Funny? Really? I personally don't see it, I'm more of the 'Mock the Week' type.
I do appreciate the fact there is some comedy in a very serious play, I find bits of Hamlet funny. But, I do feel like it was a bit of a waste of paper. The reason for this unnecessary scene? Well, my strongest opinion is that it acts as a 'breather' from the text. The scene following [1.4] is a pretty dense one, so I think that the scene is to cheer people up before something really bad and (at the time) blasphemous happens.
Other interpretations are that it provides contrast between the darkness of the text. Some believe it was written by another play write, and added in at a later stage to bulk out the text? And some think that it is there to show the world isn't all doom and gloom like the play suggests. The clown represents happiness, light-heartedness and hope- hope that there are people in the world who can have a laugh with =out having to involve the Prince of Darkness.
I prefere the nitty-gritty stuff of the play myself. Bring on the sex, drugs and rock and roll of Dr F.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Mepha...Mephastoph....Mephistopheles!
Just about worked out how to say that name. To be honest, I struggle with saying 'Faustus' properly.
Anyway, doing a little catch-up of the blogs. What do I think of old Meph? Well. On first introduction, I was unsure what to think of him. Yes, he made a good effort in trying to convince Faustus that being damned to hell is, well pretty crap. He tells us of the suffering; 'Think'st thou that I who saw the face of God/And tasted the joys of heaven [...] O Faustus! Leave these frivolous demands!' So he does try to persuade Faustus against the 'sell your soul' idea. BUT. Is this just an attempt at reverse psychology? I refuse to believe that Meph really means what he is saying, as if he really didn't want Faustus's soul, he wouldn't of taken it. And later on he says 'aside' to the audience (who, by the way cannot be lied to or tricked) how he is so very desperate for Dr F's soul. He doesn't sell hell very well, but I do think it is some kind of mischievous trickery.
That's my opinion out of the way with. I was doing a bit of surfin' on the net, and found some interesting ideas about what Mephistopheles is. Wiki reckoned that he is part of the old German folklore, and that he is not actually a devil, just a man who's purpose in life is to serve.
It's interesting that Shakespeare makes a reference to 'Mephisophullis' in his text 'Merry Wives Of Windsor' (Remember the theory that Shakespeare and Marlowe was the same person/wrote bits for each other).
AND another thing i found which was interesting but is probably more relevant in the rest of the play, are ideas that the relationship between Mephisopheles and Faustus is a homosexual one? And that Faustus is unsatisfied with his wife/many women because of his feelings for his little devil? Interesting stuff.
Anyway, doing a little catch-up of the blogs. What do I think of old Meph? Well. On first introduction, I was unsure what to think of him. Yes, he made a good effort in trying to convince Faustus that being damned to hell is, well pretty crap. He tells us of the suffering; 'Think'st thou that I who saw the face of God/And tasted the joys of heaven [...] O Faustus! Leave these frivolous demands!' So he does try to persuade Faustus against the 'sell your soul' idea. BUT. Is this just an attempt at reverse psychology? I refuse to believe that Meph really means what he is saying, as if he really didn't want Faustus's soul, he wouldn't of taken it. And later on he says 'aside' to the audience (who, by the way cannot be lied to or tricked) how he is so very desperate for Dr F's soul. He doesn't sell hell very well, but I do think it is some kind of mischievous trickery.
That's my opinion out of the way with. I was doing a bit of surfin' on the net, and found some interesting ideas about what Mephistopheles is. Wiki reckoned that he is part of the old German folklore, and that he is not actually a devil, just a man who's purpose in life is to serve.
It's interesting that Shakespeare makes a reference to 'Mephisophullis' in his text 'Merry Wives Of Windsor' (Remember the theory that Shakespeare and Marlowe was the same person/wrote bits for each other).
AND another thing i found which was interesting but is probably more relevant in the rest of the play, are ideas that the relationship between Mephisopheles and Faustus is a homosexual one? And that Faustus is unsatisfied with his wife/many women because of his feelings for his little devil? Interesting stuff.
Monday, 19 September 2011
Last Lesson
Nice cake.
Made it through the chorus and about half of the first scene of Dr Faustus. My impressions of Faustus at the moment is swaying on a negative impression. His arrogance throughout the first page, quickly dismissing every career option (including his favourite, Theology) as though he is above the study of philosophy or medicine. He even questions Aristotle.
He also appears to me as a blasphemous person. He wants to become a 'deity', and have power between 'the quiet poles', ring any bells? Hitler perhaps? Maybe that's a little too far, but still. Especially in the context of reception. Marlow's audience would be Catholic. I get the impression that Marlow was writing satirically, as he was accused of being an atheist.
Like every Gothic protagonist, there is a slight feel of the super-natural. In Frankenstein, Frankie plays around with the creation of life. In Dracula, the idea of werewolves and ability to change form and even an unknown presence. With Faustus, the super-natural refers to magic. "These metaphysics of magicians/And necromantic books are heavenly."
So overall, my impression of Faustus's character is that he is arrogant, intelligent, has a strong desire for power yet he is ambitious and blasphemous. All of this fits into the ideals of Gothic protagonist.
Made it through the chorus and about half of the first scene of Dr Faustus. My impressions of Faustus at the moment is swaying on a negative impression. His arrogance throughout the first page, quickly dismissing every career option (including his favourite, Theology) as though he is above the study of philosophy or medicine. He even questions Aristotle.
He also appears to me as a blasphemous person. He wants to become a 'deity', and have power between 'the quiet poles', ring any bells? Hitler perhaps? Maybe that's a little too far, but still. Especially in the context of reception. Marlow's audience would be Catholic. I get the impression that Marlow was writing satirically, as he was accused of being an atheist.
Like every Gothic protagonist, there is a slight feel of the super-natural. In Frankenstein, Frankie plays around with the creation of life. In Dracula, the idea of werewolves and ability to change form and even an unknown presence. With Faustus, the super-natural refers to magic. "These metaphysics of magicians/And necromantic books are heavenly."
So overall, my impression of Faustus's character is that he is arrogant, intelligent, has a strong desire for power yet he is ambitious and blasphemous. All of this fits into the ideals of Gothic protagonist.
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
The Bloody Chamber
Before beginning the story, I wasn't sure what to expect. Believing it was just a horror story or something like that, I didn't realise it was a Dracula-type story until a few pages in! Throughout the story, it isn't difficult to notice the copious amounts of sexual connotations and it has, in my opinion, similar references to the story of Pandora's Box? Suggesting man's desire for curiosity and proves that once told not to do something, you want to do it more. The character of the blind piano tuner is a lovely character, his blindness perhaps symbolising his 'inner beauty' or his inner knowledge and lack of care for vanity. The female protagonist, though portrayed as a naive young 17 year old girl, to me seems more mature than the way her patronizing husband does. In my opinion, it's the french marquis's fault for leaving her with the set of keys in the first place, if he thinks of her like a child, then what does he expect? Of course she'll do what she isn't supposed to! He's merely tempting fate. Bit harsh as well chopping her block off for going into a room. Good story.
Draculaa
Before reading, I didn't really know what to expect from this novel- the ending or if the way it was written (in letter/diary entry forms), but was very pleasantly surprised. Throughout the beginning of the novel (the first few chapters of Jonathan Harkers journal), you can tell that other vampire-type stories were all inspired by Stoker. He writes about how the count doesn't eat, there are no mirrors in his castle and how aversed he is to crucifix's. I do like the references to Whitby, having been there myself I know they're obsessed with Dracula.
Dracula is described as well to be animalistic, like a 'lizard' scaling the castle, how his cape is like 'wings' and how he has a control over the howling wolves. I think Jonathan is an interesting character, writing truthfully of his fears and how he feels trapped like a prisoner.
With characters Lucy and Mina however, I find things all a bit too romantic. They live for getting married and having children and especially Lucy seems very naive and immature. Mina on the other hand I think changes considerably throughout the novel and her character really matures and grows by the end of the novel. This was probably my favourite read of the summer though!
Dracula is described as well to be animalistic, like a 'lizard' scaling the castle, how his cape is like 'wings' and how he has a control over the howling wolves. I think Jonathan is an interesting character, writing truthfully of his fears and how he feels trapped like a prisoner.
With characters Lucy and Mina however, I find things all a bit too romantic. They live for getting married and having children and especially Lucy seems very naive and immature. Mina on the other hand I think changes considerably throughout the novel and her character really matures and grows by the end of the novel. This was probably my favourite read of the summer though!
Friday, 12 August 2011
Vlad The Bad
(1431-1476)So after being chucked off the throne twice and two wives, in Stoker's eyes, Vlad would stand out among others as one of the era's most notoriously evil rulers of the selected region. He was weird and obscure enough that few people to recognise his name, yet known to those for his acts of brutal cruelty.
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Mysterious Marlowe
Christopher Marlowe 1564-1593
Christopher Marlowe, father of the blank verse, brother of English tragedy, son of a shoemaker, and overall, a pretty strange fella. Baptised on the 26th February 1564 he was two months the elder of peer William Shakespeare. Awarded his Bachelor of Arts degree on behalf of the Privy Council due to his 'good service' and 'faithful dealings' to the Queen.
When it came to religion, Marlowe was a but of a left-winged kind of guy. Although he apparently dismissed allegations that he was an atheist, he admitted he did not believe in God. After Marlowe's friend Thomas Kyd gave up a few depositions (under torture none the less), the Privy Council began to 'keep an eye' on Marlowe, and investigated some serious charges made against Marlowe before his career in stage-writing abruptly came to an end. In fact, after Marlowe's death, Puritan Thomas Beard (The Theatre of God's Judgements) used Marlow's death as 'one of his warning examples of the vengeance of God'.
Despite being considered an extravagant gentleman, tobacco smoker and a homosexual, Marlowe was much more popular in his time than fellow play write, Shakespeare. His considered 'four great plays' include Dr Faustus, Tamburlaine the Great, The Famous Tragedy of the Rich Jew of Malta, an the historic epic, Edward the Second.
In Dr Faustus, his religious views came across strongly. Christian values persist the idea of forgiveness, yet at the final climax of the play, though the protagonist repents, his forgiveness is dismiss and he is ripped apart by the devil himself. It is said though, that the splendor within the story reflected that of the hierarchy of the 16th century, though the horror- perhaps not.
Marlowe's death in any case is an intriguing and strange subject. After being stabbed to death on the 30th May 1593. his death went undocumented, giving no real explanation for his death. Some say it was an assassination by the Privy Council, some say it was a drunken brawl between punters at a pub. However recent reports suggest that his actions before death may have attributed to his untimely death. Evidence shows he spent time with other suspected spy's. During late afternoon, he found himself in a squabble with Frizer who attacked Marlowe in 'self-defence' and stabbed Marlowe around his eye. Frizer was later pardoned, and Marlowe lies in an unmarked grave.
So what can we say about Marlowe? An outrageous and outlandish fellow who paved the way for the blank verse, yet was a private and secretive chap who found himself at a grim, bloody and unfortunate end to his mercilessly undocumented life. What can be said for him however, is that he lead the way for another important man in the history of literature. Marlowe set him in the right direction and influenced his work to a degree of genius, William Shakespeare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)