Scan barcode
siren224's review against another edition
4.0
الحياه كلها مسرح دي الريفيو لما قريتها من ١٤ سنة
الحقيقة لازم الجودريدز يحط رف للكتب اللي بتعيد قراءتها
.... الريفيو الجديدة بقي لما نشوف ١٤ سنة غيرت ايه
بداية انا قريتها كرواية مش مسرحية ف الادب العالمي للناشئين
وحبيت جدا الخيال الجميل وطبعا حبيت جاك جدا وهو صاحب الجملة الشهيرة ما الحياة الا مسرح
نيجي بقي لطبعة دار المعارف
حقيقة انا مش عارفة هي دي طبعة دار المعارف ولا طبعه المنظمة العربية للثقافة اللي تبع الجامعه العربية
عموما الاتنين حلويين والتقديم للمسرحية اكتر من رائع
ندخل بقي في المسرحية
حسيت ان تتشستون اسوأ مهرج ف مسرح شكسبير عموما
تاني حاجه بستغرب اوي من سهوله وقوع الابطال ف الحب ف كل مسرح شكسبير
عجبني طبعا جاك حسيت انه اكتر شخصية شكسبير عرف يقدمها ببراعة
والاكتئاب اللي عنده ده
حسيت في شخصيات زيادة كتير معرفش حشي بيها المسرحية زي فيبي وولم واودري
اخيرا ده ميمنعش انه انا بحب شكسبير اوي بحسه سابق عصره جدا !
بس بستغرب اوب من فكرة انه مفيش تاريخ محدد لنشر مسرحياته !
ومفيش نسخ كامله زي مكبث مثلا !
وبرده لاحظت حاجه غريبة ان الرجال هم اللي بيقوموا بدور السيدات ف التمثيل !!!
وبرده انا تخيلت ان العصر ده الناس كلها كانت بتتكلم بشعر وقافية وحكمة كده !!!
وواضح تأثير الثقافة الاغريقية جدا عليه !!
الحقيقة لازم الجودريدز يحط رف للكتب اللي بتعيد قراءتها
.... الريفيو الجديدة بقي لما نشوف ١٤ سنة غيرت ايه
بداية انا قريتها كرواية مش مسرحية ف الادب العالمي للناشئين
وحبيت جدا الخيال الجميل وطبعا حبيت جاك جدا وهو صاحب الجملة الشهيرة ما الحياة الا مسرح
نيجي بقي لطبعة دار المعارف
حقيقة انا مش عارفة هي دي طبعة دار المعارف ولا طبعه المنظمة العربية للثقافة اللي تبع الجامعه العربية
عموما الاتنين حلويين والتقديم للمسرحية اكتر من رائع
ندخل بقي في المسرحية
حسيت ان تتشستون اسوأ مهرج ف مسرح شكسبير عموما
تاني حاجه بستغرب اوي من سهوله وقوع الابطال ف الحب ف كل مسرح شكسبير
عجبني طبعا جاك حسيت انه اكتر شخصية شكسبير عرف يقدمها ببراعة
والاكتئاب اللي عنده ده
حسيت في شخصيات زيادة كتير معرفش حشي بيها المسرحية زي فيبي وولم واودري
اخيرا ده ميمنعش انه انا بحب شكسبير اوي بحسه سابق عصره جدا !
بس بستغرب اوب من فكرة انه مفيش تاريخ محدد لنشر مسرحياته !
ومفيش نسخ كامله زي مكبث مثلا !
وبرده لاحظت حاجه غريبة ان الرجال هم اللي بيقوموا بدور السيدات ف التمثيل !!!
وبرده انا تخيلت ان العصر ده الناس كلها كانت بتتكلم بشعر وقافية وحكمة كده !!!
وواضح تأثير الثقافة الاغريقية جدا عليه !!
thereadingsparrow's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.75
lucy_pip's review against another edition
adventurous
funny
hopeful
lighthearted
relaxing
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.75
abigailhaagen's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
fast-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
5.0
I liked this one a lot!! Extremely witty. A new favorite.
Also, since Rosalind is described as very tall, and I am very tall, I'm a shoe-in to play her. So please cast me as Rosalind ASAP thank you
Also, since Rosalind is described as very tall, and I am very tall, I'm a shoe-in to play her. So please cast me as Rosalind ASAP thank you
stephwd's review against another edition
4.0
Yes, I should have read or seen this a long time ago, but the thing about being an English teacher is that you end up regurgitating some Shakespeare texts endlessly – I could quote ‘Macbeth’ backwards several times over and have taught ‘Romeo and Juliet’ so many times that even if they had survived, I might have to kill them myself – yet others seem to fall by the wayside, which is a great shame. For me, ‘As You Like It’ has been one of these.
There is a great deal to recommend ‘As You Like It’: it is an amusing romp through the Forest of Arden where our central protagonists are thrust by circumstances or more accurately by the corruption of Duke Frederick, who in his desire to assume power ousts his own brother, the true ruler – Duke Senior- followed swiftly by his daughter, Rosaline (who is followed by her dearest friend, Celia, despite being Frederick’s own child) and then by Orlando and his brutal brother Oliver whom the Duke suspects of opposing him simply due to their past family associations with the true ruler. So much for the basic plot, which is ultimately not that complex particularly in comparison to other comedies such as ‘Cymbeline’ or indeed his tragic masterpieces such as ‘Hamlet’ that weave us through multiple locations over several months at break neck pace. This is Shakespeare so it is not an easy, I know what I’ll lie on the beach and read with a glass of wine kind of text, it takes thought and patience to decipher not merely the Elizabethan language, but also the subtleties of his imagery and the interweaving of symbolic patterns as well as the witty repartee that occurs throughout. So why bother?
In one word: Rosaline. Despite the fact that in Shakespeare’s age all female parts were played by boys, Shakespeare has a talent for creating brilliant women who sizzle with power and wit. Whether they lie at the heart of the play’s villainy like Lady Macbeth or glimmer with tragic vulnerability like Orphelia, they are fabulous parts to play. Anyone looking for a solo monologue should not have far to go here! Rosaline is the heart of this play: her superb wit and ability to defy not merely her gender constrictions but to out manoeuvre the simpering and egotistical male protagonists around her (including her rather insipid beau) makes her a force to reckon with. Her speeches alone that are so full of intelligence, pace and humour, are breath taking. This is a woman who knows her own mind and will do whatever it takes to get it even if it means making Orlando fall in love with her in the guise of a boy. At once funny, powerful and yet in her emotional engagement, sympathetic she embodies the play’s title and will get what she wants exactly as she likes it and even if it means defying social convention and the great powers of the land. She is the songstress of woman power long before the admirable Mrs Pankhurst began her campaign.
Despite being a comedy, this is a play where the language (despite often being prose dominated), has a wonderful poetic quality. The symbolism that Shakespeare threads throughout the play of hunting, of nature, of courtly love, of mythology connects the disparate settings of court and forest and creates a play with a sense of magical unity and harmony that is confirmed by the final pagan style weddings undertaken by Hymen at the play’s conclusion. It should also be added that this is the play famous for the ‘the Seven ages of man’ speech, which, to my shame, I have taught several times without really understanding its origin. Yet when this speech is taken within the context of the play, we realise the text, for all its comedy, has a darker heart. Thrown into the forest, we are in the summer of our existence, where love blossoms and our desires are fulfilled. However, we are also made aware through Jacques’ rejection of the court and melancholic perspective that this is ephemeral and ultimately, just as the stag must die to feed the hungry forest Robin Hoods, so must we too and that the end of the revelry will not truly be marriage but ‘mere oblivion.’ [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWFrwwmN3eA]
Nonetheless, by third point of recommendation is the sheer fun and fantasy of this play. This a text full of witty banter from Touchstone’s festive japes to the whole concept of an inverted society set free in the Arden forest. There are jokes and salacious interaction a plenty.
Yet, naturally, as with many Shakespeare comedies and particularly his problem plays such as ‘Measure for Measure’ nothing is ever that easy. Good old Willy is also commenting on the political makeup of his contemporary society – the dangers of a world where the legitimate ruler is overthrown, the need for order amongst a natural world of chaos and the essential nature of marriage to ensure that creation and especially procreation continue. Writing in the shadow of the War of the Roses, Shakespeare could be read as reaffirming the need for political rule and legitimate monarchy whilst at once questioning that rule if it becomes tyrannical or too detached from the environment and people over which it rules. I could quote one of his many profound lines at this point, but I think it will suffice to say that Willy was a clever bugger!
What also appealed to me about this play is its odd familiarity. Yes Shakespeare was a genius, but virtually none of his work was based on an original idea, not even this, which was actually based on a pastoral romance written by Thomas Lodge called ‘Rosalynde’. However, he also returns to many of his favourite themes: marriage, love, gender roles inverted, political usurpation, a magical fairy tale landscape that echoes that of ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’. In many ways Celia and Rosaline could be viewed as more fully formed, intelligent versions of Hermia and Helena and although lacking the fairies of the earlier play, it has a similar magical quality that the freedom of the forest lets loose. However, more than anything else, I read the play as a precursor to ‘Twelfth Night’ (which is one of my Shakespeare favourites). There are distinct echoes between Rosaline and Viola – their passion, wit and ability to manipulate the foolish men around them. ‘Twelfth Night’ is a better play – sorry I’m bias – it is Shakespeare at his height of brilliance, but this does not distract from the appeal of ‘As You like It’.
Having said all this, I do have a few reservations:
- There remains an uneasy balance between the freedom of the forest and invading courtly characters who are merely playing roles and must return to reality just as Puck reminds us that we must return to reality and are a mere audience at the end of ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream.’ The figure of Jacques looms large over the text and his melancholic disposition and the continual reminders of the hardship of real rural life embodied in Corin cast a dark shadow that is never fully integrated or dealt with.
- There is also an uneasy balance created by the play’s conclusion. It is a slightly forced and unrealistic culmination to the drama. SPOILER: Frederick suddenly decides that ruling is not for him and he wants to be a monk – really? – so Duke Senior can return without so much as a harsh word. Oliver – who claimed that he hated his brother to such an extent he was prepared for his neck to be broken in public – is suddenly reformed and marries Celia; despite shying away from any magical elements, Hymen randomly appears and marries everyone to great musical exuberance. This is fun and satisfying in many ways, but does not match with the return to reality that all the characters desire. Moreover, I can’t help feeling that the bungling Orlando with his ridiculous tree verse is no real match for Rosaline and as for Touchstone and Audrey – I can’t quite fathom that one. There is thus something missing from the conclusion here despite its quality of musical exuberance that is so entertaining.
In my view, and I have read several plays recently and intend to repeat this point endlessly, plays are also not meant to be read. Yes I know – English teacher – travesty of a comment. However, there is a difference between reading and studying. Study Shakespeare by all means, he is fascinating. You never really get Shakespeare without a bit of exploration and you can’t fully appreciate the brilliance of his wit and use of language without a little analysis as so much passes you by when you are merely reading. However, Shakespeare wrote for performance; he wrote with an audience in mind and with a share in a theatre company that needed bums on seats or at least feet in the pit. He never even published his plays during his life time discounting the bowdlerised quarto editions. It was all about the physical performance for our Will. Thus Shakespeare has to be seen – this is when you really appreciate not merely the visual impact of his work, but the rhythms of his speech and the buoyancy of his dialogue. As such, I not merely read the play, but also watched two versions online – the internet is wonderful resource!
The first version was a Globe production entirely unabridged. As with many Globe productions it brilliantly captures much of the original and I especially loved its use of music. Admittedly I was less keen on the slightly shouty Rosaline, but this is an energetic version where Touchstone, Jacques and Amiens were particular favourites. Moreover, the whole production seemed to capture the carnivalesque spirit of the play drawing the audience in and bringing the forest to life without so much as a leaf in sight – very clever, very engaging.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAem7-Rwaec]
The second version I watched was a 2006 film starring Brian Blessed amongst others. This too was enjoyable and superbly performed – there is nothing like a perfectly articulately Shakespeare soliloquy in close up- although a less convincing depiction and not entirely true to the original given the number of cuts and the poetic licence taken with some scenes and characters. This version transposed the original to 19th Century Japan – yes odd – yet somehow it worked: Charles was a sumo wrestler and there was new beauty infused into the natural surroundings that reanimated the magical elements of the text for me. Was I entirely convinced by this version despite the brilliant acting – no. Did it re-animate Shakespeare and offer a new, much darker reading – yes. And this is where the genius of Shakespeare truly lies. There is something amazing about Shakespeare’s plays that means that unlike Marlowe’s ‘Faustus’ (see my earlier review) that remains rooted to an age and way of thinking, he can be translated into an entirely new environment whilst maintaining the wonderful language. I have seen superb versions of ‘All’s Well that Ends Well’ set in Victorian England, a superb ‘Henry V’ set during the Afghanistan War not to mention Patrick Stewart’s ‘Macbeth’ that is clearly based on a WWII Nazi era or the Fiona Shaw ‘Richard II’. Shakespeare is fantastic because he can be transposed to new eras and locations and yet his multiple messages are still allowed to resonate and new meanings are found in the complexity of his language and characters.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K95vJzw8RKc]
However, if you can't cope with any of these versions. There is always this fabulous BBC adaptation that still seems to capture the essence of the text:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKVM3haxLw]
Yes – go away – read ‘As You Like It’, but more importantly watch it and find your own meaning because it is this personal connection and Shakespeare’s ability to communicate with us all in any era, in any location whether in a Holiday Inn in Guildford (yes that is where I currently am for my sins) or in Elizabethan London where these wonderful dramas were born.
There is a great deal to recommend ‘As You Like It’: it is an amusing romp through the Forest of Arden where our central protagonists are thrust by circumstances or more accurately by the corruption of Duke Frederick, who in his desire to assume power ousts his own brother, the true ruler – Duke Senior- followed swiftly by his daughter, Rosaline (who is followed by her dearest friend, Celia, despite being Frederick’s own child) and then by Orlando and his brutal brother Oliver whom the Duke suspects of opposing him simply due to their past family associations with the true ruler. So much for the basic plot, which is ultimately not that complex particularly in comparison to other comedies such as ‘Cymbeline’ or indeed his tragic masterpieces such as ‘Hamlet’ that weave us through multiple locations over several months at break neck pace. This is Shakespeare so it is not an easy, I know what I’ll lie on the beach and read with a glass of wine kind of text, it takes thought and patience to decipher not merely the Elizabethan language, but also the subtleties of his imagery and the interweaving of symbolic patterns as well as the witty repartee that occurs throughout. So why bother?
In one word: Rosaline. Despite the fact that in Shakespeare’s age all female parts were played by boys, Shakespeare has a talent for creating brilliant women who sizzle with power and wit. Whether they lie at the heart of the play’s villainy like Lady Macbeth or glimmer with tragic vulnerability like Orphelia, they are fabulous parts to play. Anyone looking for a solo monologue should not have far to go here! Rosaline is the heart of this play: her superb wit and ability to defy not merely her gender constrictions but to out manoeuvre the simpering and egotistical male protagonists around her (including her rather insipid beau) makes her a force to reckon with. Her speeches alone that are so full of intelligence, pace and humour, are breath taking. This is a woman who knows her own mind and will do whatever it takes to get it even if it means making Orlando fall in love with her in the guise of a boy. At once funny, powerful and yet in her emotional engagement, sympathetic she embodies the play’s title and will get what she wants exactly as she likes it and even if it means defying social convention and the great powers of the land. She is the songstress of woman power long before the admirable Mrs Pankhurst began her campaign.
Despite being a comedy, this is a play where the language (despite often being prose dominated), has a wonderful poetic quality. The symbolism that Shakespeare threads throughout the play of hunting, of nature, of courtly love, of mythology connects the disparate settings of court and forest and creates a play with a sense of magical unity and harmony that is confirmed by the final pagan style weddings undertaken by Hymen at the play’s conclusion. It should also be added that this is the play famous for the ‘the Seven ages of man’ speech, which, to my shame, I have taught several times without really understanding its origin. Yet when this speech is taken within the context of the play, we realise the text, for all its comedy, has a darker heart. Thrown into the forest, we are in the summer of our existence, where love blossoms and our desires are fulfilled. However, we are also made aware through Jacques’ rejection of the court and melancholic perspective that this is ephemeral and ultimately, just as the stag must die to feed the hungry forest Robin Hoods, so must we too and that the end of the revelry will not truly be marriage but ‘mere oblivion.’ [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWFrwwmN3eA]
Nonetheless, by third point of recommendation is the sheer fun and fantasy of this play. This a text full of witty banter from Touchstone’s festive japes to the whole concept of an inverted society set free in the Arden forest. There are jokes and salacious interaction a plenty.
Yet, naturally, as with many Shakespeare comedies and particularly his problem plays such as ‘Measure for Measure’ nothing is ever that easy. Good old Willy is also commenting on the political makeup of his contemporary society – the dangers of a world where the legitimate ruler is overthrown, the need for order amongst a natural world of chaos and the essential nature of marriage to ensure that creation and especially procreation continue. Writing in the shadow of the War of the Roses, Shakespeare could be read as reaffirming the need for political rule and legitimate monarchy whilst at once questioning that rule if it becomes tyrannical or too detached from the environment and people over which it rules. I could quote one of his many profound lines at this point, but I think it will suffice to say that Willy was a clever bugger!
What also appealed to me about this play is its odd familiarity. Yes Shakespeare was a genius, but virtually none of his work was based on an original idea, not even this, which was actually based on a pastoral romance written by Thomas Lodge called ‘Rosalynde’. However, he also returns to many of his favourite themes: marriage, love, gender roles inverted, political usurpation, a magical fairy tale landscape that echoes that of ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’. In many ways Celia and Rosaline could be viewed as more fully formed, intelligent versions of Hermia and Helena and although lacking the fairies of the earlier play, it has a similar magical quality that the freedom of the forest lets loose. However, more than anything else, I read the play as a precursor to ‘Twelfth Night’ (which is one of my Shakespeare favourites). There are distinct echoes between Rosaline and Viola – their passion, wit and ability to manipulate the foolish men around them. ‘Twelfth Night’ is a better play – sorry I’m bias – it is Shakespeare at his height of brilliance, but this does not distract from the appeal of ‘As You like It’.
Having said all this, I do have a few reservations:
- There remains an uneasy balance between the freedom of the forest and invading courtly characters who are merely playing roles and must return to reality just as Puck reminds us that we must return to reality and are a mere audience at the end of ‘Midsummer Night’s Dream.’ The figure of Jacques looms large over the text and his melancholic disposition and the continual reminders of the hardship of real rural life embodied in Corin cast a dark shadow that is never fully integrated or dealt with.
- There is also an uneasy balance created by the play’s conclusion. It is a slightly forced and unrealistic culmination to the drama. SPOILER: Frederick suddenly decides that ruling is not for him and he wants to be a monk – really? – so Duke Senior can return without so much as a harsh word. Oliver – who claimed that he hated his brother to such an extent he was prepared for his neck to be broken in public – is suddenly reformed and marries Celia; despite shying away from any magical elements, Hymen randomly appears and marries everyone to great musical exuberance. This is fun and satisfying in many ways, but does not match with the return to reality that all the characters desire. Moreover, I can’t help feeling that the bungling Orlando with his ridiculous tree verse is no real match for Rosaline and as for Touchstone and Audrey – I can’t quite fathom that one. There is thus something missing from the conclusion here despite its quality of musical exuberance that is so entertaining.
In my view, and I have read several plays recently and intend to repeat this point endlessly, plays are also not meant to be read. Yes I know – English teacher – travesty of a comment. However, there is a difference between reading and studying. Study Shakespeare by all means, he is fascinating. You never really get Shakespeare without a bit of exploration and you can’t fully appreciate the brilliance of his wit and use of language without a little analysis as so much passes you by when you are merely reading. However, Shakespeare wrote for performance; he wrote with an audience in mind and with a share in a theatre company that needed bums on seats or at least feet in the pit. He never even published his plays during his life time discounting the bowdlerised quarto editions. It was all about the physical performance for our Will. Thus Shakespeare has to be seen – this is when you really appreciate not merely the visual impact of his work, but the rhythms of his speech and the buoyancy of his dialogue. As such, I not merely read the play, but also watched two versions online – the internet is wonderful resource!
The first version was a Globe production entirely unabridged. As with many Globe productions it brilliantly captures much of the original and I especially loved its use of music. Admittedly I was less keen on the slightly shouty Rosaline, but this is an energetic version where Touchstone, Jacques and Amiens were particular favourites. Moreover, the whole production seemed to capture the carnivalesque spirit of the play drawing the audience in and bringing the forest to life without so much as a leaf in sight – very clever, very engaging.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAem7-Rwaec]
The second version I watched was a 2006 film starring Brian Blessed amongst others. This too was enjoyable and superbly performed – there is nothing like a perfectly articulately Shakespeare soliloquy in close up- although a less convincing depiction and not entirely true to the original given the number of cuts and the poetic licence taken with some scenes and characters. This version transposed the original to 19th Century Japan – yes odd – yet somehow it worked: Charles was a sumo wrestler and there was new beauty infused into the natural surroundings that reanimated the magical elements of the text for me. Was I entirely convinced by this version despite the brilliant acting – no. Did it re-animate Shakespeare and offer a new, much darker reading – yes. And this is where the genius of Shakespeare truly lies. There is something amazing about Shakespeare’s plays that means that unlike Marlowe’s ‘Faustus’ (see my earlier review) that remains rooted to an age and way of thinking, he can be translated into an entirely new environment whilst maintaining the wonderful language. I have seen superb versions of ‘All’s Well that Ends Well’ set in Victorian England, a superb ‘Henry V’ set during the Afghanistan War not to mention Patrick Stewart’s ‘Macbeth’ that is clearly based on a WWII Nazi era or the Fiona Shaw ‘Richard II’. Shakespeare is fantastic because he can be transposed to new eras and locations and yet his multiple messages are still allowed to resonate and new meanings are found in the complexity of his language and characters.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K95vJzw8RKc]
However, if you can't cope with any of these versions. There is always this fabulous BBC adaptation that still seems to capture the essence of the text:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKVM3haxLw]
Yes – go away – read ‘As You Like It’, but more importantly watch it and find your own meaning because it is this personal connection and Shakespeare’s ability to communicate with us all in any era, in any location whether in a Holiday Inn in Guildford (yes that is where I currently am for my sins) or in Elizabethan London where these wonderful dramas were born.
melwright's review against another edition
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? N/A
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
hunterofdaisies's review against another edition
challenging
funny
inspiring
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.5
lilrusski's review against another edition
4.0
[4,5/5* || full review @grandepoque]
another sullen day in the city requires a pastoral escape from the decrepit self into the queer haven of shakespeare’s semi-fictional woodland, where gender is stripped to its frivolous seams and romance reimagines the lovers’ role beyond the performance of patriarchy. all these big words intend to veil the slowness of my reading pace, substantially marred by the size of charotte brontë’s behemoth magnum opus, which i’ve been stuck on since october.
the formula in shakespeare remains the same: live fast, love hard, die furiously (though the latter remains a metaphorical death of the social performer). in a mere 90 pages, shakespeare proffers fratricide (a popular favourite), generational dissection of identification processes per social capita, roots for virginia woolf’s equally mesmerising ‘orlando’, a gene kelly-esque whirlwind number exposing the stratifications of performance in theatre and gender, and many more gripping concepts i can merely phrase in loose formulae, at the risk of falling into patterned reviews.
as though it weren’t obvious enough, i feast in the vivisection of linguistic stratifications and identity processes. my bard is barthes, though the great bard sets the stepping stones for the penultimate murder (phenomenalised death) of the author.
such musings occur to me in the aftermath of unscrewing another nameless bottle of cheap (and physically taxing) wine perched atop a wobbly chair in a skyscraper’s coveted greenhouse. believe not my ravings, indulge in the phantasmagoric fancies of midsummer night’s dream’s companion piece.
another sullen day in the city requires a pastoral escape from the decrepit self into the queer haven of shakespeare’s semi-fictional woodland, where gender is stripped to its frivolous seams and romance reimagines the lovers’ role beyond the performance of patriarchy. all these big words intend to veil the slowness of my reading pace, substantially marred by the size of charotte brontë’s behemoth magnum opus, which i’ve been stuck on since october.
the formula in shakespeare remains the same: live fast, love hard, die furiously (though the latter remains a metaphorical death of the social performer). in a mere 90 pages, shakespeare proffers fratricide (a popular favourite), generational dissection of identification processes per social capita, roots for virginia woolf’s equally mesmerising ‘orlando’, a gene kelly-esque whirlwind number exposing the stratifications of performance in theatre and gender, and many more gripping concepts i can merely phrase in loose formulae, at the risk of falling into patterned reviews.
as though it weren’t obvious enough, i feast in the vivisection of linguistic stratifications and identity processes. my bard is barthes, though the great bard sets the stepping stones for the penultimate murder (phenomenalised death) of the author.
such musings occur to me in the aftermath of unscrewing another nameless bottle of cheap (and physically taxing) wine perched atop a wobbly chair in a skyscraper’s coveted greenhouse. believe not my ravings, indulge in the phantasmagoric fancies of midsummer night’s dream’s companion piece.
donotswearbythemoon's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
lindapatin's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
funny
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0