Women in Shakespeare

[/FONT]I hope that in claiming Viola for a feminist role model Miss Darcy does not mean the Viola who falls hopelessly in love with Orsino. This is a man so in love with an idea of love that exists nowhere but in his own foetid imagination that he stands as the epitome of narcissicism in a play that is Shakespeare's most intense exporation of the self-obsession and self-delusion of the subject in the grip of conventional love.
It has for long seemed to me that Shakespeare's sympathies in his later comedies are with the lower (in every respect) characters; that is to say the ones who retain some grasp of the physical necessities of love (as opposed to the Orsinos, Violas, Olivias, and Sebastians of the world for whom everything is "fancy"). If this is true, then the real heroin of the piece is Maria who is the only woman in the play who marries a man she knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perdito

[/FONT]I hope that in claiming Viola for a feminist role model Miss Darcy does not mean the Viola who falls hopelessly in love with Orsino.

---

I sure do. If you fall in love with someone, it's not your fault! And feminism does not necessarily mean anti-male. Well I guess some are, but I think the essence of feminism is that we are just as good as men are. Not always better, though :D often that IS the case! - But throughout history the situation of women has been often very hopeless and degraded. Think "obedient Ophelia", suppressed women unable to do anything except cook and clean, tiny feet in China....of course there have been times where women ruled. Venus figurines. Women as authors in Japan (the men were obliged to use female pseudonyms, though in the Western world it was often the other way round). Women scientists (though they obviously had a very hard time of it, and were also repressed)....Listen to some of Viola's speeches to Orsino about women. She argues (as Cesario, of course) that she knows

Quote:

---

Too well what love women to men may owe:
In faith, they are as true of heart as we.

---

And that...

Quote:

---

We men may say more, swear more: but indeed
Our shows are more than will; for still we prove
Much in our vows, but little in our love.

---

She is a strong woman, and is respected by all the men in Orsino's house. And surely it is love indeed, which she feels to Orsino, that she is so infatuated in? She loves him, sure, passionately, and fully, and it is equal to any more bodily and normal love of the servants. It is romantic, and sexual at once. The servants simply lack the romance. They are too down-to-earth for that, I think. And don't you love somebody the more, if you don't know them, if you have only just met them?...Then you can idealise, then you can sigh, then you can be attracted to them. If you know somebody all your life, or at least for a long time, there is no mystery in passion, and usually no idealism which is the very essence of love.

It is true that Orsino was "in love with the idea of love", and more passionate about his anguish, than with his love herself. It is not real love, mere infatuation. To Cesario he feels something completely different. He doesn't want to admit to himself...that he has fallen in love with a "boy".

Those are some of my thoughts...sorry if I have bored anyone...

Miss Darcy

Positive women characters are endless in Shakespeare, it all depends on how you look at their roles in the drama. Take Rosalind in As you like it, she's a positive guide for Celia, Orlando, Phoebe, and Silvius. She teaches them all what love is and how to respect it, even though she does it in her male counterpart. Despite the fact that she is pretending to be a man, her feminity guides her in producing the role that so many of this play's characters look up to! Not only do you have Rosalind that is a positive female figure, but what Hotspur's wife in Titus? Lady Percy promotes the softer side of Hotspur, sure she may be a pistol with him at times, but she does tone down the warrior and turn up the romantic. So, what if she's not the good guy's wife?!? Her role is still a positive one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simon

Desdemona was and unknowing, ignorant lovesick sap and Juliet was an obsessed child, good characters but not women to model yourselfe after.

---

Desdemona is one I could relate with because her undoing has nothing really to do with her, she is the hapless victim of a man's jealousy.

Hi, everybody :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

Actually you CAN visit Shakespeare's dreamland. Read some Plutarch and other historians that he had access to. The majority of his plays are based on others' historical writings. Some are what we would consider strait up plagerism today. I think the only plot that he really dreamed (interesting use of languege) is A Midsummer Night's Dream. Sorry Ava, but He hardly had an ounce of creativity in his bones.

---

I couldn't agree with you more that his plays are based on other people's historical writings, and that Sh shows no creativity in that field, but his creativity lies in the way he presented them. One can see from his plays that Sh had an understanding of human nature, motives, of cause and effect of human actions. The actual story isn't as important as the way you tell it. :)
At least that's my impression/opinion :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IWilKikU

Actually you CAN visit Shakespeare's dreamland. Read some Plutarch and other historians that he had access to. The majority of his plays are based on others' historical writings. Some are what we would consider strait up plagerism today. I think the only plot that he really dreamed (interesting use of languege) is A Midsummer Night's Dream. Sorry Ava, but He hardly had an ounce of creativity in his bones.

---

I think you can apreciate creativity in shakespeare without necessarily looking for an original plot. His creativity is so palpable in his characters. Characters like Malvolio and Falstaff are somuch more complex than the role requires. He was pretty good at creating real people instead of characatures or clear villans/heros. Plus if your a huge dork and study the rhyming skemes (kinda a waste of time) he's crazy creative with his use of rhyme/verse/song to convey levels of emotion, and deviances from the rhythm to make thoughts stand out... so he's basically the man

So I'm writting my final paper for shakes class on the evolution of the female character throughout his works (googling the subject brought me here) but I think shakespeare had a hard time writting woman roles that accually seemed like real woman-- I mean he's a genius but woman are kinda hard to get.

He started out with a lot of woman like Joan of Arc who were cool but come on they were basically just men in dresses. Then he had women who where total geniouses but kind of unnaturally perfict, like Portia who waltzes into a court of law and is all of a sudden a sick aturney even though she never went to school. I'm thinking that the most relatable/real women come at the end of his career like Paulina and Hermione in a Winter's Tale.