Theater – Page 3 – The View From Sari's World

Does our mind a prison make? Hag-Seed a review

About a year ago Hogarth Publishing reached out to a group of authors for what seemed like an impossible task; take a Shakespeare play and redo it for a modern audience. Eight authors took up the challenge: Tracy Chevalier; Margaret Atwood; Howard Jacobs; Anne Tyler; Jeanette Winterson; Edward St Aubyn; Gillain Flynn, and Joe Nesbo. You can read about it here http://hogarthshakespeare.com/

Although the lineup is impressive the news was met by a lot of criticism by authors, scholars, and the public alike. Why attempt to update the master when it is clear that his works still hold up? There were many an online discussions about the subject, and blog posts blasting the idea of modernizing Shakespeare. I had to laugh at the hypocrisy of one author who took a dim view to the Hogarth’s undertaking while making sure to let his readers knew he would be retelling Hamlet from Marcellus’ point of view.

The publishing house did not do its self any favors by the lack of explanation of how the authors were going to go about it. Many understood it to mean that these eight authors thought themselves worthy of changing words and scenes. The outcry over the “retooling” went on a little to long before it was announced in subsequent interviews that the author were simply taking the plots and retelling them as modern works literature.

Yet the unease that many felt was not allayed when the first go, Winterson’s book, The Gap of Time based on The Winter’s Tale, did not do well with mature book readers and critics alike. I picked it up while at the library one day and found that it read like a sappy young-adult novel, complete with short sentences and a heroine that sounded like a Disney Princess. I had to agree with the critics of the endeavor; if this was to be the norm then this was not going to turn out well. At least that was my opinion at the time. Oh but soon, I would learn just how wrong I was at least when it comes to Atwood’s book, Hag-Seed based on the Tempest.

Now, I have to be honest. I am no fan of Atwood. I read her book The Handmaiden’s Tale years ago and found it mildly disturbing. But I understand that she is a popular author so when the favorable reviews for Hag-Seed started popping up I simply chalked it up to her popularity with the masses. But once again Twitter prompted me to do a double take. Readers from all over started posting about how good it was. And so, one rainy day I decided to see what all the fuss was about.

One of my favorite things about the Amazon Kindle app is the ability to download a free book sample. So on this rainy day, I downloaded the sample and started reading. And to my amazement, I couldn’t put it down. Oh I had to read this book! The first two pages pull you in and demand your complete attention. Felix, the Prospero of this book had placed a spell on me, but not enough for me to purchase the Kindle edition. $13.00 for the opportunity to read a book that cannot be placed in a shelf of honor or passed to a close friend? Never!

I refuse to pay over $9.00 for a Kindle book (and even that hurts) so I searched my local library for a copy. The one and only copy was checked out but due back in a few days so I reserved it, and picked it up the following Friday. By Sunday morning I had finished the book.

From the publisher:

Felix is at the top of his game as Artistic Director of the Makeshiweg Theatre Festival. His productions have amazed and confounded. Now he’s staging a Tempest like no other: not only will it boost his reputation, it will heal emotional wounds.

Or that was the plan. Instead, after an act of unforeseen treachery, Felix is living in exile in a backwoods hovel, haunted by memories of his beloved lost daughter, Miranda. And also brewing revenge.

After twelve years, revenge finally arrives in the shape of a theatre course at a nearby prison. Here, Felix and his inmate actors will put on his Tempest and snare the traitors who destroyed him. It’s magic! But will it remake Felix as his enemies fall?

This re-imaging of The Tempest has everything a good novel should. An unforgettable character in Felix, a haunting character in Miranda, Felix’s long dead daughter that he cannot let go of, and some light comic relief peppered throughout the story in the guise of the inmates. But the most remarkable thing about this book is Atwood’s keen insight into The Tempest and what it can mean to a modern audience.

Atwood gives us a sympathetic character in Felix. He is man who cannot let of his past, and it becomes his prison. He lost his three year old daughter Miranda to a fever because he was too self-absorbed to notice her illness. He allows Miranda to haunt him. He imagines she is still with him, and over the years he sees her as she would be had she lived. They talk and play Chess. Being a mere wisp of a ghost she cannot leave the house Felix lives in, so she too is imprisoned.

Felix spends his days in a local correctional center producing Shakespeare plays staring the inmates. It is here that Felix hatches a plan for revenge on those who were instrumental to his downfall. And this thirst for revenge is yet another prison as Felix cannot move forward or move from his lowly station. Yet it is the inmates and an unwitting subject caught in Felix’s revenge that finally help him break free.

For those who love to study and even teach Shakespeare, the scenes in which Felix and the inmates discuss the play make the book worth reading. He encourages them to find all of the prisons within the play and they have a serious discussion about what constitutes a prison. Is it a place? Yes. A state of mind? Most certainly. But most importantly to the inmates and to the original play, it is usually circumstances beyond our control.

Arial and Caliban have always lived on the island, but it is not until Prospero shows up do they both find themselves trapped. The inmates identify with these two characters as they see society in the character of Prospero. One inmate noted that Prospero shouldn’t have been surprised when Caliban turned on him and tried to rape Miranda. Prospero made him feel as if he belonged and then “turned natural” when it came to wanting Miranda. “She was the only woman there. What else was he supposed to do”?

Felix does not allow his incarcerated actors to swear so he devises a plan that allows them to pick out Shakespearean insults and fling them at will. Flesh-eater, and a pox o’ your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog (or several versions of this phrase) are favored by the inmates.

It is in the middle of the book that the inmates take center stage as they work though the play and its message. And it is here that the book really has its heart. It’s just too bad Atwood did not take more time to develop these characters. I felt she used them and then tossed them aside, much like prison inmates feel used by society. Maybe that was her intention, but I felt she could have given us one or two stand-out characters that we could grapple with and debate over just as we debate over Caliban and his role in The Tempest.

This sub-plot of the inmate’s education makes up for the larger plot of revenge. When we get to the revenge scenes we find that Atwood, always imaginative, stretches the bounds of credibility. But in this she is forgiven because the book ends on such a heartfelt note.

It cannot be easy to take on Shakespeare. To look at one of his plays and think, “hum..how can I modernize this, how can I make it appealing to a larger audience?”

Thankfully Atwood does not take us scene by scene or even try to recreate the absurdity of the shipwrecked fools. Doing so would have cheapened her book. The setting is no place for fools; prison life is subject to too many harsh realities and dangers. But this is also what makes this endeavor a little dangerous. By eliminating characters and scenes (and adding a few of her own to the play-within the book) there is the danger that readers may think they’ve read The Tempest, or at least a stand-in for the play, when in fact they’ve hardly scratched the surface. No, Atwood’s book is a nod to Shakespeare, and nothing else.

This is a fine book, and I do recommend it. However, I am not sure Atwood has met Hogarth’s original intent, if their intent was to modernize his plays. But then, their intent is a still a little ambiguous. The one line from the About section their website reads: The Hogarth Shakespeare project sees Shakespeare’s works retold by acclaimed and bestselling novelists of today. I am still unsure of what this means. You will just have to read the book for yourself and decide if this book is up to the unnecessary task of retelling Shakespeare’s story. Yes, I think the task is unnecessary, but if it produces books like Hag-Seed, I think the endeavor is at least worthy of consideration.

Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret Hag-Seed Random House. October 11, 2016. Print Edition

Hogarth Shakespeare Online http://hogarthshakespeare.com/

Next up, I thought we would start talking about Shakespeare’s work, in the original. We are going to go thru the plays alphabetically one by one, finding one or two points for consideration and how they relate to our modern era. First up All’s Well that Ends Well and the study of obsession. Stay tuned!

Yes, player and playwright meant the same thing in Shakespeare’s day

In case you have missed it, last week saw a new chapter emerged concerning Shakespeare and the dreaded authorship argument. Long time readers and friends know why I use the word dreaded; it is an argument born from ego and suspicion of all things labeled accepted academic. I’ve learned to stay far away from this fight as no good usually comes from it. But, if you haven’t heard of Heather Wolfe, I’d like to introduce her to you, as I have a feeling she is going to become a leading figure in Shakespeare academia.

Wolfe holds my dream job as a curator at the Folger’s Library; her expertise as a paleographer is in old English manuscripts. She has been dubbed the “Sherlock Holmes of the library” due to her ability to not only find often overlooked written clues, but forensic clues such as hair and odd bits of DNA. Scholars hold Wolfe in high esteem, which is why when she announced she had found proof that the playwright known as Shakespeare, and the Stratford born Shakespeare were one and the same, the academic world took notice.

I will link to the full news article below. For our purposes we only need to know that Wolfe found a 1602 list of “mean persons” (deemed unworthy) whose applications for a coat of arms was wrongfully “preferred” by Sir William Dethick, the Garter King of Arms. Among those who were called out as being unworthy yet somehow “preferred” was Shakespeare the player. The only application noted in the official College of Arms record at the time was an application by William Shakespeare of Stratford. This Coat of Arms Shakespeare of Stratford was petitioning for included the motto, Not without right.

The Guardian article reminds us that “Around the same time Ben Jonson, in his satire Every Man out of his Humour, poked fun at his artistic rival (Shakespeare the player) as a rustic buffoon who pays £30 for a ridiculous coat of arms with the humiliating motto ‘Not Without Mustard‘.”

So it does appear that Wolfe is right, that Shakespeare of Stratford, Shakespeare the player, and Johnson’s rival are one and the same. But what about Shakespeare the playwright? Why did the list include the word player and not playwright? Sigh, here we go…

As soon as I read the article I knew, I just knew, someone from anti-Stratfordian camp would argue that player and playwright did not mean the same thing. In fact, I mentioned this on Twitter while discussing the subject with some friends. And sure enough, a couple of days ago, a self-professed “expert” Oxfordian, tweeted out this very argument. But instead of letting my gut reaction take hold, I asked myself, “Does he have a point?”

My quest to find the answer first led me to wanting to know when the word playwright was first used. The answer was a little surprising; it seems Ben Johnson coined the term (at least this is the first recorded use of the word) in an epigram (49 to be exact) in which Johnson counterfeits a complaint against those that dare shed light on man’s darker nature:

XLIX. — TO PLAYWRIGHT.

PLAYWRIGHT me reads, and still my verses damns,
He says I want the tongue of epigrams ;
I have no salt, no bawdry he doth mean ;
For witty, in his language, is obscene.
Playwright, I loath to have thy manners known
In my chaste book; I profess them in thine own.

Epigrams, in case you are wondering, are what I would call the anti-sonnet. Sonnets by definition are usually love poems, while epigrams are usually humors complaints; mostly about women. As you might expect the use of epigrams as poems were not as popular as sonnets and so their use as poetry devices quickly died out.

Johnson uses the term playwright in a derogatory manner. The context in which he uses it begins to form an argument against the idea that player and playwright are not the same thing. You see in Johnson’s and Shakespeare’s day wrights were craftsmen; ploughwrights made ploughs, cartwrights wagons, etc. These craftsmen, or wrights were of the labor class, and as such were not looked upon as worthy for consideration. By attaching the word wright to play, Johnson was liking a dramatist to a laborer. In other words, someone unworthy for consideration. The fact that this playwright draws attention to the bawdry and obscene makes him all the more unworthy of attention. The term as we know it today was not widely used in the early 17^th century. And, as I soon learned, any mention of a writer of plays during this period of history is hard to find at all.

A good primary source of information for this subject is G. Blakemore Evan’ book, Elizabethan-Jacobean Drama, The Theatre in its Time. This delightful book contains primary sources that give us a better understanding of how the theatre was viewed by critics, officials, noblemen, and ordinary people. It contains pieces of long forgotten plays, and beautiful illustrations you’d be hard pressed to find outside of academic libraries. My copy is dog-eared from the many times I’ve used it as a reference guide.

All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances. Jaques to Duke Senior in As You Like It

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. Macbeth

In all of Shakespeare’s work he never uses the term “playwright”, although he does reference players several times; most notably in his stage directions for Hamlet’s play-within-a play. The acting troupe that visits Elsinore is referred to both singularly and collectively as player(s). The more I researched the subject of player vs. playwright, the more this began to make sense. Of all of the primary sources I read,( both in print and online) none used the term playwright. It’s clear that this term was not in vogue during Shakespeare’s lifetime, and therefor would not have been used in a list of “mean persons”. As a matter of fact, the term for he who writes plays in any form is hardly worth mentioning at all. The writer is absent even in the most grievous of complaints against the theater.

In an official letter against the theater from the Lord Mayor of London and the Aldermen to the Privy Council dated 28 July 1597 the word “stage-plays” shows up four times. The mayor, convinced playhouses are the “refuse for all sort of evil-disposed and ungodly people that are within and about this City”,goes on to detail the many opportunities for vice that stage-plays afforded the masses but oddly never complains about the actors and writer who put on the stage-plays. They are secondary to his concern.

In a letter about street brawls and the theater, William Fleetwood to Lord Burghley date 18 June 1584, does take the time to concern himself with the players. He uses the term collectively when talking about a particular troupe, “Upon the same night I sent for the Queen’s players and my Lord’s players”. Fleetwood’s collective use of the word player is consistent with what we see from this time period when talking about an acting troupe as a whole or in part. Fleetwood goes on to talk about the “Chiefest of the Highest players” (what ever the hell that means).

The Royal license for the King’s men, dated 19 May 1603 starts off with a list of who they are and what they do:

Pro Laurentio Fletcher et Willielmo Shakespeare et aliis.
James by the Grace of God, etc., to all Justices, Maiors, Sheriffs, Constables, Headboroughs, and other our Officers and lovinge Subjects, Greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of our Speciall Grace, certeine knowledge, and mere motion, have licensed and authorized, and by these presentes doe license and authorise these our Servaunts, Laurence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustine Phillippes, John Hemings, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly, and the rest of their Associates, Freely to use and exercise the Art and Facultie of playing Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Morals, Pastoralls, Stage Plaies and such others…

As you can see there is no direct reference to a playwright, Shakespeare or not, in this listing.

John Marston’s 1599 play Histriomastix Act II further bolsters my findings. The term player is used as a catch-all for everyone involved in a stage production. The scene opens up with Usher welcoming Lord Owlet’s men. The stage direction calls for the Players’ (King Owlet’s men) Song; not the actors, and playwright’s song, even though the writer of troupe’s plays is present . It is not until the song is over that one of the players is marked as the group’s “poet” but get ready for how he answers this…..

Belch: Here’s a gentleman scholler writes for us: I pray, Master Posthaste, declare for our credits.

Posthaste: For mine own part, though this summer season, I am desperate of a horse.

Yes, you just read that correctly. Marston’s gentleman scholler (his spelling) just admitted that he spends his summer acting in Shakespeare’s play, Richard III.

In all of my research of primary sources none besides Johnson refers to the word playwright. Nor could I find the word author, dramatist, writer, or any other word that divided he who wrote from he who acted. I am not saying the distinction is not out there, only that it would be uncommon. We also have Marston telling us that writers, or poets, are also actors. And let’s not let this nugget slip past us; Marston uses a nod to a Shakespeare play in order to get his point across. This could either mean that Richard III was a very popular play at the time of Histriomastix so he included it as a piece of cultural reference, or he used it because it was well known at the time that Shakespeare was both an actor and poet. Either way, his audience would have known exactly what Posthaste meant by that line.

Wolfe is right. This list of “mean persons” in which “Shakespeare the player” is one of, does make it clear that Shakespeare the player, and Shakespeare of Stratford are one and the same. It also seems perfectly clear that player and playwright, at least in Shakespeare’s day, meant the same thing after all.

If you can find a primary source that shows the use of the word playwright, I’d love to hear from you. If you want to argue over who wrote the plays, you’ve come to the wrong blog. And if you want to point out that Shakespeare’s home town is Stratford-upon-Avon, yes I am well aware that this is the official name, but for brevity sake, it’s okay to say Stratford, just ask the Guardian.

Works Cited

Evans, G. Blakemore Elizabethan Jacobean Drama The Theatre in its Time. New Amsterdam Press. Print edition

The Guardian, Sherlock Holmes of the library cracks Shakespeare’s identity. Online https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/jan/08/sherlock-holmes-of-the-library-cracks-shakespeare-identity

Luminarium. Org Ben Johnson, epigram 49. Online http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/jonson/epigram49.htm

Share this:

Share this: