the dead

[MarsMonster]

i really haven't read everything shakespeare wrote but from what i see, and what i know, it seems to me that every play has to end with ten or more dead bodies why is that?
do you think he 'killed' in plays out of revenge? or anger? or just wanted his plays to have more power? was that usual back then? or did he just like the power?

[Blackadder]

Only the tradegies and some of the histories end with deaths--not the comedies or the romances. So, if you don't like to watch all the main characters die, I suggest that you stick to the comedies.

But, like Richard Dreyfuss' character said in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, you know the play is over when the stage is littered with bodies.

As for why does everyone die in the tragedies, I like to think of it this way: think of the play as an experiment where you want the most volatile end result. Often, the plots and the characters preclude any 'happy' ending. In plays like Othello, though, there are multiple opportunities for the story to have a happy ending, but something always happens. Which adds to the tragic nature of the play, I think.

Perhaps if there weren't deaths at the end, the plays wouldn't be tragedies. Part of my definition of tragedy is that the ending is irrevocable and irreparable.

And the histories that end in multiple homicides, suicides, and other -cides--it's usually because those people really did die.

There's probably more to this issue though. But, try Midsummer Night's Dream or Much Ado About Nothing, if you want a change. I don't know why they don't teach more comedies in school. I always thought that people would like Shakespeare more if they got to read his work in other genres.

[AbdoRinbo]

i really haven't read everything shakespeare wrote but from what i see, and what i know, it seems to me that every play has to end with ten or more dead bodies why is that?
do you think he 'killed' in plays out of revenge? or anger? or just wanted his plays to have more power? was that usual back then? or did he just like the power?

Shakespearean plays are something of a 'Death Cult'. He never blessed his characters with a 'natural' death, but by doing this he was allowed to use the slain spirits in Purgatory as characters on the stage who contributed to his favorite theme: reality vs. madness (or simple truth vs. illusion).

Shakespeare used ghosts more than anyone else during his age, but in a different fashion than traditional ghost stories: Shakespeare's ghosts do not return to beg for prayers (prayers that would reduce their Purgatory pain and/or free them from their temporary torment); rather, they return to haunt the waking minds of those who had take life away from them. But, above all else, they--like the ghost of King Hamlet--wished not to be forgotten. 'Remember me' is the King's request and Hamlet responds, somewhat out of sarcasm, 'Remember thee?'

The ghosts of those slain in Shakespeare's tragedies, histories, and even comedies are there to move the characters along their chosen paths. But Shakespeare only believed in ghosts in as much as they existed onstage, so we cannot rightfully conclude that he believed in Purgatory. But perhaps there is some relevance to the belief that Shakespeare was writing out of anger. His two brothers, Richard and Edmund (which, as you might recall, are the names of the two antagonists in 'King Lear') had carried on sexual encounters with Anne Hathaway, Shakespeare's wife.

There is strong evidence that supports the belief that Shakespeare's plays were portraits of his own life. James Joyce has the character Stephen Dedalus discuss this interesting riddle in the 'Scylla and Charybdis' episode of 'Ulysses', and there is an amazing work of Shakespearean Criticism by Stephen Greenblatt titled 'Hamlet in Purgatory', which explains the fascination Shakespeare had with death (or the illusion of death) in his plays. Greenblatt is a very enjoyable read . . . Joyce is a little tough to tackle, but definitely worth the effort. Both are highly recommended.

[Eric, son of Chuck]

I don't know why they don't teach more comedies in school

Good news for you. They're teaching the Tempest in Literature 12 up here in BC, Canada. Unfortunately, it's all tragedies through mainstream English 9-12. If you ask me, they should stick the Tempest in for grade 11, and leave Hamelt to the Lit students.

[chrissy]

I'm taking a course from Athabasca University that's all Shakespearean comedies. They do tend to get ignored academically.

[nome1486]

As Theseus says in A Midsummer-Night's Dream, "No epilogue, I pray you; for your play needs no excuse. Never excuse; for when the players are all dead, there need none to be blamed." Maybe this means Shakespeare knocked off so many characters in his tragedies so he wouldn't have to write an epilogue.

Seriously, does anyone have any comments on that quote? I'm wondering if it's sort of a pun: the epilogue, presumably, was used to "excuse" the play to the audience, or in other words, defer blame from the playwright for any faults; also, no one in the play can be blamed for killing anyone if everyone winds up dead in the end. I think it must be a pun, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. But does anyone have another idea?

[Blackadder]

There is that. Epilogues were frequently used to shift blame.

But also, this quote refers directly to the Mechanicals' perfomance of Pyramus and Thisbe. I don't know if you've seen this performed, but generally, Bottom et al. overact and bumble their way through it. Part of the humor in the line comes from Theseus' trying to get Bottom and Co. off the stage. In a sense, the line

"No epilogue, I pray you; for your play needs no excuse. Never excuse; for when the players are all dead, there need none to be blamed."

can be read as "Please stop talking." At least, that was my take on it.

[nome1486]

"Please stop talking"....That's probably one reason Shakespeare didn't use epilogues much, he must have thought the audience would be so tired of the play already! I did see it performed, almost two weeks ago, and the actor who played Bottom was a really humorous guy who had great stage presence and played it to the fullest. I think Bottom steals the show in any performance because that's what the character is supposed to do; he's sort of a larger-than-life character who wants to play every role and put his all into it. Anyway, the Mechanicals are my favorite characters of the whole play--they're somehow the easiest to empathize with. Do you know why they're called "the Mechanicals"?

[nome1486]

Back on topic: like you said, Blackadder, the play is more tragic when the tragedy could have been averted but for some misunderstanding or deception. I think that tragic twist of fate, in addition to the love story, is what makes Romeo and Juliet Shakespeare's must popular tragedy. Hamlet, which I just saw performed last night, doesn't seem to fit that criteria: most of the deaths at the end seem inevitable, or at least foreseeable. I think the tragedy comes from the fact that Hamlet is so obsessed with his father's death, and his ghost's command to have revenge, that he turns everyone he loves into an enemy.

[Blackadder]

Newer performances of Midsummer Night's Dream, I think, are giving more sympathy for the Mechanicals. In an old film version (I think from the sixties, it had Dianna Rigg in it), the Mechanicals were complete bumblers and their performance was painfully bad. Bottom, though, is always over the top.

And they're called mechanicals because their day jobs all involved them working with their hands. In Shakespeare's time, it was any one who had to work with thier hands for a living. The definition of 'mechanic' as an occupation has narrowed since his day. Hence, the mechanicals. That's part of the reason their performance is so awful; they're far from professional players.

I've always liked the Mechanicals.

[nome1486]

I wondered if that might be it. Hello there, Blackadder, fellow night-owl...oops, you just left.

[Blackadder]

Continuing the thread of tragedy:

I think the tragedy of Hamlet hinges on the eponymous character and his indecision. He's constantly waffling, and the tension of the play comes from this--is he going to turn into an avenger, what is he going to do. I didn't think that the ending was inevitable, really. Another contributing factor to the tragedy, is that there is always in out for the characters. Hamlet could have surrendered, Romeo could have waited, Othello could have had faith, Lear could have listened. This probably reiterates what I've already said, but I really think that these flaws are what create the tragedy.

Really, Hamlet goes back and forth so much that the ending remains up in the air until the very end, when all the emotion builds up to the breaking point and crests, everyone's plan goes wrong and then you get the incredible multiple murders.

[nome1486]

I think the first couple of surprise deaths, earlier on, are the most tragic. Everything else sort of follows from there, if you know what I mean. But I understand what you're saying; the main question of Hamlet's revenge isn't resolved until the very end.

[Blackadder]

Especially Polonius' death. Who saw that coming?

[nome1486]

Exactly. But let me revise what I said in my last post: the question of revenge isn't just unresolved, but nearly forgotten, until the end of the play. Laertes comes home furious at the king for his father's death, but the king tells him that Hamlet did it. This could be a conniving scheme for Hamlet's downfall, except for the fact that Hamlet really did kill Polonius. So the audience is left to wonder, "Who's the villain here?" Since almost everyone acts in some way like a villain, and villains almost always get their comeuppance in the end, all the deaths at the end don't seem that surprising. They're still sorrowful, but not as much as the innocent deaths earlier on.