Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Having struggled manfully through The Tempest (although enjoying parts of it a great deal, the famous speeches, the climactic scene where everyone gathers on the beach together 'Oh brave new world!' etc. etc.), I thought I'd give Shakey another crack and started re-reading 'Henry IV pt 1'. Perhaps it's because I'm quite familiar with the play now, or perhaps its because its more obviously entertaining and satisfying, but I'm enjoying it sooo much more.
some reasons why
1. i've stopped trying to squeeze an understanding out of the verse of the 'music' of shakespeare, which sometimes i seem to hear but mostly i remain deaf to, perhaps misapprehending what others mean by 'music' - the only time i can really 'hear' this is when he does some comparatively vulgar trick like alliteration or rhyme...
paradoxically(?) by doing this i think i'm closer to understanding the rhythm of it because the rhythm is in part a rollicking rhythm, not some sort of laboured, pompous 'speechifying'
2. instead i've tried to focus more on the plot, who is speaking, what sort of voice shakespeare has given them, trying to visualise the players and so on. aside from the difficult language i think this is what makes shakespeare particularly difficult to read (and infinitely interpreted by actors) - you have to do a fair amount of work to imagine what's going on, what tone of voice is being used, etc.
3. i've simply relished what shakespeare himself obviously relishes, particularly in this play perhaps - words. The variety of oaths, similes, metaphors, puns etc. the mixing of 'high' and 'low' language (which is hard to apprehend sometimes as a 21st century person - when a character is using a word sarcastically to mock pretension, e.g., it's hard to catch it because almost ALL the language looks pretentious in the modern context). when you start to relish this, the 'key' section becomes less an annoyance than a treasure chest of olde wordes.
some reasons why
1. i've stopped trying to squeeze an understanding out of the verse of the 'music' of shakespeare, which sometimes i seem to hear but mostly i remain deaf to, perhaps misapprehending what others mean by 'music' - the only time i can really 'hear' this is when he does some comparatively vulgar trick like alliteration or rhyme...
paradoxically(?) by doing this i think i'm closer to understanding the rhythm of it because the rhythm is in part a rollicking rhythm, not some sort of laboured, pompous 'speechifying'
2. instead i've tried to focus more on the plot, who is speaking, what sort of voice shakespeare has given them, trying to visualise the players and so on. aside from the difficult language i think this is what makes shakespeare particularly difficult to read (and infinitely interpreted by actors) - you have to do a fair amount of work to imagine what's going on, what tone of voice is being used, etc.
3. i've simply relished what shakespeare himself obviously relishes, particularly in this play perhaps - words. The variety of oaths, similes, metaphors, puns etc. the mixing of 'high' and 'low' language (which is hard to apprehend sometimes as a 21st century person - when a character is using a word sarcastically to mock pretension, e.g., it's hard to catch it because almost ALL the language looks pretentious in the modern context). when you start to relish this, the 'key' section becomes less an annoyance than a treasure chest of olde wordes.
Last edited: