The Seagull by Anton Chekhov

The Seagull is my second Chekhov's play. The Cherry Orchard is the first - and I loved it - and that's why somehow I've expected the first would be, at least, as good as the later. Unfortunayely, I was wrong.

First of all, I don't really like Chekhov's style of focusing on indirect speeches, instead of dramatic actions, in this particular play. If you haven't been familiar with it, it's like when someone wanted to tell you that a character is dead, instead of dramatizing the death scene, he would write a dialog (that is supposed to happen a week after, for instance), casually indicating that that character (X) is dead:

A: "I don't know how we would ever complete this task."
B: "I know, after X's death, I can't seem to handle anything."

You know what I mean, right? I believe it's called 'subtext'. I'm not a fan of it. It makes the play somehow seems vague or dreamy. Add that to the fact that The Seagull is a considerably short play, and, as usual, with its confusing Russian's names and nick names. In short, it's a confusing little piece that I can't really grasp the meaning. What's it all about? I have no clue...

What I remember from the play is, there's a playwright (Konstantin), son of a retired actress, who was desperately trying to make his mother proud of his theatrical talent, but failed. His last attempt was writing and producing an unconventional play - play within play - on a built-in outdoor stage. The audience failed to comprehend his ideas - especially his mother who continuously mocked him. The play was stopped midway, and Konstantin stormed out with humiliation.

Then there's multiple love affairs between the characters. Konstantin loves the actress performed at his play, Nina; but the actress loves another writer, whom is also loved by Konstantin's mother. Meanwhile, Masha loves Konstantin, but she eventually married the schoolmaster who loves her. Meanwhile, Masha's mother is having an affair with a doctor. Really confusing, and with the shortness of the play, I couldn't really relate to their feelings, or even to the main characters.

I haven't talked about the seagull itself. It is an important factor in this play, as it is meant to be a symbol of something - which I didn't get to solve. The gull was shot by Konstantin, and he gave it as a gift to Nina, who was horrified by the sight. Maybe Konstantin isn't really a bad playwright, but he's certainly a bad lover!

All in all, it's not an entertaining play, and now I'm wondering whether I should move on to Chekhov's other major plays? Or should I just bailed on him? What would you recommend?

Rating: 2,5 / 5

Lady Windermere's Fan by Oscar Wilde

🌸 Lady Windermere is a woman with puritan upbringing. Despite living in the corrupted society (where it is common for married men or women to have lovers) her view of marriage is still pure and innocent.

🌸 Lord Darlington loves Lady Windermere, but she chided him for giving her much attention, while showing him her beautiful new fan, a gift from her husband, Lord Darlington. I believe the fan is a symbol. In this case, it symbolizes love and fidelity in marriage. It's a token of a happy marriage.

🌸 Then a Lady Berwick told her that Lord Windermere is having a mistress, a Mrs. Erlyne - apparently infamous as a lose woman. When confronted by Lady Windermere, he denied of betraying her, but couldn't say anything else. He even insisted to invite Mrs Erlyne to their party to help her back into the society.

🌸 Believing his husband is lost, Lady Windermere sought help from Lord Darlington, who took the advantage to propose elopement. She rejected it at first, but eventually relented, she wrote a letter to her husband and went to Darlington's apartement, but he's not at home.

🌸 Mrs. Erlyne, reading Lady Windermere's letter to her husband, followed her to Darlington's and persuaded her to return to her devoted husband. But Lord Darlington entered his apartement, together with Lord Windermere and other gents, which forced Lady Windermere to hide herself behind the curtain. However, she left her fan lying on the table, and the men interpreted that she, too, has been corrupted. Here the fan represents her (nearly) infidelity.

🌸 Mrs. Erlyne was quick to the rescue by claiming that it was she who has absent-mindedly brought Lady Windermere's fan there - putting the blame on herself, and thus sacrificing her own chance of restoration to the society. And finally, here, the fan represents two things.

🌸 First, the injustice that the hypocritical society imposed upon women. And most importantly it symbolizes how thinly the bar between good and bad. This play's complete title is Lady Windermere's Fan: A Play about A Good Woman. The question is, who is the good woman implied on the title? Lady Windermere? But she was on the brink of ruin, had not Mrs. Erlyne been in for the rescue! It's Mrs. Erlyne, then? But she's a self-centered woman, without morality, so to speak. Can one good deed compensate her many bad ones? I think it's just what this play is about, besides a critic against the corrupted society, where infidelity became a fashion; it is that good and bad are never absolute. In a bad environment, there could be one good element - pure and untainted. As it was in a bad person, there might be one kindness in him/her, ready to shine to protect the pyrenees of the good one.

🌸 It's been awhile since my last reading of Wilde's play - An Ideal Husband - if I remember correctly. I've been expecting this one to be as hilarious as either An Ideal Husband or The Importance of Being Earnest, but I was wrong. J is more subdued, full of secrets and mystery, but as poignant as always.

Rating: 4 / 5

The Three Theban Plays: The Oedipus Cycle by Sophocles

For me, Greek plays always have their own charms. Compared to Renaissance’s or any modern plays, I find Greek’s is more intense in emotion. It always feels like I was in a theatre watching the performance live. I have actually never done this, but still….

If I remember correctly, the first play I have ever read years ago is Oedipus the King—I read Indonesian translation then—and have been mesmerized by it. One aspect I love in Greek’s plays is the chorus. It reminds me that I’m reading a play, not a story written as a play.

Oedipus Cycle begins with Oedipus the King, the most famous one. Reading it at much mature age made me realize a wider theme it covers than just a tragedy of a son who married his mother and killed his father—though unintentionally. It speaks a lot about destiny. Can we, mortal, avoid it? Oedipus had tried hard by fleeing from his country; nevertheless it happened without his knowing. And the blow becomes harder because, firstly, he has listened to the prophecy (and worked hard to resist his destiny), and secondly, he then insisted on having all the truth. I imagined, if he have never known the prophecy, he would still have stayed with the Laius; never have come to Thebes to become their King with pride, and to marry Jocasta… and so on. But speaking about destiny, one often comes to think also about free will. “Is destiny a real thing? That makes us like some puppet; don’t have control over our life? If so, does free will also exist?” So… when we are still thinking hard (without coming to a satisfying conclusion), we might want to move on to the second play: Oedipus at Colonus. And there… only there do we get the answer!

Oedipus at Colonus is the opposite of Oedipus the King, in term of the theme. Oedipus—in his old age and banishment—is now a more humble person. He admitted how he was dependent on his daughters’ loving care and Theseus’ generosity; that without them, he was helpless. He didn’t grudge against his bad fate; he could accept it and be peaceful with himself. Only after that, his life became meaningful by giving others better lives. How beautiful the lessons Sophocles taught us from these two plays; that Antigone—the last play—was almost felt like anti-climax.

All in all, Oedipus cycle is a very emotional, intense, engaging, and entertaining plays. My favorite is perhaps Oedipus at Colonus—I was happy for Oedipus’ reconciliation, and was fallen in love with Theseus’ calmness, generosity, and noble character.

Witness for the Prosecution

I am an Agatha Christie’s fan since in high school, but this was my first time of reading her play. Now I must admire Christie more than before, as she turned out to be as good a playwright as she was a crime-novelist.

This play is about Leonard Vole, a young man who was charged for murdering an old woman. The scene moved alternately from Sir Wilfrid’s chamber—the defense counsel, to the Center Criminal Court—better known as The Old Bailey. Emily French, a rich old woman, was fond of Leonard for having helped her in a little incident—after which she was very grateful. One night Leonard visited her; and not long after he went home, Emily was found dead with a blow on her head. Leonard was afraid that the police might think he was the murderer, so he asked Mr. Mayhew—his solicitor—for advice. They came to Sir Wilfrid’s office, and during their discussion, the police came to arrest Leonard. And so Sir Wilfrid came to be Leonard’s defense counsel.

Apart from the rather awkward opening scene, I liked this play. As usual, Christie could peel her characters layer by layer to their (almost) real hearts and minds; but still keep the biggest twisting surprise at the end. She wrote it very detailed too; it would be easy to perform it, as she described each little detail of the scene, down to exact location of the furniture. She also described the characters’ movement, for instance: not only “on the desk”, but also “on the down right corner of the desk”. Without watching it on stage, you could easily use your imagination to “perform” it in your own head. And if you read it carefully, some scenes are a bit funny, which will make you grinning amidst the gloomy atmosphere of the brutal murder.

Four and a half stars for Witness for Prosecution; a quite enjoyable modern drama from Dame Agatha Christie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I read Harper Collins paperback

This book is counted as:

Play On Challenge 2015: April – Freebie Month

A Doll House

It’s been one and a half year since I met a play with a striking ending, which forced me to rewind what I’ve been reading in my head, and then…I saw it differently from my first read. That was my previous experience with The Cherry Orchard; and now the same thing happened again when I finished A Doll House.

All the scenes take place in the Helmers’ residence. Torvald Helmer is an ex lawyer who, after having struggled financially, is fortunate to have been promoted as the manager of a bank. Nora, his wife, is a woman with loose moral and indifference over practical things. Excited by his husband’s promotion, she starts squandering money buying expensive things, taking for granted their future big salary. Unknown to her husband, she borrowed money from a man named Krogstad, a scoundrel who work in the same bank where Torvald is going to be the manager, who is right now struggling to clear his reputation. He blackmails Nora to persuade Torvald to promote him, or he would unveil her forgery secret to her husband. It is slowly revealed that Nora is keeping much darker secret from her husband, than only borrowing and spending money.

A Doll House is a story of typical family in 19^th century, when women were treated as household accessories, or in this play was symbolized as the husband’s doll, instead of an equal partner with the husband, where a wife should have been. After being treated like a doll by her father, Nora finds herself trapped in the same situation now with her husband. But Nora would have never realized anything wrong had not she been blackmailed by Krogstad, that her marriage is in the verge of destruction. Maybe Ibsen wanted to open the eyes of the society about this, although later he rejected the idea that this play was about feminism.

It is intriguing that this play’s title is originally translated to A Doll’s House. But some scholars call it simply A Doll House—an apostrophe that changes the context. The second version refers to Nora as a victim—which she is. She is never a wife; she is just the doll which Torvald keeps in the house, which he can play at his pleasure. So the ideal home of Helmers is actually a doll house. But with the apostrophe, it seems that Nora, the doll, is the owner of the house—which she is not. So maybe the simple version suits more what Ibsen wanted to say.

I have mixed feelings during and after reading this play. I’m so impatient with women like Nora—I can’t even decide whether she is simply naïve, stupid, or morally corrupted. Could it possible for a grown up woman to think she can do anything in the name of love, never feels guilty, and unless someone tells her, will never realize the risk? She is certainly not stupid, as she can act cunningly cleverly by forging her father’s signature to have the money in time. So, I believe it’s her moral. *spoiler alert* Her final action of leaving her family to “discover herself” only justifies my idea that Nora lacks of conscience; she only lives for herself. I can understand if she did it to prove to Torvald that she is not the beautiful doll he can keep and adore as accessories. But, again, she never thinks of the consequences, especially with her three children. How selfish it is to leave one’s children to improve oneself!*spoiler ends*

Although Nora should have been the protagonist here, I couldn’t help sympathizing with Torvald. I think he really loves Nora, and thinks spoiling her is the best way to show his feelings. Torvald is molded by the society, and he just acts like everybody else, without ever thinking that there is something wrong. Why, even his wife doesn’t think it wrong before the incident. So, I can imagine how shocked he is by Nora sudden decision.

Five stars for A Doll House; and I’d certainly read more from Ibsen.

~~~~~~~~~~

I read Signet Classics paperback

This book is counted as:

Play On Challenge 2015: March – Post-Renaissance

88^th book for The Classics Club Project

Macbeth

Frankly speaking, I was a bit disappointed with Macbeth. It turned out not as intense as I have expected. I have read somewhere that Macbeth is one of Shakespeare’s shortest tragedies, and maybe it is true, as the scenes seemed to be passing quickly before leaving deeper impression upon me. I have once seen some illustrations of the three witches; but in the play, they didn’t seem grim at all. The eerie atmosphere felt after Macbeth killed Duncan, and later on when Lady Macbeth was sleepwalking with candle in her hand. Maybe this play in particular would be much better when performed on stage, than read as a book.

Macbeth is a Scottish general, and after having won a battle, the Emperor Duncan praises him for his bravery. When he is chatting with his colleague Banquo, they meet three witches whom greet them with prophecies. Macbeth would become Thane of Cawdor (he is at present Thane of Glamis), and then a King; while Banquo is prophesied to beget a line of Kings though he himself will not. Almost right away someone tells Macbeth that he is now Thane of Cawdor after the previous one died. Macbeth instantly believes the prophecies to be true, and begins to build ambition for becoming a King.

When the King visits Macbeth’ castle, Lady Macbeth encourages the reluctant Macbeth to murder King Duncan. He did it although got disturbed after the deeds. As he is Kings nearest relative, Macbeth is soon crowned as King of Scotland. But he never rests assured about his throne as he still remembers what the three witches has prophesied about Banquo; so he sent murderers to kill him. Disturbed with guilt, Macbeth seeks assurance from the three witches; whom tells him that no one born of a woman will kill him but to be careful with Macduff—a lord. So when Macduff wants to take revenge for his family’s murder, Macbeth keeps calm as ‘none of woman born shall harm Macbeth. But is it possible for a human being to be invincible? Or is Macbeth deluding himself?

My favorite part from this play is Macbeth’s soliloquy after hearing the news of Lady Macbeth’s death: “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow…”. It is perhaps the only one that really touched me. I can feel how desperate Macbeth is when losing his strong supporting wife while he must be prepared for the grand battle. I almost even felt sorry for him. Here are the full lines:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day

To the last syllable of recorded time,

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

It makes you thinking….do our days of life really signify nothing? Perhaps it doesn’t if you lead a wrong way to live. Just like Macbeth…

I must admire Shakespeare’s great influence in Renaissance literature. His did give a new structure and style to plays, remodeling the old Greek’s and making plays flow more fluently and dynamically. And his role in elevating English language is not to be questioned. But sometimes his lines can be vulgar, which reduce my admiration to him.

Three and a half stars for Macbeth.

 I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted as:

3^rd book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge2015 (Renaissance)

Play On Challenge 2015: February – Renaissance

87^th book for The Classics Club Project

Doctor Faustus

“If Shakespeare had died at the age Marlowe died, there would have been no question that Marlowe was the leading figure in English Renaissance drama”—I found this on the back of my copy of Marlowe’s The Plays. I have only read Doctor Faustus, so I could not fairly justify, but comparing Faustus with Shakespeare’s other non historical tragedies I have read so far, I must admit that (for me) Marlowe is in the lead.

I always feel Shakespeare’s humour was a bit tacky, while Marlowe’s was more elegant. Marlowe’s tragedy (again, I only read Faustus) is full of reflection, while Shakespeare’s are more dynamic. For people who like only to watch drama for amusement, Shakespeare’s would be more pleasant to watch. Marlowe’s is a bit darker and tends to make us think deeper. Maybe Marlowe’s are more suitable for reading.

Faustus is a learned man (he’s a Doctor anyway), and after having learned various sciences, he is not yet satisfied. So he learns necromancy and magic, with which he believes he could have limited power over the universe. He is guided by one of Lucifer’s servants, Mephistophilis, who promises him his unlimited service if he agrees to serve Lucifer. Despite of warnings from his own conscience and the good angel, Faustus blood-signs an agreement with Lucifer to swap his soul with power, knowledge, and pleasure.

Doctor Faustus is a reminder for us all how human fall to sin. Greediness is perhaps the seed of all sins; it is when man wants more than what he deserves to get. Faustus is provided for learning every science he wants, but it’s not enough for him. At this point the devil can easily buy him. But the fall of men to sin is usual story; the true tragedy lies in Faustus’ stubbornness in repentance, though God has offered His mercy.

There are two version of Doctor Faustus exists, the A-text (published in 1604) and B-text (1616), and it’s still on debate, which one (or both?) was really written by Marlowe. I decided to read both; so I started with the whole of A-text first; then continued on B-text but skip the same parts, only focusing on the alternate. I must say in the end that the B-text is slightly better. I loved particularly the ending in B-text, when the scholars found Faustus’ body ‘all torn asunder by the hand of death!’ . Maybe the A-text is more dramatic because, I imagine, were it performed on stage, Faustus’ last anguish shriek when he was brought by Mephistophilis would be heard as a hollow echo when everybody exited, before the chorus closed the play by announcing the horrific tragedy: ‘Cut is the branch that might have grown full straight’. But the scholars’ scene in the B-text allows us to feel the horror more intensely, although I think it would be too eerie to be performed on stage. But the best addition of the B-text is perhaps Scene 6 Act 4; the comical scenes of Robin and Dick, and Faustus and the horse-seller. It’s not as slapstick as Shakespeare’s, but it helped reducing a bit the dark atmosphere; funny but witty.

Interestingly, Marlowe put a historical figure in the play: Pope Adrian VI, who is dealing with his rival, Pope Bruno, whom was more favored by the Emperor. Only later did I learn that Pope Bruno was fictional character. I still did not understand why the Pope should be put here, other than became a ‘toy’ whom Faustus could chaff and play using his new power of magic (a symbol of how low Faustus has sinned, that he dared ridiculing a Pope?) . Or was Marlowe mocking or criticizing the political power of Catholic Church then?

Anyway, Doctor Faustus is a great tragedy from one of Renaissance greatest dramatists: Christophe Marlowe. The spirit of learning new things which colored the Renaissance era reflected in Faustus’ passion in knowledge. He has studied philosophies like many his contemporaries, but also economy, physic, law, and theology—which he finally put aside as they weren’t as tantalizing as necromancy. Play-wise, there was still trace of Greek plays in Doctor Faustus, i.e. the chorus at the start and the end. Besides that, Marlowe’s style was more freely flowing than Greek. His chaffing on Pope Adrian and the Church officials was perhaps reflecting how Renaissance era began to shake off the dominant power of the Church in Medieval era.

Five stars for Doctor Faustus, or originally The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read the Wordsworth Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

2^nd book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge 2015 (Renaissance)

1^st book for Back to the Classics Challenge 2015 (A Classic Play)

Play On Challenge 2015: February - Renaissance

86^th book for The Classics Club Project

Agamemnon by Aeschylus

After reading Agamemnon, I was sure that Greek plays should be better enjoyed as performance than as book. I have read Sophocles’ Oedipus several years ago, and have almost forgotten how beautiful and dynamic Greek plays are, with all the strophe-antistrophe-epode. Reading them in books reduces the plays’ dramatic uniqueness. Unlike modern plays like Wilde’s or Shaw’s—or even Shakespeare’s—which are rich in characters and dialogs, in Agamemnon I only met with Clytemnestra, Agamemnon (whose name served as the title, but the character’s emotion was not much explored), Cassandra, and Aegisthus, besides the Chorus, the Watchman, and the Herald.

The play is opened by the watchman, who is waiting for a signal from Troy. King Agamemnon and his troops is on a mission to bring home Helen (his brother’s Menelaus’ wife) from her capture in Troy. Then it’s slowly revealed that before sailing to Troy, Agamemnon made a human sacrifice so that the wind favored them. The victim was his own daughter. The scene before the sacrifice was quite heartrending…

On Agamemnon’s leave, the queen Clytemnestra rules the kingdom. She seems to be rejoiced when finally her husband comes home safely and triumphantly. However, a slave whom Agamemnon has brought from Troy (the daughter of Priam, Cassandra) predicts that Agamemnon would be killed by his wife. It turns out that the murder was planned by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus (Agamemnon’s cousin) as an act of revenge. Clytemnestra avenges her daughter’s murder; while Aegisthus blames Agamemnon for serving his two brothers (boiled!) to his father—who was Agamemnon’s rival of the throne of Argos.

While Agamemnon is constructed by beautiful rhymes, the length of the each dialog could be quite tedious to read. Maybe it’s because Aeschylus was one of the first Greek tragedians. Euripides’ Medea and Sophocles’ Oedipus were more enjoyable for me.

Three stars for Agamemnon.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read ebook from Adelaide University’s Online Library

This book is counted as:

Play On Challenge 2015: January - Ancient

85^th book for The Classics Club Project

Coriolanus

After delving into plays for a year last year, I thought another Shakespeare would have been enough for me this year. However, this particular play has interested me since my last year plays event: Coriolanus, so when The Classics Club announced January to be Shakespeare theme of our Twelve Month of Classics Literature, I instantly decided to give it a try. Historical-tragedy has been my most successful theme of Shakespeare, and although Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleopatra are much more famous, Coriolanus turns out to be another gem from the Bard!

The play depicted a Roman general named Caius Marcius, who lived in around 5^th century BC. While he was fighting against the Volscians in Corioli, the plebeian were lamenting about grain price which was at that time controlled by the senate. They put the blame on Marcius, and hated him for that. Things were getting worse because Marcius faced the plebeian in an openly contemptuous manner.

While he was not good in social life, Marcius was highly successful in his military campaigns. He won the Volscian battle very bravely, where Cominius—his commander—gave him the name of Coriolanus: the conqueror of Corioli. With the win, he also won Senate’s respect and appreciation, and they supported him to run for consul. However the tribunes: Sicinius and Brutus provoked the citizens to oppose it. Being under-pressured, Coriolanus was enraged and insulted the people. He was banished from Rome, and finally decided to join his enemy, Tullus Aufidius of the Volscians, to retaliate against his own country.

Coriolanus is a typical portrait of the patrician-plebeian conflict, which is still relevant in any country in any era. I read in Sparknotes analysis, that Shakespeare may have gotten the inspiration for the plot from the actual conflict between King James and the Parliament in England’s early 17^th century, the time when Shakespeare wrote this play.

Coriolanus was perhaps a great military commander, but he was far from a good state leader (consul); he even had contempt for plebeian or the common people. So I think this is not a pure tragedy, because it was Coriolanus himself who made the circumstances against him. His fall was caused by his pride and ambition; he failed to gain people’s respect, and he was blinded by his ambition for revenge that he could not detect Aufidius’ betrayal.

The play is very engaging; the plot is flowing nicely, the stage arrangement is very good and helps us to learn the actual situations. The war is very lively, but most of all, the speeches are very strong! Although a secondary character, Volumnia—Coriolanus’ mother—is an influential figure in Coriolanus’ decisions. Her speeches are so noble, touching and inspiring. Even Coriolanus was very moved by his mother’s speech, that he changed his mind about destroying Rome. His anger was replaced by tears under her mother’s words.

This time Shakespeare is succeeded in controlling my emotion to the play’s climax, and I finally found a new favorite play. Five stars for Coriolanus!

  ~~~~~~~~~

I read e-book from Feedbooks.com

This book is counted as:

Twelve Months of Classics Literature project: Shakespeare in January

66^th book for The Classics Club Project

Hamlet – Final Review

After reading Hamlet, I can officially announce that tragedy is my most favorite theme when it comes to plays. The story is more intense and there is less nonsense than in comedy. Although I tend to like historical tragedy (Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, Saint Joan and Richard III are my favorites), Hamlet is good, and I quite like it.

Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark. His father—Hamlet senior, the King—has just passed away, and now Denmark is ruled by Claudius, King Hamlet’s brother. Not only the kingdom, Claudius also took over the Queen—Gertrude—to be his wife. In his mourning, Hamlet was told by his friend Horatio that a Ghost that looked like the late King Hamlet has appeared lately. One night Hamlet saw, or rather met, the ghost of his father, who said that he has, in fact, been poisoned by Claudius while he was asleep, and he wanted Hamlet to take revenge for him.

Still unconvinced by the ghost, Hamlet arranged with a group of actors to perform a certain tragedy based on a story he wrote himself, the story of his father’s death (according to the ghost). Hamlet wanted to seek proof of Claudius guilt, and to justify his revenge plan. Claudius was angry and plannd to kill Hamlet, while Hamlet killed Polonius accidentally as he thought he was Claudius. Polonius’ son Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet to take revenge of his father’s death, and he was used by Claudius to kill Hamlet in an arranged duel, involving poisoned sword and poisoned goblet of wine. As in every tragedy, everybody died, leaving Horatio to tell the world the whole truth.

I like Hamlet for his smart tongue, it seems that he always wins from anyone who wants to pull something off him that he doesn’t freely give. His counter to Guildenstern’s unceasing pressing questions is one example. Hamlet insisted that Guildenstern should try playing a flute despite of the latter’s confession that he doesn’t know about melody. Hamlet then uses the flute playing to satirize his impending questions: “Call me what instrument you will, though you can fret me, yet you cannot play upon me.” Clever!

And when he wasn’t roused by the passion for revenge, he could be quite romantic too I guess…

“Doubt thou the stars are fire,

  Doubt that the sun doth move,

  Doubt truth to be a liar,

  But never doubt I love.”

I wonder, did he actually love Ophelia? And if Claudius have not killed his father, would he marry her? Just playing “if”…. :P

His speech, when he and Horatio met a gravedigger, is quite interesting too; he talked about how men would all end in the same shape: skulls in the grave. It makes me reflect of how vain everything we think is important in this world, as it would be vanished when we are dead.

One rather contradictory thing: Hamlet did not kill Claudius when he caught the King praying. Is it a noble act? If refusing to attack someone unprepared is the reason, then I can see Hamlet as a gentleman. However, Shakespeare purposely wrote that Hamlet thought that killing a man while he was praying would hinder the victim from ascending to Heaven. Is this some moral conscience? But he was having revenge, which is against conscience. And he killed Polonius nevertheless (thinking he was Claudius) when he was hiding behind the tapestry, definitely unprepared. So why did the praying aspect make the difference?

Overall, Hamlet could be one of my favorite characters, if only he hadn’t taken Polonius’ accidental death rather lightly. I know that he didn’t mean that, and he must focus on his own mission, but I still think he didn’t care much that he has wrongly killed an innocent man. Well….is it possible that Hamlet, in his effort to be appeared crazy, has let his mind be poisoned with the revenge plot, as to become slightly unbalanced? Maybe….

Four stars for Hamlet, and this would be my last play I read for Let’s Read Play!

~~~~~~~~

I read e-book version from Feedbooks

This play is counted as:

 13^th book for Let’s Read Plays (October) theme: Shakespeare Tragedy

19^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

57^th book for The Classics Club Project

Saint Joan: Final Review

There are so many plays I had wanted to read for this last freebie month of Let’s Read Plays; but at the end I picked George Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan. And what a perfect choice I’ve made! I loved Joan, I loved the play, and I loved Shaw’s writing, right from the beginning.

Shaw opened the play from Robert de Baudricourt’s farm, whose hens have been failing to produce any eggs for several days. His men believe that a maid who has been stubbornly stay there was the culprit. The maid is Joan—a peasant girl who asked Baudricourt to equip her with arms and suits, and send her to raise a siege in Orleans during the Hundred Years’ War. How can a seventeen year old girl want to go to a war? Joan isn’t an ordinary girl, for she is chosen by God for the mission. She claims to hear voices of St. Catherine, St. Margaret, and Michael the Archangel, that God has sent her. Something in Joan moves Baudicourt to provide what she wants, and right after that, a miracle happens, the hens laid eggs, and that convinces Baudicourt that Joan is indeed guided by God.

Joan goes to the Dauphin, the young Charles who is waiting to be crowned. Joan wins Charles’ heart; she encourages him to send her to lead his army. He equips and sends her to the battle. In the battle another miracle happens after Joan’s arrival, ensuring Dunois—the chief commander—to let The Maid to lead the army. They win the battle, and Charles is coroneted as King Charles VII. It’s from this battle that Joan is nicknamed The Maid of Orleans. Unfortunately, there are many people who dislike Joan’s conduct. The landlords and the Church authorities have their own reasons to stop Joan’s mission, and so she is captured at last and brought to trial for heresy. As we all know, Joan was then accused of committing heresy, and burnt on the stake as her execution. However, twenty five years later a new trial was being held, which cleared the heresy accusation. Joan then canonized as Saint in 1920.

Retelling a known history might not be an easy job, but Shaw has done it very beautifully. Although we already know the plot, it is very enjoyable to read the play. Joan’s warm, innocent, honest and blunt character is the soul of the play. She made us see what is needed to be God’s servants: humility. Because it is when we are free of personal ego, that God could fill our soul with divine things. The Church authorities in this play are busy with rules, gospels, laws, and doctrines, that they forget what is most important for the Church, that is God’s voices. It is instead in an ordinary peasant girl that He pleased to grant it: Joan.

Although she is only a peasant girl, and never had the opportunity to learn theology or things like that, Joan could match the Chaplain, Bishop and Archbishop’s arguments when debating about God’s voices. For Joan, God’s will is above everything, so no matter how strange His instruction is, she would follow without asking. The intellectual men, on the other hand, are proud with their knowledge and ability, that when they see something they don’t understand, it obviously comes from the devils.

Like I said, this play is very enjoyable. The dialogs are lively and full of emotion; the plot is smooth; and Shaw’s description of the scenes and settings are very clear, as if we are watching the play being performed on stage. Although it is a tragedy, Shaw could be quite funny at times that is enough to make you smile. I like to read Joan’s innocence; her dialogs are sometimes naïve, funny, but also full of virtues. The ending is quite surprising; I won’t even believe that there would be ghosts in a saint story if I haven’t read this play. But I think it just emphasizes the main theme and adds the irony; a perfect way to conclude the whole tragedy. The soldier’s appearance in the ‘ghosts’ conference’ is also quite hilarious! ;)

Five stars for Saint Joan, and it made me want to read Shaw’s other plays. You can also read my deeper analysis of the play here and here.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook version from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted as:*

12^th book for Let’s Read Plays (September) theme: Freebie

18^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

5^th book for Books on France 2013 Reading Challenge

9^th book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

6^th book for Historical Fiction Challenge 2013

53^rd book for The Classics Club Project

The Well-Educated Mind Self Project

Twelfth Night [Review & Play Monthly Meme]

Orsino—Duke of Illyria—is wooing Olivia, a lady who is in mourning of her death brother and doesn’t want to meet any man. Meanwhile, Viola—also a lady—is stranded in Illyria as her ship wrecked, separated from her twin brother who was at the same ship before the wreck. She wants to hide her identity, so she disguises as a man and serves as Orsino’s attendant, Cesario. As she becomes the Duke’s favorite, Orsino sends her to woo Olivia for him, which is hard a task for her as she is actually in love with her boss. The plot becomes much more complex when Olivia rejects the Duke but falls in love instead with the messenger (Viola in disguise). Meanwhile Sebastian—Viola’s twin brother—has actually landed on Illyria too; and as he is Viola’s twin brother, it’s hard to distinguish one from another; and that adds to the complexity of the misunderstandings.

As always with Shakespeare’s comedies, this play is about misunderstanding, disguising, and coincidences. There are the ladies and gentlemen, but also the losers (Sir Toby Belch and Sir Andrew Aguecheek), and of course The Fool who is often cleverer and wiser than the others :). I’m not a fan of comedy, but this one was quite enjoyable as a light reading. However, I still cannot appreciate some vulgar humors of Shakespeare (and maybe I’d never do) in this play.

One character that annoyed me is Maria. The way she’s playing at Malvolio is, for me, too much. Maybe Malvolio deserves to be given a lesson by his colleagues for his haughtiness, but to false your boss’ handwriting to insult your colleague is ‘grossness’—the word Maria used to describe Malvolio’s appearance: “For there is no Christian that means to be saved by believing rightly can ever believe such impossible passages of grossness. He’s in yellow stockings.” And why must she use Christianity to compare such silliness? Ridiculous and not funny at all!

Play Monthly Meme August theme: Favorite Scene

I think the cleverer of them is Viola, and her dialogue with the Fool in Act 3 Scene 1 is very interesting. From the whole play, this scene is my favorite. I enjoyed the Viola-Fool dialogue, and also Viola (Cesario)-Olivia scene where Olivia is clearly attracted to Cesario, and how Cesario feels awkward about that. It’s funny really, when you see it being presented on stage. It’s funny that Olivia didn’t see how Cesario reacts (her body language most of all) just as women do. See here (it becomes more interesting because they staged it outdoor):

Three and a half stars, for I enjoyed the play, although it’s not too special.

P.S. I still don’t understand, why this play is titled Twelfth Night? Are the scenes really stretched in twelve nights?

~~~~~~~~

I read ebook version from Feedbooks

*This book is counted as:*

11^th book for Let’s Read Plays (August) – Shakespeare Comedy

52^nd book for The Classics Club Project

The Cherry Orchard – Final Review

For Let’s Read Plays – other author theme of July, I have picked Anton Chekhov. Chekhov is actually more famous with his short stories; he is actually the father of short story writing in Europe. I have once read one of his short stories, and have caught his clear, sharp, and deep method of writing. And I thought it would be interesting to see whether his play was written in the same style. I picked The Cherry Orchard, in particular, as it is listed on my WEM self project. I have worked on the Act summaries, as well as the stage inquiries: the first and the second level.

The Cherry Orchard tells the story within the Ranevskys’ household. The famous cherry orchard itself located within the Ranevskys estate; and said to be one of the most beautiful places on earth. It might be exaggerated—as a cherry orchard should looks just as other cherry orchards—but it certainly kept the secrets and history of the family for many generations, which creates a special bound between the orchard and the residents; the cherry orchard looks beautiful because it bears many memorable events of the past. And now the Ravenskys must let their estate go, as it would be sold in an auction to pay their debts.

This play’s main conflicts lay on the cherry orchard’s sale, as each of the characters’ future would be depended on the sale. There are people who detest the idea; Lubov Andreyevna—the present owner—a widowed mother, who has been abroad for five years before finally returns to Russia. Lubov cannot think of leaving, as she would be like being cut off from her history by that. On the other hand, Lopakhin—a businessman, son of the estate’s old slave but later on was raised by the family—insists that the cherry orchard must be cut down, so that a villa can be built on it. Trofimov—a family teacher—is pleased with the idea of moving from the estate, and is excited to welcome the future together with Anya, Lubov’s daughter. While for Varya—Lubov’s adopted daughter—it would be a total ruin, as she would loose her job besides her home.

To read this play as only portraying what it performs, would be very deceiving. At first, you would think that the whole play is only the fuss around losing a family estate and moving away. But if you read between the lines, you would find Chekhov’s idea or critics on how Russians see the upcoming waves of change. At the time Chekhov wrote this, modernism was entering Russia, and the old values are struggling to survive (this play was first performed on 1904). Each character here stands for certain idea which reflects the contrast between people who are with modernism versus people who keep holding on the Old Russian values.

In the play, you’d see many incoherent dialogs or scenes within the Acts which makes the plot seems won’t go anywhere. Actually the first four Acts feels flat and overstretched, you would be asking yourself, what does Chekhov wanted to say, really? Just keep reading, because in Act Five Chekhov would change the gear, and the acceleration is suddenly increasing towards a climax. And lo! The ending would be very surprising, if not shocking. After the curtain has been down, you would sit still, struck, and couldn’t believe that the play has ended, and that ‘that’ would be the end! And then, you would reflect the whole play, of the pieces of incoherent dialogs and scenes, and suddenly, every piece would makes sense, as if the play is a huge puzzle game. By reflecting it, you would also see what Chekhov has wanted to tell you beneath the flat story. And finally, you would see the genius brain of the author who could present his ideas in this play!

Four and a half stars for The Cherry Orchard, as although I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the sudden changes in scenes or immediate incoherent interruption, the language is beautiful, and I love Chekhov’s detailed description of the background settings.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook version from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted as:*

Let’s Read Plays (July) theme: Other Author

49^th book for The Classics Club Project

Richard III – Final Review

Richard III is the first Shakespeare historical themed play I‘ve ever read, and I can say now that I prefer politics-with-tragedy theme more than any others. After Julius Caesar, I think Richard III has become my new favorite. I enjoyed the clever speeches of Richard and the overall story.

The story begins when England’s two royal Houses of Plantagenet dynasty, Lancaster and York, have just put on a peace treaty after their long time war. It was now Richard’s brother, Edward, who ruled as King of England. Richard seemed to be bored at the idleness of peaceful time, and being encouraged by his high ambition, he invented a bloody strategy to snatch the throne from Edward, and at the same time thwarted the others whom he’s afraid would prevent his plan.

Helped by his friends—Buckingham was his chief supporter—Richard sent murderer to kill a lot of people, including his closest relatives. To highlight his cold heart, even the murderer—who supposed to kill two little innocent princes Prince Edward and Duke of York—felt remorse for a moment, before finally slain them; while Richard took it very lightly. Richard knew that to legitimately take over the throne he must make it desired by the citizens. He worked on it cleverly, and it rewarded him the throne of England.

At this stage he should have been invincible; however as he had reached the throne by deceitful ways, Richard became paranoid of his friends. Small mistakes in replying him could raise Richard’s suspicion; his Kingdom was built on the fragile foundation of fear. Resentful friends betrayed him and supported Earl of Richmond (Henry Tudor) in the Battle of Bosworth, where Richard was finally defeated by Richmond, and England was peaceful once again under King Henry VII (aka Richmond).

Despite of the lack of conscience, Richard’s diplomacy skill deserves two thumbs up. Twice he had had almost-impossible-to-win arguments. First, to propose Lady Anne—whose husband he had just killed—to be his wife. Second is to propose to the Queen (Elizabeth) to marry her daughter; while Richard knows how Elizabeth hates him so much. I know it’s quite absurd how those two ladies could ever agree with him; but nonetheless, Richard’s speeches are very clever and persuasive. And he won both of them! He reminds me a bit of Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew.

Beyond that, it is very hard to sympathize with Richard; he is just a true villain with corrupted soul from the beginning of the play. Nonetheless, Richard is the most interesting character in this play, and learning a bit of his history is quite enjoyable. Here we have battle, murders, a bit of romance, ghost apparition and superstitious, as always with Shakespeare tragedies. I have only one complaint. In the version I read (ebook from feedbooks), the mentioning of the characters are often inconsistent. One example, Lord Stanley is sometimes mentioned too as Derby, which is often confusing.

Four and a half stars for Richard III. You can read my further analysis on this play in my WEM posts.

~~~~~~~

Let’s Read Plays History theme

15^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

4^th book for Historical Fiction Challenge 2013-2015

8^th book for Well-Educated Mind Self Project

47^th book for The Classics Club Project

An Ideal Husband

“Every man of ambition has to fight his century with its own weapons. What this century worship is wealth. The God of this century is wealth. To succeed one must have wealth. At all costs one must have wealth.” (Sir Robert Chiltern—An Ideal Husband)

Once again I was amazed by Oscar Wilde—this guy is really cool, isn’t he? After having been impressed by The Picture of Dorian Gray—Wilde’s masterpiece for me—Wilde made me laughing hard at his witty sarcasm in Importance of Being Earnest. After that I was a little worried whether his other plays would be exactly like Importance; very funny but lack of deeper values. I was wrong! This month I picked An Ideal Husband for Let’s Read Plays and, fortunately, The Classics Spin also picked the play from my list by spitting the lucky number 6! So there I was, plunging into the fraudulent scheme, political twist, love story and morality of British society in 19^th century. And, although the beginning is rather flat, An Ideal Husband turns out to be one of the most entertaining plays I’ve ever read so far; and more importantly, it’s much deeper than Importance!

Sir Robert Chiltern is an honorable gentleman in society, and respectable politician in the House of Parliament. He was appraised by so many people, but little do they know that Chiltern had done a shameful deceit in his earlier career, from which he has been building his later career and fortune. Lady Chiltern is also a high reputation ‘flawless’ lady in the society. She adores her husband for being pure and noble. In a party one night, a crafty woman named Mrs. Cheveley blackmailed Sir Chiltern to support a fraudulent scheme that he disapproved in the House, or otherwise she would release an old letter that will prove Chiltern’s deceit in public and will ruin his life.

Lord Goring, a young gentleman who leads an easy going, fashionable and enjoyable life style, is a closest friend of Robert and Gertrude Chiltern. Being sarcastic and indifferent outside, Arthur Goring is actually a kind hearted friend inside. When Robert and Gertrude were on the edge of losing each other’s love following the blackmail, Arthur separately tried to help them. Unfortunately, several trivial accidents put Arthur in a complex situation himself; he almost lost his friends’ trust and, most importantly, the young lady he was in love with.

As always, Wilde’s strength in plays is the combination of intertwining plot, complex failures, sarcasm paradoxes to criticize British society at that time, and his clever wittiness. But particularly in this play, Wilde plunged deeper than merely witty banters. My favorite character here is Lord Goring, he’s as easy going as Lord Henry in Dorian Gray or Algernon in Importance, but he also possessed a wise philosophy beneath his indifferent manner, which was always ready to be presented whenever his friends needed it. Far from being shallow, Goring’s advices to Robert and Gertrude were so genuine and useful at the same time. My favorite scene is when Lord Goring gave his speech to Lady Chiltern after the lady restrained her husband from accepting seat in Parliament. Here’s part of it:

“Women are not meant to judge us, but to forgive us when we need forgiveness. Pardon, not punishment, is their mission. […] A woman who can keep a man’s love, and love him in return, has done all the world wants of women, or should want of them.”

In the end, Wilde wants to criticize how British society has been worshiping wealth and status too much that they neglected the genuine values in life: love and honesty. When Robert Chiltern consulted with Arthur Goring after the blackmail, Goring’s first advice is to confide to his wife; that Lady Chiltern loves him and thus will forgive him. On the other hand, Goring also advised Lady Chiltern to forgive his husband, and instead of blaming him, to accept and support him with her love. From the Chilterns’ conflict, I learn that every family, every person must sometimes have crisis in life; but that crisis often get bigger than it should because we are reluctant to be honest. As soon as the Chilterns opened themselves to each other, one by one the complicated problems were eventually unraveled.

Wilde is also emphasizing women’s role in the society. Instead of expecting their husband to be perfect and worshipping them like gods, they should act as a partner by loving and supporting them. It’s really interesting that the philosophy must come from Lord Goring, who was a bachelor. With that quality of perspective, we should envy whichever girl Arthur Goring picks to marry, for he would certainly be an ideal husband!

Four and a half stars for An Ideal Husband, really entertaining!

~~~~~~

Let’s Read Plays (June) theme: Oscar Wilde

Baca Bareng BBI 2013: (June) European Literature

46^th book for The Classics Club Project