Avatar

Befuddled Musings

@emroseb / emroseb.tumblr.com

Avatar
reblogged

Sharing this with you all because every time I see these they take my breath away. Theatre is so beautiful. I feel like as Stage Managers we work so hard to help create that beauty, so these images are for all the Stage Managers who help make theatre beautiful <3

Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
mamalazzer

The similarities between Captain America and Austin Powers

(I don’t know why I did this)

Avatar

how about instead of ever reblogging a single picture of carrie in that fucking gold bikini you reblog this instead?

Avatar
Avatar
blue-author
Anonymous asked:

I know it's fashionable to hate shakespeare for being a white cis male shitlord but calling his work trashy just displays your ignorance. there are reasons he still gets studied in school hundreds of years later. the man basically invented the english language as we speak it today.

I don’t hate Shakespeare. 

I love Shakespeare. 

In my opinion, the greatest disservice anyone can do to his work is to elevate it to some kind of highbrow high art literary thing. The reason he’s studied today is that his plays endured (plus or minus some changes in fashion over the centuries), and the reason his plays endured is because they were popular, and the reason his plays were popular is because he crammed them full of stuff that people wanted; i.e., lots of jokes focusing on the less refined features of the human anatomy and the things they get up to.

Perhaps you’ve had it explained to you that Hamlet’s talk of “country matters” was an uncouth pun, and his reply in the same conversation of “nothing” was a similar reference. Did you think that was a one-off thing? 

If you’re aware that “nothing” was a euphemism for the vulva in Shakespeare’s England, have you ever stopped to marvel at the sheer audacity, the sheer brass somethings that a man would have to have to name a play Much Ado About Nothing?

Translate that into modern-modern English, and you’d get something like Everybody’s Up In Arms About Pussy. Though you’d lose the pun on “nothing/noting” in doing so… yes, that’s how far from highbrow Shakespeare is. He made the title of his play a triple pun.

And yes, Much Ado is not one of the Bard’s more serious works to begin with… but then, what is? We divide Shakespeare’s plays up into tragedies and comedies based on the dramatic convention of which ones have a happy ending versus a sad one, but they are all comedies in the modern sense of “things you go to expecting to laugh”. The country/nothing lines come from Hamlet. Heck, Hamlet is hilarious throughout. Any scene with Polonius in it is guaranteed to be comedy gold. 

Of course, the people who want to call Shakespeare highbrow are probably the people who quote him in all blustering sincerity when he says “to thine own self be true”… or funnier still, when they paraphrase him as saying that “brevity is the soul of wit”.

Of course, hands down, my favorite bit in Hamlet is when he’s giving instructions to the players that basically amount to William Shakespeare pre-emptively bringing up every stereotype of Serious Shakespearean Acting we have today and saying, “This. This thing. Do not do this thing.”

Anyway, let’s talk about the idea that he “invented the English language”; e.g., he created so many hundreds of new words. Okay, well, first of all, we don’t know how many he invented. We just know there are words and usages of words for which the texts of his plays are the earliest surviving example. The thing is, all those words evidently made sense to his audience.

There’s a post that goes around Tumblr listing some of the words credited to Shakespeare, and one of them is “elbow”. The commentary attached to this post basically boggles over the idea that nobody in the English world had a name for “the bendy part of an arm” until an actor gets up on stage and says “elbow”, and everybody’s like, “Oh, yeah, that’s what it is.”

Except it didn’t happen like that. The noun elbow isn’t what is attributed to Shakespeare; the verb to elbow (as in “elbowing someone aside”) is. His character took a noun and used it to describe an action. That’s not a highbrow creation of language as some sort of received wisdom handed down from authority. That’s naturalistic language use. 

Even if he was the first person to describe the act of “elbowing someone”, it caught on because it worked, because it made sense to vernacular speakers of English. 

So many of his words fit this model: they are butchered foreign words, they are slangy applications of English words, they are colorful metaphors or synecdoches. In short, he was writing in what we call “Buffyspeak”. If he had an unusual talent for doing it memorably, it still ultimately worked because it reflected the language of the time.

Avatar

This is your daily reminder that ‘some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them’ is a dick joke.

Also, in re the whole “white cis male shitlord” aspect: One of Shakespeare’s favourite things was to take an existing bigoted play that was really popular (often a comedy), and tweak it into a tragedy where the audience was forced to empathise with the person they’d been hating, and recognise their humanity. Merchant of Venice is a retelling of the Very Standard conversion play, except the standard version of the play is a comedy! And when the miserly Jewish antagonist is converted at the end, he’s super happy at being saved! But Shakespeare’s version has one of the most gut-wrenching monologues about the humanity of the othered, and presents a very reasonable man driven to distraction by abuse. He takes the original “miser” stereotype and shows a fully realised human whose concerns about being robbed and left without a way to survive in a hostile city are realistic and sympathetic. He keeps the conversion ending, but shows the violence of it, and Shylock is destroyed by it, not “saved.” Othello was based on an older Italian play that revelled in the evil of its title character, and the tragic innocence of the nice white girl taken and defiled and murdered by a savage black man. Very popular. So he took the same premise, and wrote a play that spends c. four hours examining the manipulation and gaslighting and psychological abuse it would take to drive a good and honest and trusting and caring husband to such violence. In Shakespeare’s version, there’s no violence rooted in Othello’s blackness, no “aha” moment where the fact that he finally succumbed to Iago’s machinations is blamed on something wrong in Othello’s nature, it is heavily and repeatedly shown and stated that his character is DEEPLY good, and then works to show how someone this good can be abused and manipulated into doing something they so TERRIBLY regret.  Romeo & Juliet was based on a play that was all about how teenage sluts ruin everything and deserve to die, but Shakespeare’s play tells technically the same story, but his moral is kinda more that cultures of hate and families which dehumanise their enemies set up future generations for horrible and unnecessary misery.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.