Tuesday, July 13, 2010
William Shakespeare
Hi guys, its Omar. I was wondering why is that Shakespeare's plays usually end up tragically or in a way he makes the evil characters in his plays pretty obvious and the main one ignorant. For example, wasn't pretty obvious what are Iagos intention or in Macbeth isn't lady Macbeth or the witches pretty obvious in their actions too, but still the main characters will suffer a tragic ending without them thinking. like Why? Thanks :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's better that they end in tragedy because plays, movies, stories that end in a happy ending are boring and predictable because there are so many of them. The good guys don't always win.
ReplyDeleteI think it was more so to portray real life. In all honesty, how often does one truly find something in their lives that actually ends up in a happy ending? There is always going to be a tragedy somewhere, even if you think you're happy and I believe that Shakespeare tries to show that through his plays. Basically, what I'm saying is happy endings are clichéd and fake because not everything is all happiness, love and song. You have people in your life who lie and manipulate you, make you change yourself without really meaning to, etc.
ReplyDeleteActually, the antagonists in Shakespeare's plays aren't always so obvious. They may be obvious to us, but to the other characters themselves not so obvious. It's dramtic irony where the audience knows of their evil, but the characters of the play don't. Usually tragic plays help to teach a hard moral lesson and gets the point across.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with all of guys. True that Richard for I haven't looked at it from the characters point view. Thanks alot guys ;)
ReplyDeleteI did a little research on the topic of Shakespeare and why he wrote so many tragedies and why his characters are what to us may seem, ignorant. Many people had different views of this but one answer that I liked was from the site 'www.springfield.k12.il.us'. I'll include a link to the article for you if you'd like to research this further because it is quite interesting and opens your eyes to a whole new perspective on Shakespeare.
ReplyDeleteThe part that I wanted to include is as follows:
William Shakespeare started writing tragedies because he thought the tragic plots used by other English writers were lacking artistic purpose and form. He used the fall of a notable person as the main focus in his tragedies. Suspense and climax were an added attraction for the audience. His work was extraordinary in that it was not of the norm for the time. A reader with even little knowledge of his work would recognize one of the tragedies as a work of Shakespeare.
Article link: http://www.springfield.k12.il.us/schools/springfield/eliz/shaktragedies.html
Thanks, Kattawe. You've added some important and interesting facts to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteA couple of other facts people may not know about Shakespeare include: he was not the most popular playwright in his time AND when public education was first implemented in Ontario, Shakespeare's plays were not viewed as being suitable for serious study--they were regarded as too "popular," much in the same way certain novels are too "popular" for certain ENG 4U teachers.
Going back to Occam's Razor, maybe the most obvious reason is true. Is it possible that his audience enjoyed tragedies, so that's what he wrote?
ReplyDeleteBrian, good work with the razor. There is no doubt that the plays were commercially motivated.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare was clever enough, however, to play the game. That is, he was able to both serve up something that pleased the masses (even if it wasn't to the same extent as his contemporaries Marlowe or Jonson) and also let him speak as a critic and artist. In several places, but Hamlet particularly, he mocks 99.9% of his audience, suggesting that they only understand "[the] dumb show and noise." Hamlet and, by extension, Shakespeare suggest that an artist is better off having the approval of the one judicious critic in the audience than the rest of the rabble. This suggests to me that Shakespeare didn't mind that his tragedies were not met with the same acclaim as Jonson's or Marlowe's. I suspect that he was more interested in pushing the boundaries of tragedy or recreating the genre all together.
So back to Omar's original remarks. Perhaps there is some obviousness in terms of villainous characters and plots but there is greater subtlety in terms of Shakespeare's villains over his contemporaries.