrate, Theseus' 'Entertainments manager' does the initial interviewing of all candidates and when he is called, hands a paper to Theseus with his preferences saying 'Here is a brief how many sports are ripe'. Theseus then reads aloud the summaries of the various plays ending with Pyramus & Thisbe. Philostrate summarises the play and tells him about the mechanicals. Theseus finally says 'I will hear that play/For never any thing can be amiss/When simpleness and duty tender it/Go bring them in: and take your places ladies.' It seems as if the description of the Mechanicals decided him.






Hmm yes, I also saw that in that manner. Today we think performers are 'somebodies' (i.e Brangelina, Tomcat etc) but it wasn't so then. The ranks were different.

ziki
Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux

[ Edited ]

stratford wrote:
As usual, Choisya is correct. But possiby I could elaborate a little bit more. The use of "preferred" as noted below is not an anachronism or an inconsistency or an error or a mistake on Shakespeare's part. "Preferred" as used in the quote below means "put forward, recommended." The final decision had not been made when Bottom utters the famous words quoted below. Their entertainment offering is just one of a number of offerings but their offering has been "put forward" or "recommended." It is not until Theseus is given the paper (in a stage direction) and reads through some of the choices, and Theseus and Philostrate discuss the Mechanicals' offering, that Theseus says "And we will hear it," and several lines later says again, "I will hear that play."





OK, now I feel clever for figuring this one out on my own before I read all the posted comments here.
I think it's funny to equal the word mechanicals with TV...also the actors were "puppets" and so are we all. Fate Script decides something for you and up on stage you go and do your number best you can in front of God. You better have your act together and rehearsed if possible (which I never manage and thus improvise, shout and do as them in the play) :smileyvery-happy: This brings us back to the divine comedy theme we discussed elsewhere.

ziki

Message Edited by ziki on 03-06-200704:40 AM

Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Act V: The Court Redux


strat wrote:Theseus and Philostrate discuss the Mechanicals' offering, that Theseus says "And we will hear it," and several lines later says again, "I will hear that play."






Yes, I get the feeling that Philo thinks it is a terrible play but Thesseus really insists and have to make his voice heard already there. Maybe it is a Shakespeare's own trick upon himself. Moreover, I do not think he viewed his plays as work surviving during centuries and perhaps it is due to that spontaneity that they do. If he consciously tried to fabricate 'fine art' aimed to survive for hundred of years we would probably never hear of him today. But he picked on the human nature and that didn't change so much and that is why we still can relate to his plays canturies later.
Comments?

my qualified guess
ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: involving the audience

Good point Ziki. Shakespeare's plays were always performed in theatres in London but actor's troupes played them elsewhere in the country. James Burbage built the first public playhouse in London in 1576 and it is thought that Shakespeare's troupe played there as well as at the Globe later. The Globe was exposed to the elements and was used for fine weather performances and another theatre was used in bad weather. Here is a short account of the original Globe Theatre in London:-

http://www.angband.demon.co.uk/Globe/history1.html

Actor's travelling troupes also went to Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare's birthplace, and it is thought that his troupe played there or that his plays were performed by some of them:-

http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-biography-elizabethan-acting-troupes-stratfo...





ziki wrote:
quote from teh link posted by choisya:

"Often all the energy has to come from the stage - everyone else is in darkness, passive in their seats; but here, the audience isn't divided by darkness from the actors. That makes them integral to the action - as powerful, if not more so, than the players."

This is shown well in the MND 'play in play' part.

I didn't much study the history of theater but while dancers/musicians could perform for a king, comedians traveleld around and met an audience that was less sofisticated.
Maybe SHKS came somewhere in the middle of that scale because he also introduced some classic themes.

it all makes sense....

ziki
perhaps I am just reinventing the wheel here but as I have none I gotta do so


Frequent Contributor
Posts: 3,107
Registered: ‎10-27-2006
0 Kudos

Re: involving the audience

When you say actor's troup...was it that each prominent actor created his own company?

from link:
The three galleries between them held another 2000 attendies. Unlike the yard, they, like the stage were covered against the elements. They also had the added luxery of seating. For these benefits you would have had to pay 2 pennies, and could hire a cushion for a third. Although all three galleries cost the same to sit in, the middle gallery was considered the highest status. The lower gallery was still uncomfortably close to the yard, while the upper gallery had a reputation as a meeting place for unsavoury business deals, and working ground for more of the local prostitutes.


I think this persists even today to some degree in older theater houses.For some reason I came to think of the opening of Wharton's Age of Innocence, there the audience performs for itself ina stiff social play.

ziki
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: involving the audience

Sometimes actors form troupes and sometime a wealthy patron formed them, as with the Earl of Essex etc. Yes some older theatres are still a bit like this although the stage is now further removed, and higher, from the audience and audiences are much more circumspect in what they do - although the Globe still encourages active participation at every level.




ziki wrote:
When you say actor's troup...was it that each prominent actor created his own company?

from link:
The three galleries between them held another 2000 attendies. Unlike the yard, they, like the stage were covered against the elements. They also had the added luxery of seating. For these benefits you would have had to pay 2 pennies, and could hire a cushion for a third. Although all three galleries cost the same to sit in, the middle gallery was considered the highest status. The lower gallery was still uncomfortably close to the yard, while the upper gallery had a reputation as a meeting place for unsavoury business deals, and working ground for more of the local prostitutes.


I think this persists even today to some degree in older theater houses.For some reason I came to think of the opening of Wharton's Age of Innocence, there the audience performs for itself ina stiff social play.

ziki


Top Kudoed Authors
Users Online
Currently online: 18 members 213 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: