the taming of the shrew
Steven Johnson
contains many simple words and phrases easy to understand.
in the end when Kate reveals her new loyalty and obedienceto Petruchio
and her sister Bianca becomes the shrew that Kate was, the play reveals
a twist of fate in the characters' lives.
the play is a true 'comical irony'.
Andreas Schlenger
Explain. Discuss. ;)
Really. I mean: "new obedience to Petruchio"? And Bianca becoming
the shrew that her sister was? I'm not so sure about these
statements. They are your (?) interpretation, after all.
And what exactly does 'comical irony' mean? Doesn't irony always
imply some sort of comical aspect? And, talking about a play and
not a mode of speaking - shouldn't it be "ironic comedy"?
Andreas.
Dogbrain
Andreas Schlenger wrote in message <3792DC9F...@uni-koeln.de>...
>Steven Johnson schrieb:
>>
>> "the taming of the shrew" is very easy for the reader to understand. it
>> contains many simple words and phrases easy to understand.
>>
>> in the end when Kate reveals her new loyalty and obedienceto Petruchio
>> and her sister Bianca becomes the shrew that Kate was, the play reveals
>> a twist of fate in the characters' lives.
>>
>> the play is a true 'comical irony'.
>
>Explain. Discuss. ;)
>
>Really. I mean: "new obedience to Petruchio"? And Bianca becoming
>the shrew that her sister was? I'm not so sure about these
>statements. They are your (?) interpretation, after all.
I would have to agree that, in the play, most of the other women represent a
quality of sweetness until wed, and wed, they prove to be devils. Kate goes
the opposite direction.
>And what exactly does 'comical irony' mean? Doesn't irony always
>imply some sort of comical aspect?
No. Dramatic irony refers to the audience knowing something important that
the character doesn't know. And this can be comic or tragic, but has
nothing essentially to do with humor. I will agree that the phrase "comical
irony" is a little odd.
>And, talking about a play and
>not a mode of speaking - shouldn't it be "ironic comedy"?
Actually, you may be right about this. This may be closer to what Steven
was trying to say. Irony and ironic can mean two completely different
things. Although, I actually like something about the phrase "comical
irony". Perhaps because it seems to give a personification to "irony".
It's "comical", as in "ludicrous irony". And Steven is referring to the
direct, intimate, personal qualities that he is picking up from the play. I
would agree that this is one of Shakespeare's most accessible plays.
Have we split enough hairs yet?
Dogbrain
Jeff Love
and especially Kate as changed after marriage- two of them into "devils" if you
will.
But several performances I have seen seem to treat these characters as real
people. In that case, they would not undergo radical transformations after
marriage. Thus Bianca was always headstrong but didn't show it as directly
before marriage.
Even Kate doesn't need to change her personality through the course of the
play. She just learns to express herself in ways that are socially acceptable,
and is motivated to do so because her need for affiliation (and love?) has
finally been met.
Symposium1
(Jeff Love) writes:
>Even Kate doesn't need to change her personality through the course of the
>play. She just learns to express herself in ways that are socially
>acceptable, and is motivated to do so because her need for affiliation (and
love?) >has finally been met.
I like this insight. In a way it reminds me of a scene from "The Madness of
King George", where after reading from Lear (a great scene, I thought, by the
way) he gives his audience the first signs of his being his old self. And upon
being told this, he says something like, "I have always been myself; I didn't
seem like myself. I have remembered how to seem." I remember thinking, "how
Shakespearean an observation."
---Ann
Dogbrain
Jeff Love wrote in message <19990725081617...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>If we take "Shrew" as purely farce, then it is easy to see Bianca, the
widow,
>and especially Kate as changed after marriage- two of them into "devils" if
you
>will.
>
>But several performances I have seen seem to treat these characters as real
>people. In that case, they would not undergo radical transformations after
>marriage.
Are you saying that only characters of pure farce change after they are
married? And that normal people do not undergo radical transormations after
marriage? Really?
Don't you think a great many facades crumble under the pressure of marriage?
Jung said that marriage is a crucible for transformation, in which one is
forced to come to terms with one's self, or more accurately, one's "many
selves". I think this alchemical interpretation of marriage is deeply
applicable to Shakespeare.
>Even Kate doesn't need to change her personality through the course of the
>play. She just learns to express herself in ways that are socially
acceptable,
>and is motivated to do so because her need for affiliation (and love?) has
>finally been met.
I don't feel comfortable with "the TAMING of the shrew" being about
fulfilling needs for affiliation and love. As the title suggests, its more
volatile than that. Petruchio and Kate achieve some balance because they
have a will to engage each other, much like Beatrice and Benedick. Although
B&B do turn to each other, because their friends have created an illusion of
mutual love and caring. But then, MUCH ADO is about courtship; it's not
about marriages. OTHELLO is more clearly about "real people", and they go
through radical changes. In SHREW, if there is true affiliation and love,
they are the products of THE pressures brought bear on the "elements" within
crucible of this marriage.
Affiliation and love are the result, not the cause. Classical plays,
particularly Shakespeare's, deal with radical change and transformation at
their very core. Michael Chekhov, one of the great Russian acting teachers,
said that Shakespeare's characters begin at A, and end at C. And B is the
period/phase of transformation, which may happen within a moment, or it may
take almost four acts to complete itself. He told actors they need to
explore the nature of B, the moment, or period of transformation. Often, it
takes place in the forest, or on an island, or in a strange new land, or
within the context of a marriage, or a new alliance.
Best,
Doug
Jeff Love
author had seen Bianca as having been transformed into a devil, or had
permitted her devilish character to show, after marriage. This supposed change
occurs without tangible cause.
Kate has cause to change. Yet I maintain that an actress can play Kate very
convincingly, and without giving the Bard any cause to be disappointed, without
changing her fundamental self. It is affiliation, and perhaps love, which
empowers Kate to express herself, fundamentally the same self as before,
without incurring a social penalty.
So I see affiliation as a cause, and the need for affiliation as an agent in
the change. What else did Petruchio have that she wanted badly enough to put up
with the taming?
Of course, we can be criticized for treating the play as realistic. But if we
are to do so, then I feel that we must give people more credit for being
themselves than either the author of the original note, or you, seem to wish.
-Jeff
Symposium1
(Jeff Love) writes:
>Of course, we can be criticized for treating the play as realistic. But if we
>are to do so, then I feel that we must give people more credit for being
>themselves than either the author of the original note, or you, seem to
>wish.
Jeff, was this to me? Because I'm not sure that I understand -- or rather, I
think you thought I was applying the King George line precisely to Kate. I
wasn't.
What I meant was, I was essentially in agreement with you that there's no need
to see Kate as crushed under authority at the end. She "seems" different, and
in many ways she is different, though it's really that her independent spirit
has finally been channeled into love rather than pure rebellion. To her father
and friends, she is a totally different woman.
But also, the final scene, her redux of the Widow and Bianca, is after all a
bit of an act. I think she's certainly playing it up for (reverse) shock
value. But the fact that she is willing to do this, in alliance with
Petruchio, is a change in itself.
--Ann
Greg Reynolds
Jeff Love wrote:
> I guess my reason for answering the note was that I was disappointed that its
> author had seen Bianca as having been transformed into a devil, or had
> permitted her devilish character to show, after marriage. This supposed change
> occurs without tangible cause.
>
> Kate has cause to change. Yet I maintain that an actress can play Kate very
> convincingly, and without giving the Bard any cause to be disappointed, without
> changing her fundamental self. It is affiliation, and perhaps love, which
> empowers Kate to express herself, fundamentally the same self as before,
> without incurring a social penalty.
>
> So I see affiliation as a cause, and the need for affiliation as an agent in
> the change. What else did Petruchio have that she wanted badly enough to put up
> with the taming?
>
> Of course, we can be criticized for treating the play as realistic. But if we
> are to do so, then I feel that we must give people more credit for being
> themselves than either the author of the original note, or you, seem to wish.
> -Jeff
Now the character of Petruchio will have to change with the character of Kate. We
know his arrogance, stubbornness, and craftiness to be effective for the task at
hand, but now that she is 'tamed,' does he loosen up and enjoy a servile wife or
does he become unbearingly authoritarian? That would have to be considered as
flawed as being a shrew was in the first place.
He is manufactured for this play only--and he succeeds. So to live happily ever
after, it seems he better meet the "new" Kate on new terms--no more tricks, no
more dominance.
Greg Reynolds
Jeff Love
The message was to the guy who denied the premise that Kate can be played
realistically because of something Jung wrote about marriage, along with some
other statements which seemed irrelevant to actual performance.
You and I seem to agree. -Jeff
Jeff Love
If I claim that Kate's fundamental character is not profoundly changed by the
taming, it's only fair that I must also say that neither is Petruchio's. But I
agree that she must have an effect on him, and certainly a number of recent
versions of the play would bear that out.
What one might expect, to use an example everybody will probably know, is the
spirited Kate and the slightly surprised but still game Petruchio that Burton
and Taylor gave us- at times- in their film.
As to a manufactured Petruchio, if we give Kate credit for being a person, then
we must do the same for Petruchio. In actual experience, though, it's harder to
imagine a controlling, macho jerk having the power to change as much as we
might wish. -Jeff
Symposium1
(Jeff Love) writes:
Oh. For some reason that message hasn't shown up in my downloads. Or perhaps
I missed it.
--Ann
Greg Reynolds
Dogbrain wrote:
> I don't feel comfortable with "the TAMING of the shrew" being about
> fulfilling needs for affiliation and love. As the title suggests, its more
> volatile than that.
Sure is.
What a title. Which is more accurate, "taming" or "shrew?"
I'm worried that P can't handle K now.
Greg Reynolds
Dogbrain
Symposium1 wrote in message
<19990727191014...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <19990727063002...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
jfl...@aol.comnojunk
>(Jeff Love) writes:
>
>>Ann-
>>
>>The message was to the guy who denied the premise that Kate can be played
>>realistically because of something Jung wrote about marriage, along with
some
>>other statements which seemed irrelevant to actual performance.
>>
>>You and I seem to agree. -Jeff
Being "the guy", I'd like to say that I have no problems with Kate being
played realistically. I just question Jeff's concept of what is Real, and
therefore his limited concept of realism. I also question his naivete in
believing that real people don't go through radical changes, sometimes with
no obvious or apparent cause. I also question his baffling belief that real
people don't change (or at least shift their masks) under the pressures of
Marriage. My reference to Jung was addressing the realistic problems of
life and marriage, and the thematic structure of Shakespeare. It had little
to do with sylistic issues. In fact it was an attempt to call for a more
realistic approach to Kate, but also an approach that doesn't deny the basic
archetypal structures of life and literature.
>Oh. For some reason that message hasn't shown up in my downloads. Or
perhaps
>I missed it.
>
>--Ann
I'm reposting below my irrelevant comments---for your sake, Ann. I guess
trying to deepen rather than soften the conflicts of a play has nothing to
do with performance values. Also, wrestling with issues of change and
transformation are equally pointless, not to say counter to theatrical
realism.
Sidenote: Although Jeff seems to think Michael Chekhov is "irrelevant to
actual performance", Stanislavski considered him his most talented student.
His influence has been profound throughout the theatre world, and even in
the world of dance.
His books:
TO THE ACTOR
TO THE DIRECTOR AND PLAYWRIGHT
LESSONS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ACTOR
ON THE TECHNIQUE OF ACTING
are classics in the field.
Best wishes,
Dogbrain
Jeff Love wrote in message <19990725081617...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
>If we take "Shrew" as purely farce, then it is easy to see Bianca, the
widow,
>and especially Kate as changed after marriage- two of them into "devils" if
you
>will.
>
>But several performances I have seen seem to treat these characters as real
>people. In that case, they would not undergo radical transformations after
>marriage.
Are you saying that only characters of pure farce change after they are
married? And that normal people do not undergo radical transormations after
marriage? Really?
Don't you think a great many facades crumble under the pressure of marriage?
Jung said that marriage is a crucible for transformation, in which one is
forced to come to terms with one's self, or more accurately, one's "many
selves". I think this alchemical interpretation of marriage is deeply
applicable to Shakespeare.
>Even Kate doesn't need to change her personality through the course of the
>play. She just learns to express herself in ways that are socially
acceptable,
>and is motivated to do so because her need for affiliation (and love?) has
>finally been met.
I don't feel comfortable with "the TAMING of the shrew" being about
fulfilling needs for affiliation and love. As the title suggests, its more
volatile than that. Petruchio and Kate achieve some balance because they
have a will to engage each other, much like Beatrice and Benedick. Although
B&B do turn to each other, because their friends have created an illusion of
mutual love and caring. But then, MUCH ADO is about courtship; it's not
about marriages. OTHELLO is more clearly about "real people", and they go
through radical changes. In SHREW, if there is true affiliation and love,
they are the products of THE pressures brought bear on the "elements" within
crucible of this marriage.
Affiliation and love are the result, not the cause. Classical plays,
particularly Shakespeare's, deal with radical change and transformation at
their very core. Michael Chekhov, one of the great Russian acting teachers,
said that Shakespeare's characters begin at A, and end at C. And B is the
period/phase of transformation, which may happen within a moment, or it may
take almost four acts to complete itself. He told actors they need to
explore the nature of B, the moment, or period of transformation. Often, it
takes place in the forest, or on an island, or in a strange new land, or
within the context of a marriage, or a new alliance.
Best,
Dogbrain
Ann, here is my first post that got Jeff going. I'll admit that the post as
a whole was rather aimless and ultimately pointless---a sloppy attempt to
put my tongue in my cheek. I resubmit it because it seems to have been the
source of so many misunderstandings.
Jeff Love
Let's not oversimplify. I claim that these elements can exist in this play, and
that the natural and practical need for affiliation can help permit K and P to
be portrayed realistically. But to say the play is "about" love and affiliation
is going too far.
As for the title, it was retained, with the alteration of a single word, from
the source, a very mean and unrealistic play which Shakespeare elevated, as he
did so many others.
Interesting question about which of the two words, "Taming" or "Shrew", is
closer to the truth at the end of the play. In one sense, Kate, after having
been tamed, is set free to be herself within the context of and with the
approval of society. Therefore she may no longer be a shrew by society's
definition. But to be herself she can't really be tame, either. So maybe
neither word applies at the end. -Jeff
Dogbrain
I've been posting some things, and they don't seem to be appearing on the
newsgroup. Or at least I can't see them, and there seem to be some posts
from you and Greg that I haven't seen on HLAS but have seen them quoted in
other posts. Is there perhaps something wrong with the HLAS server?? Since
you have had problems, I thought I'd follow this up.
How many Posts are alive and well on HLAS. With my software I have 150
messages, going back to July 23. Does that sound right? That seems low,
but it is the summer.
Dogbrain
Symposium1 wrote in message
<19990727191014...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <19990727063002...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
jfl...@aol.comnojunk
>(Jeff Love) writes:
>
>>Ann-
>>
>>The message was to the guy who denied the premise that Kate can be played
>>realistically because of something Jung wrote about marriage, along with
some
>>other statements which seemed irrelevant to actual performance.
>>
>>You and I seem to agree. -Jeff
>
Greg Reynolds
Dogbrain wrote:
> This is a test. I'm just trying to see if this will appear.
>
> I've been posting some things, and they don't seem to be appearing on the
> newsgroup. Or at least I can't see them, and there seem to be some posts
> from you and Greg that I haven't seen on HLAS but have seen them quoted in
> other posts.
I did get caught retracting my words two weeks back--Volker and Ann got me, I
think. (That rarely happens and I hope not again.)
> Is there perhaps something wrong with the HLAS server?? Since
> you have had problems, I thought I'd follow this up.
>
> How many Posts are alive and well on HLAS. With my software I have 150
> messages, going back to July 23. Does that sound right? That seems low,
> but it is the summer.
I have 241 going back to July 21 (including a futuristic post from Paul
Crowley dated Aug 23, 1999).
I too have missed at least a few.
Greg Reynolds
Dave Kathman
>
> This is a test. I'm just trying to see if this will appear.
Yes, it appeared.
> I've been posting some things, and they don't seem to be appearing on the
> newsgroup. Or at least I can't see them, and there seem to be some posts
> from you and Greg that I haven't seen on HLAS but have seen them quoted in
> other posts. Is there perhaps something wrong with the HLAS server?? Since
> you have had problems, I thought I'd follow this up.
There is no central "HLAS server"; the problem, if there is one, is
most likely with your ISP's Usenet server(s).
> How many Posts are alive and well on HLAS. With my software I have 150
> messages, going back to July 23. Does that sound right? That seems low,
> but it is the summer.
My ISP has 218 messages, going back to last Thursday (July 22).
The summer is always slow.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Jeff Love
disagreement. But you don't fight fair.
See you next summer, folks. -Jeff
Symposium1
(Jeff Love) writes:
>Sorry I entered your group, Dogbrain. I thought maybe we could have a
>friendly disagreement. But you don't fight fair.
Jeff, for God's sake, what about Dogbrain's posts wasn't "fighting fair"? I
think you've lighted on one of the fairest people on this darn newsgroup, and
I'm puzzled why you find him otherwise.
--Ann