def would have appreciated this more if i were like, reading this for class and had someone to explain to me wtf the significance was. as was, i was bdef would have appreciated this more if i were like, reading this for class and had someone to explain to me wtf the significance was. as was, i was bored
i do not know where sara dug this one up but SOMEone (ws gilbert) clearly found the character of hamlet annoying. this is so bizarre. here is the linki do not know where sara dug this one up but SOMEone (ws gilbert) clearly found the character of hamlet annoying. this is so bizarre. here is the link for future (?) reference...more
a good thing about all the lords being killed off slowly up to this point is that it makes it easier to keep track of who's who and on what side in tha good thing about all the lords being killed off slowly up to this point is that it makes it easier to keep track of who's who and on what side in this installment simply by virtue of there being fewer of them? anyway henry was so interesting even if he's a bad ruler and i'm glad we got more of him (finally) (sara hasn't read yet but i predict she won't like him at all because "he's useless" / "he's a bad ruler" even though i think he's also so INTERESTING she won't see it. i'll be back to update). i thought hal monologued a lot in henry v but that's nothing compared to henry vi and richard here. like in hal's, though, i will say there are generally interesting things in the monologues here.
when two claimants to the crown are named edward and they show up in the same scene and discuss claiming the crown, including hypotheticals where they stick 'king' or 'prince' to their names, things can get a little confusing. i understand this is history but england why. can you not find other names than edward or henry. everyone is named edward or henry. i was surprised by the prominence of margaret's role, though, and how she was treated largely respectfully and got to have her lead-the-armies arc without becoming a betrayer or falling to madness like shakespearean women so often do.
hands down the funniest thing that happens in this play is when margaret and clifford are like "all right henry you can leave now margaret's more successful leading the armies when you aren't around" and henry is like "alright" and then later he brings it up all casual again like "yeah they want me to stay out of it bc they fight better when i'm not in the way."...more
[waits patiently for sara to read so she can tell me the historical political significance of what's going on][waits patiently for sara to read so she can tell me the historical political significance of what's going on]...more
bored, mostly. first two acts were the king being sleazy and the last three were just battle sequences. the most interesting stuff was surrounding oatbored, mostly. first two acts were the king being sleazy and the last three were just battle sequences. the most interesting stuff was surrounding oaths and keeping your word with the "salisbury gets a get out of jail free card" subplot...more
surprisingly not as bad as i was expecting, though kind of boring. katherine was the best she had great speeches and deserved better. felt very propagsurprisingly not as bad as i was expecting, though kind of boring. katherine was the best she had great speeches and deserved better. felt very propaganda for elizabeth (even though she was dead at this point)...more
not to be a snob but this one would have been better if shakespeare had written all of it. turns out almost all the parts i disliked were fletcher. henot to be a snob but this one would have been better if shakespeare had written all of it. turns out almost all the parts i disliked were fletcher. he lacks nuance....more
on the one hand, this neither made sense nor compelled me. troilus and cressida seemed like side characters in their own play. there was no closure. ion the one hand, this neither made sense nor compelled me. troilus and cressida seemed like side characters in their own play. there was no closure. i had no idea what the main plot was supposed to be or where it was supposed to be going. everyone talked incessantly about nothing and came to no conclusions.
five stars solely for antony's funeral speech tbh like the rhetoric there! especially as it contrasts with brutus's! would love to see it performed.
nofive stars solely for antony's funeral speech tbh like the rhetoric there! especially as it contrasts with brutus's! would love to see it performed.
no but i enjoy greatly the clear contrasts in qualities between brutus and cassius and then the similarities between brutus and caesar and whatever antony's got going on in his crafty little mind (then you know where he ends up in a&c and it's just pathetic. really a deterioration antony you were so good).
i am fascinated by brutus and cassius's relationship especially because of the contrasts in their qualities because you can see why they're friends and balance each other out but you can also see why they get into such arguments as the one in 4.3 (and also how they resolve them so wholly). (i also don't think what they're explicitly arguing about in 4.3 is actually the argument they are having; don't have all the thoughts on that yet but brain whirring.)
brutus is also the most interesting character individually imo just because of the way he justifies everything and the things or qualities he prioritizes (which are not politics but adjacent and useful enough there to serve to give himself the impression he is good at politics when really he is not, which is also an interesting dimension of his character)...more
Loading...
