Looking back at my
posts, I find that I most interested in the characters’ motives and actions
within the limitations of their environment. Shakespeare wrote about society as
having the English, Christian characteristics of his own place and time,
whether his play was taking place in his own contemporary time, centuries
before he lived, or even in Italy. This framework of society where everyone has
a role to play and rules to either obey or break cause the characters to act
and react in the ways that they do.
I like to see
characters stepping out of the role that society prescribes for them.
Shakespeare does this with different outcomes in his plays, which is admirable
because all of the characters have to play by the same societal rules. It is
their personalities and the reasons they reject society which determine the
outcome. For example, Macbeth and Lady
Macbeth’s ambition to rule is driven by ambition, pride, and greed, they are
able to dispose of Duncan, but they are not able to live with the consequences
or mental stress which their crime causes. In an inverse way, King Lear aspires
to give up his throne and responsibilities, but maintain the benefits of being
king, and his decision causes a disordering of the social structure continues
all the way down to the lowest tier of society, where a servant steps out of
his social parameter to challenge Cornwall’s cruelty. Bolingbroke’s decision to challenge Richard II
and take the throne has the power of changing the course of history, and in Elizabethan
audience’s views, perhaps even the character of God and the universe itself. Jessica’s choice to abandon her father’s
religion and marry a Christian does not seem to be able to make her able to fit
in with society, she is one of those characters who are not able to
successfully change her situation through social defiance. The theme that I see
through all of my posts is that society is that catalyst for making these
characters who they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment