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.

The Sorrows of Young Werther

Once in your lifetime, there would be a moment when everything seems smooth and feels right, that you know you are producing something bigger than anything you have done so far; The Sorrows of Young Werther might have been that of Goethe! In Chinese philosophy, there is a concept called Wu Wei, which literally means non-action or non-doing. The Chinese believes that there will be times when we don’t have to fight so hard to achieve something. All you have to do is to wait for that perfect moment to come, when you don’t have to work so hard, yet everything complies with your wish, then voila….your masterpiece! Goethe wrote Werther after being acquainted with a young man named Jerusalem, whose faith had similarity with his own. He finished the book in four weeks without making any preliminary plans or putting it down on notes before. And from the result (especially the ending) I could see how much Goethe has poured out his emotion into it. So intense and powerful was it, that I have lost my mood to read the rest of his writings for several days.

Werther is a young man with passionate temperament who was staying on a village. He wrote letters to his friend William, telling him all about what he has done and how his feeling was from day to day. These letters were woven into this epistolary novel. Most of the letters were about Werther’s infatuation with a peasant girl named Charlotte (he called her Lotte). They had a lot in common, and although Lotte didn’t return his feeling but engaged and married to another man, they became intimate friends. But Werther could not get rid of Lotte from his life; his love for her was too strong. The last letters he wrote to William showed how much his mental was disturbed. It affected his artistic mind too, that he was unable to paint, or even do, anything.

Werther should be a perfect reading for those who have interest in psychology; a bit similar with the troubled Philip in Of Human Bondage, though Philip’s sorrows were more complex, as the root of his problems did not come from passionate love, but from the lack of universal love. From Werther I learned to always have control and balance over our own life. Sometimes we need to follow our feelings, but at other time, when you do not feel happy, there must be something wrong in what you are doing. Your rational side must take over to make yourself balanced. The art of life is in the balancing our two poles to drive our lives to happiness.

Looking at the style, Goethe might be more suitable to Romanticism than Enlightenment. The melancholy atmosphere and his flowery sentences in Werther were very romantic. However, his regard over life (and particularly in suicides) gave him a little credit to be in the Enlightenment too, in his reasoning against traditional values praised in the Renaissance. In fact, Goethe was one of the proponents of the new movement called Sturm und Drang (=Storm and Drive) in German, which succeeded The Enlightenment, and prepared for the coming of Romanticism. Its uniqueness was in the extreme emotional expression, which you can undoubtedly find in Werther.

Five stars for Goethe and his almost autobiographical story of the young Werther!

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

I read Signet Classics paperback

This book is counted as:

4^th book for Literary Movement Reading Challenge:Enlightenment

89^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

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

Romeo and Juliet [Play + Movie]

Let’s Read Play’s theme for this month is tragedy, and I have picked one of Shakespeare’s most famous tragedies of all time: Romeo and Juliet. Although I‘m not a fan of romance story, least of all teenagers romances, I braced myself to give a try on this particular play. Well, I must say that my instinct has never failed me before, and it doesn’t this time also. It turns out that I could not enjoy this play, and it didn’t move me like Julius Caesar did me, for instance.

First of all, I am annoyed by the harsh—and sometimes very vulgar too—humour Shakespeare put in this play. I know that somehow it is his style, but I think it has come at an annoying point this time. Maybe it’s because I have been expecting ‘Romeo and Juliet’ comes as a romantic yet tragic love story, that there would be flowery sentences and paragraphs. They do appear of course, but especially in the beginning, there are also harassing comments or insults from Romeo and Mercutio around sexual topics. And as this has happened in the very early Act, it diminished my mood (and respect) to read the rest.

What interesting me is the eternal hostility of two Houses in Verona: Montague and Capulet. The play can portray very well how each of the families took their hostility; how the youngsters especially, were eager to ignite strife whenever they met the enemies. It is in the situation that Romeo Montague and Juliet Capulet found themselves in love. And apparently, the hostility of the two families could only be resolved by the two teenager’s sacrifice. It’s quite ironic, considering that these two youngsters were merely thinking about their passionate love, but from them the adults would have to learn much about the real meaning of ‘love’.

Considering that this is about teenagers’ love, the story is as ridiculous as you could have expected, but I think the plot is interesting; how the mistiming and misunderstanding caused the tragedy. It’s only proving how love can sometimes be blind for naïve (or foolish?) people. Three stars for this tragic play—which did not really moved me, honestly…

~~~~~~~

Right after finishing the play, I jumped to the movie adaptation. I picked Baz Luhrmann’s version, partly because that’s the only one I had (:D), and partly because I was curious to see the earlier collaboration of Baz Luhrmann and Leonardo diCaprio (before The Great Gatsby).

I’ve already known that the movie would be in modern settings, before I watched it, so I was a bit surprised to see that Luhrmann only alter the settings, but not the dialogues! The dialogues were really picked from the original play, and that makes the whole movie is really unique. Listening to those punk boys speak in Shakespearean language was weird but interesting.

Here Leonardo diCaprio is in his earliest career, and this movie shows distinctly the difference with his present acting. However, I think he plays Romeo quite convincingly as the waverer and sentimental young man. The rest of the stars are not very prominent, except for Harold Perrineau, Jr who plays as Mercutio, who is the most interesting character in this movie.

One of my favorite scenes is Juliet’s tomb—which in this case doesn’t look at all like a tomb. It is very eloquent and glamour (typical Baz Luhrmann, of course), and the scene of Romeo and Juliet in their last agony is superb! Only while watching Romeo drinks the poison not knowingly that Juliet is stirring beside him, and Romeo’s expression when he knows the truth, that I am really moved. So in this case, for me, the movie has enlightened the play rather than the other way round. 7 to 10 is my final rating for this adaptation.

~~~~~~~~

I read the ebook version from Feedbooks dot com

This book is counted for:

May theme of Let’s Read Plays: Shakespeare’s tragedy

5^th book for Back to the Classics 2013

11^th book for What’s in A Name Reading Challenge 2013

43^rd for The Classics Club

I watched the movie for Books Into Movies Monthly Meme #6

Medea by Euripides

After having to skip last month theme for Let’s Read Plays, I have been looking forward to read a Greek play. It’s been few years since I have enjoyed read Sophocles’ Oedipus—translated in Bahasa Indonesia—the only Greek play I’ve ever read, and I had a good time with it. This time I picked a Euripides’ of Medea. It’s a quite short play, but a very strong one.

Medea was a princess of a barbarian land of Colchis. She abandoned her land and her family for the sake of a Greek man she devotedly loved, Jason. The play began with a prologue by the Nurse (Medea and Jason’s) who put the background of the play. Medea and Jason had been husband and wife with two sons, lived in Corinth. There—either for gaining place in the royal family, or merely for his lust on King Corinth’s beautiful daughter—Jason abandoned Medea to marry the princess.

Here, Euripides seemed to underline the disadvantages of being a woman, from Medea’s soliloquy:

Of all things upon earth that bleed and grow,

A herb most bruised is woman. We must pay

Our store of gold, hoarded for that one day,

To buy us some man’s love; and lo, they bring

A master of our flesh! There comes the sting

Of the whole shame. And then the jeopardy,

For good or ill, what shall that master be;

Reject she cannot: and if he but stays

His suit, ‘tis shame on all that woman’s days.

Medea told us what she thought about being a woman. A woman needed a man as a husband under some excessive price (I take it as a dowry). The man then would have control over her, yet, she could not be sure beforehand whether he would be good or bad; while she could not divorce him if he turned out to be bad, as divorcing would ruin her reputation. So either way, she must take that husband. And after that, the husband would take her to his home, a new place where she must adapt herself to whatever the condition, and must accept the husband as he was. If the marriage turned good, she would be grateful, but if it turned bad, she must want to be dead. Then, the husband might get bored to his wife, and began to seek entertainment outside; while a woman must be satisfied with one man only in her entire life, while bearing his children.

But Medea was not a melancholy woman, who accepted her unfortunate faith with bitter tears; she was spiteful and severely enraged by Jason’s infidelity. She was at last banished by King Creon of Corinth for making everyone frightful by her cold and cruel manner. In fact, she has murdered her own brother and has persuaded two sisters to kill their father before arriving in Corinth. Became more enraged with her banishment, she then prepared a most cruel and cold-blooded revenge to Jason, his wife and his father.

I had a mixed feeling while reading Medea; I enjoyed the plays structure, language and the emotional sense in detailed description. However I was a bit inconvenient with the vulgarity of the murder scene. Medea’s intense anger and the turbulence of her feeling were captured very vividly by Euripides, as if I was witnessing the action myself; and for me, it’s the most attracting point of this play.

Some people called Medea’s killing her two sons as madness, but I think it was more of a fight between her hatred versus affection—and in this case the hatred won. I don’t know much about madness, but Medea felt sorry for her children; she altered her decision from killing them and releasing them for several times, it only meant that Medea still have affection for her children.

Cold-blooded she was, I could not put the blame only on Medea’s part. I hated Jason more than Medea, for treating his wife so coldly. How clever he was in his reasoning of marrying King’s daughter, that he actually still loved Medea, and only marrying the princess as a chance to protect their family in their exile in Corinth; that Medea should be thankful to live in Greek instead of Barbarian country where she came from. Here Medea was right, if Jason honestly wanted to marry Creon’s daughter merely for survival, he ought to tell the truth to Medea. I agree with the Chorus, Jason deserved Medea’s punishment. If only she did not take his sons too in this revenge scene, I might have been more enjoying this play. If only after several times altering decision, the last one was departing with his sons to Aegeus’ country, I might have had more sympathy towards Medea.

In the end, I believe, Euripides has written it for purpose, as if to tell us how women—delicate their nature are—could be more cruel and stronger than men when you hurt them. And most of the times, it’s about infidelity in love. That’s why, beware you, men….!

~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted for*

 Greek play theme

35^th book for The Classics Club Project

7^th book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge2013

3^rd book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

King Lear

This is the third tragedy I read from Shakespeare; but unlike the previous two (Julius Caesar and Antony & Cleopatra), I did not find King Lear as I’ve expected. My biggest problem was the language. Being a non-English-native-speaker reader, I’m just beginning to get familiar to Shakespeare’s plays at Let’s Read Plays event. In two of three plays I’ve read since November 2012, I must sometimes consult the No Fear’s Shakespeare; only with The Merchant of Venice I read the whole play without any difficulties. With King Lear, unfortunately, I spent most of my readings with NFS. :(

King Lear is all about deception; it criticized how people like false, wordy and flowery declarations than true and honest confessions, and outer appearances rather than inner affections. The irony was that the elders—who are supposed to be wiser—were the worst victims of their children’s deception.

The play is about King Lear and Earl of Gloucester, and interestingly, both had had a similar faith. King Lear was going to divide his Kingdom to his three daughters, so he demanded them to declare their love level to him. The more they loved him, the bigger their share. Goneril and Regan both announced their exaggerated love declaration, while Cordelia—who deeply loved her father—could not find words to describe it. King Lear appreciated Goneril and Regan’s declarations, and granted them each along with their two husbands, half part of the Kingdom; while—being enraged with Cordelia who he thought didn’t love him—he banished the youngest princess.

On the other hand, Gloucester had two sons, a real one and a bastard one. The bastard Edmund—being hurt of how people talked about him as a bastard and envied his brother—accused his brother (Edgar) as a traitor. Gloucester—digested the case without further consideration—was enraged, that Edgar was forced to runaway in disguise. When the crimes were then revealed, both King Lear and Gloucester lost their insanity out of deep rage and regret—enraged to the traitors and regretted for bad treating the innocence. And just as typical tales, when King Lear and Gloucester were at their hardest times—both children they had rejected came to rescue them with a tender heart and forgiveness.

Besides that main plot, King Lear was also about loyalty vs infidelity. Kent, who had been serving the King, was banished when he defended Cordelia from his father’s banishment. However, instead of revenge, he return in disguise to serve King Lear as a lower attendant, while secretly was closely in contact with Cordelia about King Lear’s condition. Meanwhile Goneril and Regan had had affairs with the same man, Edmund. Goneril even asked Edmund to kill his husband, Duke of Albany, whom was a generous man, thus was different from his wife.

What confused me is the war between France and England. Was that really a war between two nations? Or was it merely Cordelia’s intention to set her father free, that King of France decided to send troops to England?

Actually I picked this play for its high ratings in Goodreads and positive reviews from others. I read it with high expectation, but left slightly disappointed, for the story was quite typical and ordinary. In fact I was wondering, is this play going to be enjoyable to be performed on stage? I feel that this play would be much better written as a novel than as play. I was also surprised at the vulgar comment about women here, which I found quite insulting.

“Down from the waist they are centaurs, though women all above. But to the girdle do the gods inherit; beneath is all the fiends'. There’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the sulfurous pit— burning, scalding, stench, consumption!”

Three stars for King Lear. Not my favorite so far, and I’m now looking forward to Shakespeare’s history theme for February.

*I read the ebook version from FeedBooks dot com*

*This book is counted as*

January’s Freebie theme of Let’s Read Plays

2nd book for What's In A Name Challenge 2013

31^st book for The Classics Club

Antony and Cleopatra – Final Review

This is my second Shakespearean tragedy after Julius Caesar, and while we are still entertained with wars—though not as flourish as Julius Caesar’s—we are also spoiled with stories of love and lust, loyalty and betrayal, nobleness and dirty politics; all bitters-and-sweets in human’s live.

I believe Antony was a great general, he fight with his soldiers; not just watched and gave orders from the camp (compare this with Octavius who pointed Agrippa to lead the army), and for that his soldiers loved and respected him—well at least before he was crazy. He was a gentleman of his time, always treated his soldiers fairly, and his friends loyally. However—as every man must have his weakness—Antony could not resist love charm; and in this case, the charm has a name: Cleopatra, the queen of Egypt.

From the beginning of the play we can see that Cleopatra was an obsessive woman, she kept asking Antony how much he loved her. If one does not know her reputation, one might think she was just like any other silly young girl who was in love. But I believe this was not the case of Cleopatra. I think she was an ambitious, self-possessed and even cunning woman—you could not become a queen at that time if you did not possess those qualifications—and for her, to keep her throne was more important than to win a man’s heart. I think, after Caesar’s death, Cleopatra needed an allegiance to protect her interests, and she had chosen Antony.

On the contrary, Mark Antony had really fallen in love and trapped into Cleopatra’s charm, that he neglected his duty as the ruler of one third of the world, leaving the young ambitious Octavius worked alone (with Lepidus) in Rome for his own interests. This was Antony’s biggest fault, to let his heart controlled his brain. However, with a woman so charming and determined like Cleopatra, it’s difficult for Antony to avoid his faith.

Cleopatra on the Terraces of Philae
by Frederick Arthur Bridgman, 1896

I loved this play a lot, it has all you can ask for an exciting reading; history, romances, politics, wars and witty dialogues now and then. I always love Roman history, so I don’t have any trouble of loving this one too, plus I think I’m a new fan of Mark Antony, although Cicero is still (for me) the best. One thing I don’t like from this play, is how Cleopatra was portrayed here by Shakespeare. I think, except for once or twice when she was really angry and in the last chapters, one will think Cleopatra was a spoiled teenager who was madly in love.

I am still wondering whether Cleopatra had betrayed Antony as Antony had accused her. If not, why had the Egyptian deserted their master twice, first in Actium battle, second near Alexandria? And Cleopatra never gave Antony any reason why she had instructed her army to abandon him in Actium, nor did she defend herself when Antony accused her after the last battle; she just left him and hid in the monument.

Assuming that Cleopatra was innocent and she hid herself merely afraid of Antony’s rage, why did she send her eunuch to tell Antony that she had died, but then sent another messenger to say that she was still actually alive? Did she send the first one because she knew how Antony would react if he heard about her death—thus keeping her promise to Caesar; then sent the second one because she was in fact still in love to him? Oh what a complicated woman!

The label of “hero of this play” I think must be granted to Eros, who—when was instructed by Antony to kill him—chose to end his own life because he could not kill his own master, but he did not want to disobey him either. Antony did not have the courage to kill himself and must ask his men’s help, but Eros stabbed himself without any doubt. Antony killed himself as a result of his own conducts, but Eros killed himself merely of his infinite loyalty to his master.

“My dear master,

My captain, and my emperor, let me say,

Before I strike this bloody stroke, farewell.

(stabs himself) Thus I do escape the sorrow

Of Antony’s death.”

I have enjoyed this play until Mark Antony died. After that, it’s like an anticlimax for me. I did not really want to know how Cleopatra will end her life (for I had already know the facts), and what Octavius would do. Act V was the most boring part of this play, and for that—and for absurdity in Cleopatra’s manner—I granted four stars for Antony and Cleopatra. Although this play was slightly interesting than Julius Caesar, but all in all, I liked Julius Caesar more.

You can read my post for each act: Act I - Act II - Act III - Act IV - Act V