She played Crab the dog in two gentlemen of verona a.k.a. The One With The Dog and she did an amazing job bc all the dog in that play needs to do is hang out and have the characters kind of talk about how awful it is. So no matter what the dog does it is funny. The nights when she got real distracted and kept trying to wander off and do other stuff it was funny and the nights where she just stood there looking pleased to be the center of attention it was also funny. At that point she was pretty elderly too so it was like just… very funny. If you ever have a chance to have your dog be in shakespeare I recommend it highly
I think training dogs to act would be amazing because my dog was in a play once and it was like the best possible capacity to be involved in theater… I just got to hang out backstage with the dog and hand her off to the actor when she was needed on stage and I always got the loudest applause during curtain call even though no one knew who the fuck i was, because I was holding. The Dog.
Dismissing Romeo and Juliet as dumb horny teens is OUT, crying because every attempt these children made to show love, kindness and tolerance in the face of senseless hate only led to more violence and death is IN
crosspoint: the entire thing was that they were dumb kids. reading R&J growing up goes in stages: “this was so sad” “they’re so fucking dumb what the fuck” “this was so fucking sad”.
they’re dumb kids. there’s plenty of textual evidence they are both sort of selfish in their love (ie Romeo’s on the rebound, Juliet just super doesn’t want to get married to Paris and is desperate for anything-except-that-guy) and a lot of evidence they didn’t truly know each other/see each other for anything but for a romantic ideal (the entire “but soft” monologue intentionally uses grandiose terms and basically translates to “oh fuck she’s pretty”). they literally can’t even communicate essential information correctly. in my opinion they’re not a good match – and shakespeare knows how to write a good match.
but they should have been allowed to be dumb kids.
the families had gotten to a point that even love - even stupid, selfish, childish love - devolved into violence. while the scenes they share are peaceful until the end, their solo scenes are dominated by violence - romeo with physical violence and juliet suffering the violence of having been essentially sold to an older man. they took the violence that they were surrounded by and turned it onto themselves. they had been raised in it, had been cultivated by it, and when they faced adversity, violence was inevitably the only thing they knew how to control. juliet - soft, innocent, sympathetic juliet - is the final death. and hers is by a wielded blade.
theyweren’t trying to be a beacon of kindness or tolerance. but they were just kids. and what had seemed perfectly sensible (after all, the feud had resulted in death in either side, the rage made sense), the suddenness of a truly…. senseless death -who else can the families blame but themselves. no more finger pointing. after trying to hurt each other for so long, they only hurt themselves.
i’m convinced r&j isn’t about a one true love. juliet is the only one who calls it true love, the narrator certainly doesn’t. the first monologue describes it as “piteous“. instead, i think it’s about how it shouldn’t have been their lastlove. romeo and juliet could have been a romantic comedy about how fast kids fall in love with the stupidest things, how they make declarations of true love by the hour, how they float from one person to another, how they call crushes true love without knowing each other’s middle names.
it could have been a comedy. and i think, kind of, that’s what makes it such a perfect, terrible tragedy.
When daisies pied and violets blue And lady-smocks all silver-white And cuckoo-buds of yellow hue Do paint the meadows with delight, The cuckoo then, on every tree, Mocks married men; for thus sings he, Cuckoo; Cuckoo, cuckoo: O word of fear, Unpleasing to a married ear!
Finally revisited The Bard! I took inspiration from the famous Chandos portrait by John Taylor for this complete redesign. Available now for purchase at my Etsy!
Dunbar had the opportunity to turn a dense Shakespeare into something emotional - but it barely made it there. I was not as invested as I wanted to be in the characters, and mostly they felt distanced. I’d say cold, but even the cold-hearted characters felt a bit dull. This book is incredibly smart, and does tell the story of King Lear in a creative way. Very much like Shakespeare, I think I would have rather watched this rendition, rather than read it.
A quick, yet hard-hitting read, Tracy Chevalier tackles Othello in an accessible and fast-paced retelling. Without losing any of the drama, tragedy, or heartbreak, Chevalier places Othello into a 1970’s suburban playground. This little novel brings to the surface the racism that permeates our past and present, and actually parallels the original story amazingly well within this new context. I would recommend (mature) young readers to read New Boy next to Othello for a full understanding of the play and how literature has a large impact on perceiving and understanding the world around them.
I have never noticed how Aziraphale’s instinctive reaction to being called Crowley’s friend is to smile at him:
This is the moment right before Aziraphale remembers that they’re not supposed to be seen together and starts explaining that they have never met before. So, even in Shakespearean times he already considered Crowley to be his friend. Which makes the bandstand scene and the “We’re not friends” even more ridiculous. This angel is so good at lying to himself.
Also, as I’ve already said somewhere, Crowley then proceeds with the famous Age does not wither nor custom stale his infinite variety. By saying this, he’s playing on Aziraphale’s ridiculous excuses about having never met before and not knowing each other. Basically Crowley is emphasizing the fact that, firstly, they are friends indeed and, secondly, that each of their meeting is like discovering each other anew.
In other words, he says Yes, Aziraphale, one could really say that we’ve never met before because your infinite variety makes each of our meetings feel like the first one.
Also I just realized the other day… This sentence that Will plagiarizes ends up in Antony and Cleopatra. Like I knew that before, because @drawlight pointed it out, but I suddenly made the connection “Oh, so Anthony wasn’t a random choice for a first name then, huh.” Like wow. Naming yourself after the titular character in a play that didn’t exist yet but you contributed to on one of your dates. How sentimental!!! (Especially when you consider the terms on which they parted… Happier memories… I wonder if the name is a sort of apology/olive branch. ‘let’s start over/dial it back, remember the good times?’)
God I just can’t stop thinking about this now!! Crowley, waking up after his extended nap. Getting back in the saddle, maybe still spending a few years apart from Aziraphale depending on when you think exactly he woke up. Suddenly he’s busy and he needs a name…. And maybe enough time has finally passed that he regrets the argument they had. He knows why they can’t come to terms, and he won’t ask for it again, but he misses his angel. So what better way to signal to him, “If you hear about me, please, I’m ready to talk. I’m ready to make up. Please, I’m going to build up a reputation until you can’t ignore me. I want to meet you again and discover how you changed in my absence” than to pick the name Anthony???
“Remember when I said that about you? When I talked about meetings and knowing? I’m ready for that again.”
Except. He went by some version of Tony with Da Vinci didn’t he?
…… That I think is true (I think it was Antonio maybe??? Idk if that’s a book reference or something they added for one of the special editions), but consider… Anthony and Cleopatra did exist. And their romance was defined, as much as one can glean any truth about such mythologized figures, as an arrangement becoming something more. Something real. Being on their own side against a great power that ultimately vanquished them.
And I also don’t think that necessarily precludes Crowley advertising himself as Anthony as a means of communicating all these feelings to Aziraphale. (In any case, Aziraphale doesn’t seem to know about the moniker prior to 1941….)
Select additional comments:
@ambular-dcomment: So does that mean when Aziraphale said ‘Anthony??…I’ll get used to it’ at the church, he was implying 'Wait, you’re seriously casting me as Cleopatra?? … all right, well, if that’s really how you feel about it then who am I to contradict’
@a-ginger-in-blackreply: The Roman dude’s name was Antony, not Anthony, though in British English they’re pronounced the same.
In the novel, there’s mention of the Mona Lisa cartoon being dedicated to Antonio, so he was using the name by 1503 at the latest.
@joan-daardvarkreply: This makes me wonder why this alias didn’t come up until 1941. Not to Aziraphale, in any case.
joan-daardvarkreply: Upon further consideration and discussion with @forbiddenmadrigals… What if he’d already taken this alias in Rome? He could have witnessed Antony and Cleopatra’s romance and heard Antony say these same words to her in real life. So he didn’t come up with Age does not wither, but rather repeated it. He thought that this description suited the angel well and then uttered it at a convenient time (at the Globe). All that was left was to nudge Shakespeare to write a play about the events which Crowley had actually seen himself.
Another thing excites me though. The details below confuse me more than actually clarify anything but I think they’re worth mentioning anyway:
Original sin, serpents… May I go completely nuts and suggest that Crowley could, in fact, be Cleopatra? This doesn’t explain why he chose Antony as an alias but still it’s a fun thought. Or maybe he was present at her court? Who knows but it’s curious nevertheless.
Also, knowing my obsession with solar/lunar symbolism (Aziraphale = Sun, Crowley = Moon), I found this so very endearing:
Helios meaning sun and Selene meaning moon, ofc.
@liquidlyriumreply: Yes! I saw that in my frantic wiki reading as well!!! This is all extremely good!!!! (Also if we’re being honest Crowley is not the soldier of the two)
I mean let’s also consider that we know that they view each other far better than they see themselves yes? At the trials, Crowley plays Aziraphale as brave and strong under pressure… Yes he is Cleopatra clearly, but maybe he took that name because of what he sees in Antony (Aziraphale) in the hopes that he’d take on some of those qualities 0:
But he never let on until 1941 I’m still dying at all these Implications
joan-daardvarkreply: …in the hopes that he’d take on some of those qualities
You mean, like, as if they were able to… become each other?? *le gasp*
liquidlyriumreply: but also counterpoint: Crowley adopted the name so that his initials would be AC so that way he could always see them next to each other. Esp when he thought it would never happen because SIDES and all
joan-daardvarkreply(): Knowing his propensity to symbolism, I don’t see why not. We’re talking about a person bringing stone lecterns to his house in memory of his forbidden love, he could absolutely do that.
I am also convinced he sees it as something stylish.
Throw away respect, tradition, form, and ceremonious duty, for you have but mistook me all this while. I live with bread like you, feel want, taste grief, need friends…
