Shakespeare Fans discussion
Group Readings
>
Two Gentlemen ACT 2, Feb 13-21
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Candy
(last edited Feb 10, 2017 11:18AM)
(new)
Jan 24, 2017 09:52AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Excellent, Candy. I am only halfway through Act II myself - hope to finish it tonight - but I gather some group members are ready to discuss it.
Shakespeare did love a pun.I heard somewhere that Shakespeare used to take place in verbal exchanges of wit in a tavern somewhere - I assume paid. How he found time to do that, and write and be involved in the production of his plays and do the research for his writing, write sonnets and all the rest of it, goodness knows.
I really enjoyed the BBC version, except that to keep it clean enough for 12 plus, they had to keep from acting out some of the puns: ie, 'My staff understands me... ' (And I am still astounded by those wigs.) I believe that Proteus was generally considered charming in that.
In the first scene of Act II, I thought it was very clever of Sylvia to get Valentine to write a love letter to himself. Speed is obviously a lot quicker witted than his master, in discerning that. I thought Speed's description of Valentine in love very amusing:
'You have learned, like Sir Proteus, to wreathe your arms, like a malcontent. ..To sigh, like a schoolboy that had lost his ABC...'
Valentine shows the stereotypical symptoms of a lover, and yet he is sincere.
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two...]]I do like this image of Sylvia, done in Victorian times - 1888- though I know that when Shakespeare describes her hair as 'auburn' (later on) he means what we would now call very fair hair, but she is very striking like this, and of course, directors have got round the unfortunate European tendency to describe dark skin in a pejorative manner which Shakespeare echoes in this play by having Sylvia played by a black woman.
Hello everyone - I am new to the group and am just starting the play. I hope to join in the discussions later.
Anne wrote: "Hello everyone - I am new to the group and am just starting the play. I hope to join in the discussions later."Welcome Anne.
From the very first line of 2.1, S begins with the pun fun. On/one Valentine's gloves are "on", which sounds like one, so Speed tells him, "This may be yours, for this is but one" (2.1.2). S also plays with the word "without" (2.1.30-35), "know" (2.1.40-46), "deformed" (2.1.-56-57), "stand/set" as sexual innuendo (2.1.75-76), "yet" (2.1.104-107), "reasoning/reason" (2.1.127-128), "earnest" (2.1.139-141), "in print" (2.1.151), and whichever other ones I may have missed.
I would call this heavy-handed punning. We have stated that this is one of S's earlier plays. I believe his style changed over the years. He still punned like no other, but he seemed to mix it up a bit in his later plays with different kinds of comedy. I, for one, enjoy the pun fun.
My favorite character is Speed. I am a sucker for S's stock Clown/fool characters which live in his comedies, but also make appearances in his tragedies (Hamlet) and histories (Falstaff in Henry IV). To me, this was the funniest exchange in scene 1 (70-73):
Val: Belike, boy, then you are in love, for last morning you could not see to wipe my shoes.
Speed: True, sir. I was in love with my bed.
Of course, they are discussing the blindness of love. Speed was so in love with his bed, he couldn't see to wipe off his master's shoes. I think part of the comedy derives from the stark contrast behind how servants acted in reality or were supposed to act in reality, and how S's servants behaved. They talk back; they mock their masters for being in love; they disobey, etc. Great stuff!
The focus of 2.2 is on Proteus' departure, the major event being Julia leaving P without speaking. This takes us back to an earlier point, when J's waiting-maid stuck up for P's failure to make his love known to her. Here, Proteus speaks one of those immortal Shakespearean lines:
For truth hath better deeds than words to grace it. (2.2.18)
In 2.3, Lance is now rivaling Speed as far as who is the bigger fool. Lance: I think Crab my dog, be the sourest-natured dog that lives. My mother weeping, my father wailing, my sister crying, our maid howling, our cat wringing her hands, and all our house in a great perplexity, yet did not this cruel-hearted cur shed one tear. He is a stone [...]" (2.3.4-9).
The dog is going with! Funny, to me at least.
I love that last passage in particular, Jonathan. I wonder if they actually called the paws 'hands' in those days or that was Shakespeare using poetic licence - but the image is brilliant.I enjoy the servants' insolence, too. In 'A Comedy of Errors' they got beaten too much. As late as Samuel Richardson's 'Clarissa' in the mid eighteenth century, the insolent servant who is wittier than his master is a stock character on stage; Lovelace complains about it; but then, the humourless Richardson would hate that subversion.
In the next scene, we have Proteus and Julia going through a betrothal ceremony, which was, I believe,legally binding in Elizabethan/Jacobean England, but Proteus doesn't seem to see himself as tied later on...
How to plot a romcom:To leave my Julia, shall I be forsworn;
To love fair Silvia, shall I be forsworn;
To wrong my friend, I shall be much forsworn
. . .
At first I did adore a twinkling star [Julia],
But now I worship a celestial sun [Sylvia].
That's Proteus in his long soliloquy (II, vi). Add sassy servants, an overbearing parent, one more rival, a dog . . . and I think we have our plot laid out.
Yes, it is the silliest stuff ever, and we are like the royal audience watching the play-within-a-play in the final act of Midsummer Night's Dream. At first we see nothing but the absurdity of it. “This is the silliest stuff that ever I heard,” sez Queen Hippolyta. But as the 'rude mechanicals' act out the laughable story of Boy Meets Girl (aka Pyramus and Thisbe), we see something that catches our eye. And even as Nick Bottom and the other working class stiffs muck up their lines time and time again, we join with Hippolyta as she muses, “Beshrew my heart, but I pity the man”--referring, of course, to Pyramus (aka Boy).
Re-reading this, I am a bit puzzled- I don't know if I am alone in this. In Act II, Scene IV, Proteus is introduced by Valentine to Sylvia, and is very courtly, but when Valentine says of her that she is 'Sovereign to all the creatures on the earth' he objects: 'Except my mistress' and 'Have I note reason to prefer mine own?' At this point, he has not sworn to betray Valentine. He does so in a soliloquy.
So, he does not fall in love with Sylvia at first sight. It is almost as if Valentine's praise of her turns his head. Of course, there have been all sorts of indications in the play and in the sources, that the two friends are unusually close and that this 'sameness' influences their emotions.
Falling in love is seen as a form of illness:
Proteus: When I was sick, you gave me bitter pills,
and I must minister the same to you.
It is almost as if it is communicable. Proteus 'catches' being besotted with Sylvia from Valentine.
Lucinda wrote: "At this point, he has not sworn to betray Valentine. He does so in a soliloquy. So, he does not fall in love with Sylvia at first sight. It is almost as if Valentine's praise of her turns his head."There are two possibilities here. 1) Proteus was dissembling his love for Sylvia during his discussion with Valentine. 2) Valentine's praise of Sylvia to Proteus won him over such that he fell in love with her. Also, it is just as probable that V's praise of P to S caused her to fall in love with P.
I actually wrote a note in my copy to this end: "Did Valentine cause all of this by praising one to the other?"
David wrote: "That's Proteus in his long soliloquy (II, vi). Add sassy servants, an overbearing parent, one more rival, a dog . . . and I think we have our plot laid out. "Do you not find that Shakespeare's plot constructions are still more complicated than what Hollywood or modern romance writers try to feed us?
Here is the standard romantic comedy plot structure:
1) Boy meets girl and falls in love.
2) Girl finds boy objectionable.
3) Girl changes her mind.
4) Before she can tell him, or, before they can come together something happens to separate them.
5) After dealing with this separation/obstacle, they end up together.
I've watched 500 movies with that plot, and read maybe 50 books with that plot. Really, that was the plot of Troilus and Cressida, except for the ending.
I am finding the plot of Two Gentleman to be different and perhaps more complicated than that.
That's a fascinating interpretation, Jonathan. Five hundred films is really good going. Of course, romantic novels or novels with a romantic sub plot all adhere to that, and ploughing through some research on historical romances, I am in approximately the opposite position to you! I have read several hundred books like that and seen less than two hundred films like that (I suppose). I know what you mean about the simplicity of the basic 'boy meets girl' plot (I suppose we could call it 'male meets female' with the modern inclusion of 'male meets male' and 'female meets female' with variations such as their being of different ages in both sense of the word, vampires and werewolves, demons, ghosts, whatever). It all fits in, I no doubt, with that 'there are only such and such basic plots in the world' . In the Happy Ever After version is often simplistic with regard to the internal and external opposing forces which drive them apart.
The idea that Sylvia - for all she repulses him - might be at least infatuated with Proteus is intriguing. A persuasive, dashing, handsome admirer (even if dastardly) is rather an exciting acquirement, and though she is obviously more deeply attracted to Valentine's finer qualities, she might well feel torn at times.
Perhaps up to the last scene, maybe. But I mustn't anticipate.
Lucinda wrote: "Five hundred films is really good going."Well, I assure you this was a hyperbole. I probably haven't watched that many movies in my whole life. But, with all the movies I've watched they have shared 4 or 5 different plots only. That is sad.
Jonathan wrote: "Do you not find that Shakespeare's plot constructions are still more complicated than what Hollywood or modern romance writers try to feed us?"You're probably right, Jonathan. I'm sure I haven't watched enough Hollywood romcoms to say with any certainty. On the other hand, I'm not sure a complicated plot is any better than a simple plot, and (in general) I usually prefer simple plots.
But my general point was not that the plot of 2 Gentlemen is too simple. Rather, I think it's pretty formulaic--that is, following a pattern that Shakespeare's audience liked and had come to expect. My overall contention is that Shakespeare doesn't take his plots as seriously as we modern readers tend to do. That's really why I was referencing the last scene of Midsummer Night's Dream. I think that scene, with the play-within-a-play, is the closest we'll ever get to Shakespeare's thoughts on How To Write A Play. Yes, it's farcical, but beneath all the silliness is a seriousness about play-writing, one that finds a link between "Romeo and Juliet" and "Pyramus and Thisbe." It's not coincidental, I'm sure, that the plot of the latter is damn close to that of the former.
Mod
There are some of us who believe there are only perhaps a dozen stories period in the world of stories. And I don't find it sad...I and it fun and fascinating! How amazing we could have so few plots and stories...yet such a vast world of material created out of those structures. And I have been writing several pieces (hopefully to make a book) explaining WHY we have those structures for stories. (I don't actually have a book finished or published....so I am not breaking promo rule here LOL)
I am from this camp...that there are only about 12 stories. I am a reader of the folklore index...called Aarne Thompson Classification Index which i have used for my research. the index complies and records history of world folk stories and they fall into categories. And many of these I have found cross over to completely different cultures and societies.
http://www.mftd.org/index.php?action=atu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne–T...
I also believe we take our characters and transform them and multiply them over and over too.
For example one of my favourite folklorists is Marina Warner...and she wrote a great book at how we transform our fears into something palatable...sometimes even "friendly" (an example is Hannibal Lecter is a hero...he only kills bad people, or Qusimodo was originally a scary monster but we made him beloved over time) Her book on this topic is called No Go The Bogeyman
https://www.amazon.com/No-Go-Bogeyman...
A fascinating book on stories is called A Story Sharp As a Knife (I think David and Martin would be interested in this writer because he wrote a definitive book on Typography!) In this book he has transcribed Haida Myths...which are every boit as got\rious as Greek or Scandinavian myths...and some of these myths....fall into the AArne Thompson classification Index...which is so interesting as the Haida (I grew p in their land) is a remote hunter-gatherer culture far from Greece or Norway/Denmark.
https://www.amazon.com/Story-Sharp-Kn...
And then there is the argument by Chris Brooker about The Seven Basic Plots...this may be too depressing for some of you! But no really it is a delightful argument!
1) overcoming the monster
2) rags to riches
3) the quest
4) voyage and return
5) comedy
6) tragedy
7) rebirth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sev...
https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Basic-Pl...
Mod
I have started a new topic called "How many plots in the world?"
I will delete the above post # 23....if need be.....please respond regarding repetition or plots...in that thread so we don't hijack this discussion...does that make sense?
You are right, and the whole issue of 'the basic plots' is fascinating, Candy, and wholly worthy of a thread of its own.I'm finding Jonathan, David and everyone's comments really useful in seeing the play in different lights. But of course, that is what a discussion is about.
I would just like to reiterate how S has broken through on some of these strict forms. Julia was almost instantly wooed by Proteus. Sylvia almost instantly fell in love w/ Valentine. Enter Proteus. V's praise of him to Sylvia persuades her to fall in love with Proteus instead. V's praise of her to Proteus, in turn, sways him. To me, this is unique. This a twist that you do not find in most romantic comedies. I think S uses this storyline in a couple of plays, but I think we can commend him for some inventiveness here. S's oeuvre offers more than the standard 7 storylines. He adds a unique flavor in each of his plays.
I certainly agree with you, Jonathan, that Shakespeare, genius that he was, is unique in what I would call his 'terse complexity'. Nobody has come near him in four centuries for his linking of individual and universal themes, poetry, and so much else. It is all the more astounding,when we consider that he was writing to deadlines, with an eye and ear to pleasing the crowd, and under the threat of repressive censorship (hence the torture and death of his fellow playwright Thomas Kidd). Yet, I don't think that the fact that there are only a few basic plots is in any way a limitation against using them in original ways, as Shakespeare does. However we interpret the relations of the four main characters, he subverts two 'male meets female' plots. That he could put such novel twists into that well trodden ground was part of the essence of his genius.
Lucinda wrote: "I certainly agree with you, Jonathan, that Shakespeare, genius that he was, is unique in what I would call his 'terse complexity'. Nobody has come near him in four centuries for his linking of indi..."He's probably not remembered for his plots, per se, but there is a lot of wit displayed in every facet of his work. There is no one before or since, who could play with words like he did. Almost all of his plays were written in verse. At certain times, he turns to prose, but that has to be close to the equivalent of 100,000 lines of poetry in his lifetime. Wow! He was a machine. And, he had a tremendous gift that is so far unequaled.
Before the drama of Proteus' soliloquy, resolving to betray both Julia and Valentine - and himself, of course, more than either - though with his false reasoning he doesn't see that 'I cannot now prove constant to myself without some treachery' -is self delusion - we have the scene of pure slapstick light relief between Lance and Speed. I'm puzzled about this one. I can't see that it really 'furthers the plot' in any way before the next scene, but I suppose there may be ways in which it does, which I have missed. Shakespeare's structure was always so admirably terse, after all, though this was perhaps his earliest play.
It does serve the purpose of light relief. It's full of plays on words - and I think I've read that in fact, the pun was fashionable in Shakespeare's time, as it isn't in ours. There's the 'If it stands well with him, it stands well with her' line I have remarked had to be glossed over in the BBC version, etc. I suppose it is a pointer to the fact that for all the lovers' 'high falutin'' notions of love, it is always grounded in natural instincts.
There is, of course, the inevitable anti-Semetic joke, which makes me reflect all over again how living in europe in this age must have been appalling for Jewis people, is in Shylock's description of his treatment in 'the Merchant of Venice', but that''s irrelevant here...
Mod
SPEED
Marry, by these special marks: first, you have
learned, like Sir Proteus, to wreathe your arms,
like a malecontent; to relish a love-song, like a
robin-redbreast; to walk alone, like one that had
the pestilence; to sigh, like a school-boy that had
lost his A B C; to weep, like a young wench that had
buried her grandam; to fast, like one that takes
diet; to watch like one that fears robbing; to
speak puling, like a beggar at Hallowmas. You were
wont, when you laughed, to crow like a cock; when you
walked, to walk like one of the lions; when you
fasted, it was presently after dinner; when you
looked sadly, it was for want of money: and now you
are metamorphosed with a mistress, that, when I look
on you, I can hardly think you my master.
"Halloween is actually just the beginning of a string of otherworldly holidays. The tricks, treats and customs of Halloween, now mostly secular, are based in part on an ancient Christian festival that spans November 1st and 2nd.
November 1 is All Saints’ Day, when all saints — known and unknown — are recognized.
(The “een” in “Halloween” ties into these lesser-known occasions. Find out what “Halloween” actually is short for, here.)
The Roman Catholic Church’s official name for All Saints Day is Solemnity of All Saints’ Day, but it is also called Hallows or Hallowmas. (Hallowmas is shortened from Hallow’s mass.) In the Western Christian world, All Saints’ Day is celebrated on November 1. The word hallows is used in multiple ways. It can refer to saints and the relics of saints. It can also refer to the shrines in which the relics are kept.
The day after All Saints’ Day, November 2, is All Souls’ Day. This holiday honors the faithful who have died but have not yet reached heaven. In Mexico and the United States, this occasion is better known as Dia de Los Muertos, or Day of the Dead.:
http://blog.dictionary.com/hallowmass...
And this bit had me laughing out loud...I love Speed so much!
VALENTINE
Last night she enjoined me to write some lines to
one she loves.
SPEED
And have you?
VALENTINE
I have.
SPEED
Are they not lamely writ?
VALENTINE
No, boy, but as well as I can do them. Peace!
here she comes.
SPEED
[Aside] O excellent motion! O exceeding puppet!
Now will he interpret to her.
and the also very funny ...and made me nervous...but Slvi'as line is hilarious....
VALENTINE
As you enjoin'd me, I have writ your letter
Unto the secret nameless friend of yours;
Which I was much unwilling to proceed in
But for my duty to your ladyship.
SILVIA
I thank you gentle servant: 'tis very clerkly done.
VALENTINE
Now trust me, madam, it came hardly off;
For being ignorant to whom it goes
I writ at random, very doubtfully.
SILVIA
Perchance you think too much of so much pains?
Mod
I felt one minute I was laughing about "by your jerkin"...and then by the end of Act 2, Scene 4...I felt the heartache Valentine felt. The poetry just brought me so involved into Valentines state of mind and heart....
VALENTINE
Pardon me, Proteus: all I can is nothing
To her whose worth makes other worthies nothing;
She is alone.
PROTEUS
Then let her alone.
VALENTINE
Not for the world: why, man, she is mine own,
And I as rich in having such a jewel
As twenty seas, if all their sand were pearl,
The water nectar and the rocks pure gold.
Forgive me that I do not dream on thee,
Because thou see'st me dote upon my love.
My foolish rival, that her father likes
Only for his possessions are so huge,
Is gone with her along, and I must after,
For love, thou know'st, is full of jealousy.
PROTEUS
But she loves you?
VALENTINE
Ay, and we are betroth'd: nay, more, our,
marriage-hour,
With all the cunning manner of our flight,
Determined of; how I must climb her window,
The ladder made of cords, and all the means
Plotted and 'greed on for my happiness.
Good Proteus, go with me to my chamber,
In these affairs to aid me with thy counsel.
PROTEUS
Go on before; I shall inquire you forth:
I must unto the road, to disembark
Some necessaries that I needs must use,
And then I'll presently attend you.
VALENTINE
Will you make haste?
PROTEUS
I will.
Exit VALENTINE
Even as one heat another heat expels,
Or as one nail by strength drives out another,
So the remembrance of my former love
Is by a newer object quite forgotten.
Is it mine, or Valentine's praise,
Her true perfection, or my false transgression,
That makes me reasonless to reason thus?
She is fair; and so is Julia that I love--
That I did love, for now my love is thaw'd;
Which, like a waxen image, 'gainst a fire,
Bears no impression of the thing it was.
Methinks my zeal to Valentine is cold,
And that I love him not as I was wont.
O, but I love his lady too too much,
And that's the reason I love him so little.
How shall I dote on her with more advice,
That thus without advice begin to love her!
'Tis but her picture I have yet beheld,
And that hath dazzled my reason's light;
But when I look on her perfections,
There is no reason but I shall be blind.
If I can cheque my erring love, I will;
If not, to compass her I'll use my skill.
Mod
I couldn't find what that means if it is a common adage or such?
Mod
I also was struck by many of the same lines you all have quoted here.
I think Jonathan you've made a great insight into Valentine and love...that saying and describing his love has made it contagious in some way.
I think there is the idea that women might not notice a man at all...they could work with him and he is considered not available or a viable date. However...when women see this same man with his girlfriend or wife...all heads turn. I've seen this over and over....as if for some women....they don't see some men as "viable" until they see that another woman has seen him so.
I also think....that the disastrous trend of cat-calling (cat-calling is so terrible in New York City...that women travel in buddy-systems, or even resort to moving away from NYC because of the harassment)
So...I want to be sensitive here....because by no means do I condone such cat-calling or harassment....but one thing I do try to talk about with women experiencing such harassment is the cause. The cause if not about the men trying to pick up the women...but rather that men talking about women is actually about proving their maleness to each other. It is about exhibiting masculinity and bonding with each other. Men are not trying to bond with women...they are trying to bond with each other.
I think sharing and competing for the same woman in this play seems to be somehow similar. Almost like they are closer and more masculine as they agree on what is the best woman or most attractive woman to each other....?
"Women have, in men's minds, such a low place on the social ladder ... that it's useless to define yourself in terms of a woman. What men need is men's approval." David Mamet.
Candy wrote: "I think sharing and competing for the same woman in this play seems to be somehow similar. Almost like they are closer and more masculine as they agree on what is the best woman or most attractive woman to each other....?"I think the admiration of women is a major part of male-bonding. I don't know why this is, but, after puberty, this just seems to be the thing to do. Now, that I think of it--no judging please--most of the male friendships I have forged at work began by talking about girls.
My goodness, Candy, those are astute comments, and I agree with them all. As an aside, I have often thought in love triangles depicted in novels and plays, that the men in question are more emotionally involved with each other than the woman over whom they ostensibly dispute.
Is this the case with Valentine and Proteus?
On the term 'as whole as a fish' my edition gives no explanation for that line...
Cross posted, Jonathan! Again intriguing...
Mod
(the cat-calling is not so god as an aside...the public display using another person to boost one's own social standing is not only inappropriate it is harassment. And it's not just males bonding...social climbing for class or status is also inappropriate and using other people to forward one's own status or sense of status is unethical)
Candy wrote: "No judgement about male bonding. Or bonding through discussing our love lives or attractions. We all do that, it's healthy. (the cat-calling is not so god as an aside...the public display using a..."I didn't know what cat-calling was. I looked it up and it is what I thought. It seems extremely rude, and yes, degrading to women. Kind of scary, if you ask me, if done in a big city by strangers.
Mod
You know you look at a cute old movie as a young woman walks by construction workers and they whistle...it seems quaint and something old fashioned in the movie...
But it is quite frightening....and these fellows don't stop, don't walk away they will pursue a woman.
I suppose it's also some kind of back lash or sense of longing for when men just pursued women like that in the 40s or 50s in NYC
My other personal experience outside of NYC was Rome. It felt so weird to have men yelling at you while you're just trying to sightsee...and possibly feel invisible in a strange country.
any sense of it being "flattering" disappears under a weight of pressure to respond, "be nice" or "smile" or flip them a finger (which tends to make it worse)
Saying "smile" to someone is one of the worse things too.
When we think about it, Candy, things have not improved as much as they should since Shakespeare's time, when Julia has to travel form Verona to Milan disguised as a boy.
Mod
And Lucinda you're right about Zhukov having to hide as a man for safety. Things haven't really changed no.
