What I've been reading

In case you think I've been slacking off, I have in fact been reading a whole lot. Here are a few titles that have been occupying my time:

Winnie the Pooh by A.A. Milne
Having not spent my childhood in the US, I missed out on a lot of great literature for children that my friends grew up with. This is one of those titles. For me to read a book like this, I really have to be in the mood for it, and I was. As an adult I find this book charming. There is a lot of humor that derives from the childlike imagination of the author. It reminds of of what it feels like to be a kid. The characters are adorable and their tales entertaining. I find these elements in children's books necessary for the soul, and am glad I took the time to enjoy it.


All About Love by bell hooks
Bell hooks rubbed me the wrong way when I was first introduced to her work. It took me a while to realize that my judgment as a young scholar was neither valid nor worth holding on to. Many friends of mine had praised the greatness of this book to me, so I thought I should give it a try. The work is insightful and inspiring, and I enjoyed it almost thoroughly. Hooks discusses the common perception of love, and how people choose to express it and the consequences of their expression to themselves, their lovers, and their community. Toward the end the narrative wandered too far off into the endorsement of religion and the supernaturals, which I thought undermined the seriousness of the work. Her intelligence, however, is present throughout, and no matter what your view of love or how much you think you understand the subject, I think you will learn something from this work.

Wit by Margaret Edson
Wouldn't it be nice if we can all write our first play and win a Pulitzer for it? Maybe, but I'd rather not win any award but constantly get my plays produced throughout my life, unlike Edson. "Wit" is her first and only play to date that has been produced on stage, and I wonder what other tricks she has up her sleeves. I didn't find the work particularly genius. It is about an English professor who is dying of ovarian cancer. I'm sure it can be moving if performed well, but I don't find it a great work of drama. I thought the way Edson incorporates into the play her knowledge of John Donne and metaphysical poetry as well as the literary discussion of witticism both amateurish and uninteresting. There are works that make literary references in intelligent ways that make you admire the knowledge of the authors--this is not one of those works. If it were a musical, Andrew Lloyd Webber will probably score it. It wasn't a bore to read, but wasn't particularly a good read either.

"Desire Under the Elms" by Eugene O'Neil

There are few things as effective as sex in art. Because it is so primitive in humans, it appeals to the majority of people. It seems that when picking sex as a subject of a work of art, you already have half of your work cut out for you. That doesn't mean, however, that writing about sex requires no effort. Just because something has the power to affect people doesn't mean that the people are going to want to touch it. I personally don't read erotica—it's not on my bookshelf or reading list, even though I have no doubt that it could be pleasurable. I don't read for the purpose of getting pleasure or getting turned on, but for education. Therefore any books that use sex as a subject would have to use it in a certain way that will educate me in some ways.

Because I often write about sex, it is interesting to look at how other writers write about sex. A lot of times I find that descriptions of sexual desire or sexual activities serve as a good device that writers use to reveal something about the characters. In “Desire Under the Elms,” Eugene O'Neil demonstrates how sex can be used to develop both plots and characters.

The main characters in this play are driven by their desire for each other. Eben, the youngest son of Ephraim Cabot, shows strong hatred for his father's new young wife, Abbie. At the same time he is unable to deny his feelings for her. She, too, is interested in him, though her intention is less conspicuous. Once their desire is realized, they are on the road toward their downfalls.

The play is about sex because it shows are the desire begins, progresses, and subsequently ends the story. It shows the power of sex to control actions and emotions. The play is based on a Greek myth, so that love and sexual desire are relatively interchangeable. Eben and Abbie may not love each other in a sensible sense, but they do in this tradition of storytelling.

The main struggle of the characters is not adultery but themselves and their lacks of trust in each other. Eben thinks that Abbie is using him to get the house, and Abbie, in an attempt to prove herself, ends up murdering her own child. In this way, the play doesn't steer from its course—it doesn't change the subject to the struggle between desire and society, but stays with the struggle between desire and self. It is their desire that brings them to their ruins.

This play is a bit of a melodrama, and is perhaps less interesting now than at the time of its publication. It is also probably more interesting to see than to read. I almost feel as if it has to be staged out of this world in order to make the audience believe in the story. I will recommend it for its prominence in American literature rather than for its entertaining quality.

"Coriolanus" by William Shakespeare

"Coriolanus" is said to be the most political of all Shakespeare plays. it is about a great Roman war hero who knows his way around the battlefield but not into the hearts of his own people. Refusing to soften his image and conform to social customs, he turns the people against him and causes his own downfall.

The image of a politician is perhaps even more important that what he and his party stands for. We live in a culture full of celebrities and false idols. What the play shows, which remains true until today, is that one's good deeds are not enough; one has to magnify and display them for all to see. Politicians lie, whether or not they want to, because they have to; they will do whatever it takes to be liked because they can achieve nothing without. Coriolanus is willing to not be liked, unable to foresee that being liked is necessary for him to keep his position. As the play goes to show, he cannot continue to serve Rome because he refuses to comply with the people's will.

The play is not one of the best cases of character studies. While Coriolanus is well-developed enough, he pales in comparison to other Shakespeare tragic heroes. He has many great fiery moments, but the tenderer, more humane ones are not sufficiently explored. Aufidius, the main villain, is inconsistent and shallow, and never quite grows into a well-rounded person. The most interesting character is Volumnia, the mother of Coriolanus, who raises him to be a war hero and later persuades him to reconcile with Rome after everybody else had failed. Through Volumnia Shakespeare once again shows his value of women and his ability to create strong female characters that triumph over men.

I enjoyed reading this play a lot more than the previous tragedies based on Roman histories, including "Julius Caesar" and "Antony & Cleopatra." It moves at a fast pace and focuses only on the main story line (no clowns or whores here). This play is not nearly as well-known as it should be, but it is one that, I believe, will always be relevant.

"Henry V" by William Shakespeare

Not only did I not post my February Shakespeare entry on time, I didn't even finish reading the play until a few days into March. This is unacceptable, but at least I'm still keeping up with the reading-one-every-month thing, which is good. I'll try to be more on time this month.

I chose to read "Henry V," a history, and was quite impressed by it. While I found all the history plays so far to be dreadfully boring, this one turned out to be a lot of fun to read--very brief and entertaining. I was curious to learn more about Hal--my favorite character from the two Henry IV plays--as he becomes king in this one. The reckless young man that he was had turned out to be a valiant king, very decisive and persistent, both in the ways of war and love. The play chronicles the events of the Battle of Agincourt, and ends with his courtship of Princess Katherine of France.

It seems to me, perhaps because of my knowledge of and affection for the character from the Henry IV plays, that Hal, now known as King Henry, isn't completely a mature man that he appears to be. Within the kingly guise there still exists the young man who had needed his father's approval and tried to prove his mettle. The scene in which the disguised Henry is arguing with common soldiers, for example, shows his playfulness often seen in his youth.

I still didn't care for the comical moments that were supposed to offer a relief in the serious play, but here, due to their brevity, they didn't bother me so much. Falstaff, the major comic figure in the prequels, didn't make an appearance here, but his absence is strongly felt. It is a wonder why Shakespeare chooses to leave him out, although it is clear that his importance is very much on the Bard's mind. During the few times that Falstaff is mentioned, it is in relations to Henry's reckless behaviors in his youth. When his death is announced, it recalls the memory of the scene in "Henry IV Part II" in which Henry coldheartedly denies his friendship. I had hoped for a scene wherein Henry reflects on his past friendship with Falstaff or responds to the news of his death, but that never happened. Instead, the few mentions of the character are sufficient to recreate Falstaff as a tragic figure that haunts the story throughout. Being fond of the young Henry, I constantly felt the presence of his past self as well as his estranged friendship with Falstaff. I believe it was out of duty that he disowned his old friend, and that, while believing he was doing the right thing, he still felt the absence of his friend and his past, much like Charles Kane and Rosebud.

The play isn't as well constructed and dramatized as many others, but there is a certain pleasure new to me that derives from following Hal as he gets older. It makes reading these history plays a more meaningful experience than it would otherwise have been. Unfortunately, Hal will no longer make an appearance, as "Henry VI Part I" begins with his funeral. I want to recommend this play, because it is the first History that I actually enjoy, but I fear it wouldn't mean anything to those who haven't read the prequels. Therefore I will leave you with this: sometimes it takes efforts to reach a certain kind of pleasure. Read the plays, or do as you will.

"The Winter's Tale" by William Shakespeare

Last night a friend of mine remarked on how amazing she found the fact that I loved Shakespeare despite English not being my first language. It got me to thinking about how this great affection for Shakespeare had begun. I was lucky that the first couple of works of his that I had been introduced to, at the time when I knew next to nothing about literature, were some of the works that today I still cherish as some of his best: "Twelfth Night," "Much Ado About Nothing," and "The Two Gentlemen of Verona." These are all comedies, and I like them because they show off what I consider to be what Shakespeare does best: clever dialogues, lively characters, and compelling love stories.

My least favorite of Shakespeare plays were ones about war and conspiracy. Two months ago I read "The Merchant of Venice" and it reminded me why I had ever started liking him in the first place--the comedies always have a higher place in my heart. This month I read "The Winter's Tale" which was categorized as a "Romance," along with "Pericles," "Cymbeline," and "The Tempest." It was written later in his career, and was consistently entertaining. The story is about a jealous king who accuses his queen of having an affair with his friend, ending up destroying that friendship and losing his wife and child. The main themes are guilt and forgiveness--can a man be cleansed of his crime if he washed it with guilt, and is it ever too late to forgive others and to forgive oneself?

Nothing extremely tragic really happens in this play. It is a beautiful little tale, rather lighthearted. While I don't consider it once of the Bard's best, I found it a great fun to read. It also seems like a good play to see on stage. There are very few of Shakespeare plays that I don't think people have to read before going to see it, and this is one of them. What a joy it would be to sit back and watch this story unfold in front of you--somebody produce this in Portland soon, please!

"Moonlight" by Harold Pinter

They call Harold Pinter one of the most prominent playwrights in our time. He is English--born in East London in the 30s--and gained popularity late in the 50s. I thought it was about time I started reading some of his works. I went to the library and picked up a few titles, one of which is "Moonlight," which is one of his later play.

I enjoyed the process of reading it. It was fun exploring these characters, and I found the dialogues intriguing. However, this is one of those eccentric plays wherein you have to be in a particular mood, or be a particular kind of reader/audience, to truly like it. It consists of seven characters: a dying father, his wife, his two sons, his daughter, his mistress, and his friend. The dying father recalls the memories of the people he loves, the two sons talk to each other in code to avoid confronting the issue, and the daughter is probably dead.

I often say that a good production can make a play good or bad. It is difficult, and I think wrong, to make a final judgment on any theatrical work. What I don't like on the page may be fantastic on stage, if it is interpreted by people who understand it in a certain way that I don't. I can say that what I find on the pages of this play does not amount to much; it was a fun read, and interesting at times, but I don't see how as a whole it conveys any strong message. I don't see the premise that drives it forward, and it doesn't leave me with any long-lasting impression. Does that make it a bad play? I don't know.

One of my most favorite things about going to the theater is seeing a play about which I know nothing of. It is nice to sit back and be told a story. If "Moonlight" were playing in my area, I might go see it and bring a friend or two. But as a work of literature, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

And I mean no disrespect to Pinter. After all, he is one of the most prominent playwrights in our time, and who am I to judge him?

"Antony and Cleopatra" by William Shakespeare

My friends, you might have thought that I have been slacking off. And you are right, I have been. The holiday season and the graduate school application process had been overwhelming me so that all the other things in my life had to be put aside. But now it's time to get back in the game.

While I have neglected blogging, I have not neglected my reading all that much. The Shakespeare play I chose to read last month as "Antony and Cleopatra," which I didn't finish until January 1st. What is there to say about this play? It takes place after the events in "Julius Caesar." It is a tragedy about how Marc Antony's affair with Cleopatra weakens his military image, which then leads to his downfall. To be honest, I didn't find the play even a little bit compelling. In fact I thought it was a bore. After reading a lot of his plays you begin to see the repetitiveness in Shakespeare's style. With powerful performances from the actors, this play could be moving in the theater. But on the page it's just bland. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood to read it.

I need to take a break from the historical plays for a while. This month I'll read a comedy, or perhaps a romance.

"Six Characters in Search of an Author" by Luigi Pirandello; adapted by Robert Brustein

Luigi Pirandello's "Six Characters in Search of an Author" is a play mentioned in many books about drama and Modernist literature that I have come across. The version that I just read was published in 1998, adapted by Robert Brustein. Adapted, not translated--this means that the text isn't merely translated from Italian to English, but that the context of it is altered at the hand of Brustein. There is an implication that certain things might have been updated, supplied to, and subtracted from the original text to create this version. As I have not read the translation of the original Italian, I have no idea how much different this version is from the original play. Overall, I find it an easy read, but not very impressive. The format of the play is interesting and must have been innovative in the Modern period, but the plot is typical and predictable. It might not have been so in 1921, but it certainly is now. I can't envision how this play can be staged today that would make it appealing to the audience, but it seems like a good material for a Modernism class.

"The Merchant of Venice" by William Shakespeare

The past two months I read two of Shakespeare's history plays, "Henry IV Part I and II." History plays, as I have noted, are not my cup of tea. And since I can only manage to read one of his work a month, it is a bummer when I read one and don't enjoy it. After finishing "Henry IV Part II" I knew that I had to read something fun this month, a comedy, perhaps. I ended up with "The Merchant of Venice."

Antonio is the Merchant of Venice, but the story is not any more about him than it is about his friend Bassanio and the antagonist Shylock. Much in the same way that "Julius Caesar" is more about Brutus, and the Henry IV plays about Prince Hal. Bassanio is in love with an heiress Portia, and he needs money to cover his traveling expenditure in order to woo her. His friend Antonio is unable to help him, having lost his fortunes at sea. Bassanio then turns to Shylock the Jew for money with Antonio guaranteeing the loan. The condition is that if Bassanio fails to repay the debt in time, Shylock wiill cut out a pound of Antonio's flesh. Meanwhile, Shylock's daughter Jessica falls in love with Lorenzo, a friend of Antonio and Bassanio, and runs away with him. This further intensifies Shylock's hatred for Christians and results in his malice toward Antonio.

Shylock is painted as a evil character, but he has every reason to be. In Shakespeare's time Jews are strongly discriminated against. Shakespeare himself has made many racist remarks about Jews in several of his plays, which reflects the politics of the time. In the play, Shylock is even more poorly treated than his servant. There is always a tone of disdain when anybody talks to him, and not a single person expresses compassion toward his social condition. While his malice toward Antonio seems outrageously violence, it is not without a cause. For Antonio, despite his love for his friend and his willingness to die in the name of justice, has spat on Shylock for being a Jew. To modern readers, this hardly makes him seem a sympathetic character. Instead it is perhaps Shylock for who most moves the readers.

However, true to his style, Shakespeare allows his villain to speak for himself. One of the most remarkable things about the play is that, while the whole world of the play seems completely ignorant of its own racism, Shylock is offered this speech:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. (Act 3 Scene 1)

He alone has the wisdom to see that all humans are equal, despite how inferior the Christians think of him. They deserve to be treated by him the same way that he is treated by them.

Another great aspect of the play is its representation of women. The women in the play are smarter than their men, and seemingly to hold a higher card in every situation. Portia designs a riddle that only her true love can solve it and win her for a bride. She shows herself from a start as a woman with a brain, outsmarting her princely suitors. Afterward it is she who comes up with the charade to save Antonio and to test her husband's love.

This play is absolutely remarkable, and in my opinion one of the Bard's best comedies. It is witty and thoroughly entertaining. I don't find the fool, Shylock's old servant Lancelot, as annoying as the fools in other plays; his contribution to the play is just the right amount. The last scene, in which Portia and Nerissa reveals their secret charade to their husbands, is one of the most delightful scenes of Shakespeare comedies. Despite its rather corrupted morals, this play is a wonderful work of literature.

David Hare's "Secret Rapture"

Every month I read at least one non-Shakespearean play. This month's play is David Hare's "Secret Rapture."

The play is about a family that has recently lost its father--the mother is long dead. Katherine, the father's new wife, an alcoholic good-for-nothing, falls into the hand of Isobel, the youngest daughter. Isobel feels the need to take care of other people's problems, while her sister Marion accuses her of being selfish and making others feel guilty. Since Katherine is unemployed, and since nobody would employ her, Isobel feels obligated to find her a job and let her live in her flat after the house is sold. However, Isobel's own resources are minimal, and having Katherine around not only affects her job but also her relationship with her boyfriend Irwin. The story is about how Isobel comes to terms with her own desires and does something for herself for once, and how the people around her reveal their selfishness in response to her actions.

I have only experienced few of Hare's works. A while back I read his plays "The Blue Room" and "The Judas Kiss," the latter I found particularly moving. The film "The Hours," whose script he adapted from Michael Cunningham's novel, is one of my most favorite films of all time. "The Secret Rapture" would be a good show to see; it is well structured and orchestrated. I don't find the work to be a literary masterpiece--as I find many of Arthur Miller's works, for example--but it is the kind of work that makes good theater. It is a good read.

Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part II"

Henry IV Part II is (obviously) the sequel to Henry IV Part I, continuing the story of the king after his triumph over conspirators. The king is now old and sick, and distrustful of the ability of his oldest son, Prince Harry "Hal", to succeed him.

There isn't much to the story, which makes this play such a pain to read. The introduction in my edition offers some really interesting information. One is that Shakespeare probably split the history of this kind into two parts because he realized, as he was working on the first one, that he did not have enough room. This play, then, is what was left over from the first, which makes it hardly surprising that there isn't much left to be told. It spends a lot of time showing the popular character from the prequel, Sir John Falstaff, who apparently was the crowds' favorite. As for me, I found all of Falstaff's scenes annoying. They don't move the story forward, and they are boring as hell to read. Once again, this is probably something that will be fun to see on stage, but that would also imply that the audience is very well equipped with the Elizabethan language and references. If I were to stage this play, these scenes would be heavily edited.

Some of the best scenes in the play are the ones with the dying king as he converses with his sons. These are beautifully written, and they remind us of the Shakespeare that we know and love. Other than that I find very little to enjoy in this play. It does no justice to the prequel, and is better left for a day when there really isn't anything else to read--perhaps after you finish reading the rest of the canon.

Ben Jonson's "Volpone"

The month is almost over and I've only posted one legitimate entry. Where did all the time go?

As you know every month I write about at least one non-Shakespearean play. I had just finished reading "Volpone," by Ben Jonson, Shakespeare's contemporary and the author of such works as "The Alchemist" and "Barthlowmew Fair," neither of which I have read and only learned about from Wikipedia. If I know anything about Jonson, it is that he wrote his plays for publication rather than for performance, which is pretty much the opposite of what makes drama good, in my book, anyway. The anthology from which I read "Volpone" calls him--not one of the greatest, but--the greatest comedy playwright of his time. Perhaps they forgot about Shakespeare.

It would be unfair to compare every playwright from this period to Shakespeare, especially if the comparison is made by me, who considers Shakespeare--not one of the greatest, but--the greatest writer of all time. So I won't; instead I want to compare Jonson to Molière, whose masterpiece "Tartuffe" I enjoyed not too long ago. I find that the format of Jonson's comedy is very much similar to that of Molière's--there are lots of characters whose lives and personal affairs happen to be intertwined with each others'; the difference is that Molière's humor is much wittier, and behind the hilarious story there is actually great intelligence hidden underneath. "Volpone," a morality play, is rather overt in the way it presents its lesson and therefore making it heavy-handed and unimpressive.

"Volpone" or "The Fox," is a story about a wealthy man who pretends to be terminally ill in order to lure his friends to visit him and shower him with presents, hoping that once he dies they will inherit his fortunes. His servant Mosca spends most of the play running around helping his master deceive these men. Will Volpone get caught? Will he be punished for his deception? Read and find out.

As a Shakespeare and Renaissance reader, I am not unfamiliar with the five-act format. However, "Volpone" lacks the beautiful and intelligent language necessary to carry its lengthy speeches and dialogues. The writing is bland and boring. It has many characters, most of whom underdeveloped, making them easily forgettable.

Perhaps it would be more pleasurable to see this play performed as opposed to reading it; I can see how talented comedy actors can make these characters and scenarios interesting. As a reading material, however, very little joy derives from it. The moral of the story--lie and you'll get caught--is so simple it makes me wonder why anybody would go out of their way to write a five-act play just to prove it. I know, it's the style of the time, but still--am I wrong to expect a little more intelligence from this?

As a rival, Jonson's got nothing on Shakespeare. So stay tuned for my entry on Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part II" hopefully sometime before the month ends.

Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part I"

Every month I (try to) read and blog about at least one Shakespeare play. This month's play is The History of Henry the Fourth.

"Henry IV Part I" is the first history play of Shakespeare that I have ever read. (I know--it surprises me too.) The story is about those who conspire against him, and those who rise up to fight against the conspirators.

I expected to be bored, and was pleasantly surprised by how funny and entertaining the play was. It had so many farcical scenes that it read almost like a comedy, with a memorable character like Sir John Falstaff, who was just ridiculous. I was also captivated by Prince Harry "Hal", who gave up his careless ways to prove to his father that he was a deserving heir to the throne. While there was a good scene between Henry and his son, the play wasn't really about their relationship; while the conspiracy was the central plot, it wasn't elaborated and well executed (unlike, for example, the conspiracy in "Julius Caesar"). Henry was accused by his conspirators of breaking the promises he had given them, of forgetting those who had helped him to the throne, but his character was neither honored or condemned. The play, then, was not about the moral behind the story. I don't know what it is that history plays are meant to be, but nowadays when I go see a play that I haven't read before, it is simply to sit back and be told a story, and I can imagine this play being quite interesting on stage despite lacking the elements that might have made it a great work of literature.

(Did anyone notice how I just talked about literature in past tense?)

Eugene O'Neil's "Long Day's Journey Into Night"

Every month I will write about one Shakespeare play and one non-Shakespearean play. This month's non-Shakespearean play is Eugene O'Neil's "Long Day's Journey Into Night."

As always I try to find a way to write about something without giving away the plot. Most of the works I write about are the ones I want everybody to read.

I recently saw a production of Arthur Miller's "All My Sons," a drama about a dysfunctional family. Not long after I read O'Neil's "Long Day" and found that the two plays bare some similarity: both plays are set in a period of one day, they are about a family wherein its members are troubled by personal guilts that plague their relationships with one another. The difference, however, is that Miller's play has a resolution; there is a point of explosion in which the tension that has been building up climaxes; O'Neil's work offers no such thing.

This one day in the life of the Tyrone family is full of revelations; each member of the family lets us see the skeleton in their closet. I wonder if a material like this makes for a good theatrical experience. Imagine sitting through an intense tragedy wherein a whole lot of serious problems are introduced with absolutely no resolution--that doesn't sound like a pleasant evening at the theater, does it? As we get to know each member of the family better, we wonder how they could possibly live together still. Each member blames themselves for the tragedy of another, and they also blame others for their own tragedy. They must really love each other to be able to live together still, but it is also clear that they also have an intense hatred for each other.

Each character has his or her own dream, what they want their lives to be like, but those dreams had become impossible because of their preexisting life. Mary Tyrone, for example, longs for the days when she was a schoolgirl in a convent. She believed that she could have been a concert pianist or a nun, and that those things would have been better than what she had become. She blames her marriage with James for depriving her of those opportunities.

As I said before, there is no climax. The characters simply tell us their problems, and they have just finished their stories by the time the play ends. One can only imagine what would happen to the family next; are they going to kill each other? Maybe they will kill themselves. Or maybe they will continue living their lives in misery.

With extensive descriptions, the play almost reads like a novel. O'Neil, one of the most prominent American playwrights, had intended for this play to be published 25 years after his death. (It was in fact published only 3 years later, with permission of his wife Carlotta, to whom the play is dedicated.) Perhaps he didn't mean for it to be performed. It certainly is a good read; the characterization of these people is both heartfelt and powerful. It might actually make you appreciate your family more.

I Love Drama!

The difference between plays and novels is that I can read a play in a few hours while it takes days to read a novel. I'm in my play-reading mood again, and it is just so much fun to go to the library and grab so many volumes at the same time. Each one is an adventure, and to know that I can experience them all in a matter of weeks is just exciting. Well, this past week I read two plays and I just wanna share them with you.

Though predictable, campy and over-the-top, Charles Busch's "Die! Mommy! Die!" is hilarious and thoroughly enjoyable. It's not the kind of play you read or see to learn or to be enlightened; it is purely entertaining. It's not the most cleverly constructed murder mystery I've ever read, but it is well done. Perhaps its overt sexuality is the only thing that distinguishes it from most other mysteries. I don't feel compelled to recommend it to anyone--it's not that meaningful to me--but certainly I would suggest it to somebody who asks specifically for a fun read in the drama form.

David Hare's "Blue Room" is filled with archetypal characters. However, if there is a place for those characters, it is in a play like this. The focus of the play is not how the characters reveal themselves to one another and to the audience; it is not about their growth and progress; it is, instead, an exploration of different kinds of sexual relationship. Apparently Freud and Proust are the main influence on this work, along with Arthur Schnitzler's "La Ronde," from which it is adapted. I don't know enough about either of those writer to see the connection; I only know that "The Blue Room" is a lot of fun to read, and would be even interesting to see. (The play is meant to be performed by two actors; when it premiered it was performed by Nicole Kidman and Iain Glen.)

This and That

I recently finished reading, along with listening to the cast recording, "Assassins" by Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman. It is a musical about assassins of American presidents--some of them are based on historical figures, and some are fictional. I find it very interesting to read the books of Sondheim's musicals. He chooses such great materials to work with, and he too is a great writer. The way he uses the words to tell the story in songs is simply intelligent.

I find that going to the theater isn't just an absolutely entertaining experience, but also very inspiring. When I see a good show it makes me want to come home and write my own work. (I'm working on a play now that I'm really enjoying. It may not turn out to be a masterpiece, but I'm sure it is at least a bridge to something good.) Reading plays at home is great, but there is nothing like seeing things performed. Plays are meant to be seen and heard, not read.

This is the back patio of the lovely coffee shop wherein I spend most of my days

I am now reading "Writing: Working in the Theatre," which is a book that compiles quotes about the theater and play writing from many notable playwrights. It offers different insights into the theater lives, assuring readers that there is no one way to write or to be a writer. In my opinion the greatest advice is one that offers more than one way to look at things, because everybody is different.

I've also been enjoying "The Peanuts!" I got a copy of a collection from '67-'68 and it's absolutely fantastic. I wish I had read it as a child, but reading it as an adult is good also. Other things I've been reading are "The Blue Room," a play by David Hare, and "Suly," a novel by Toni Morrison. Both are great; I will probably write about them later.

Shakespeare's "As You Like It"

While I think Shakespeare is the best writer in all of English literature, I do not in any way think that he is flawless. Some of his works are, what should I call them, sloppy. "As You Like It" is one of them. It is like a mixed tape your friend made for you; if you listen to the songs individually, they're great, but together, not so much. Likewise, this play has many great qualities--some endearing characters, clever dialogues, complex speeches--but at times it seems clumsily put together. Some of the great scenes are not-so-seamlessly sewed together with off-stage actions that move the story forward while saving time, making the play feel rushed and the author lazy. It would have perhaps been more beneficial to the play had there been fewer characters--many of them are disposable anyway.

The most important element in the play, it seems, is the plot, and Shakespeare seems to enjoy contriving this complicated puzzle. We don't see the characters coming to any form of self-realization and growing from it; those who do change do it off stage (e.g. Oliver the evil brother and Duke Frederick the other evil brother). The epilogue is unnecessary; its only value is in being the only epilogue assigned to a female character in the period (albeit the actor is no longer in character when he gives it).

Having said that, there are many captivating moments, usually having to do with the relationship between Rosalind and Celia. I also love the character Adam, who has some good scenes in the first act. There are three songs, two of which--"Under the Greenwood Tree" and "Blow, Blow, Thou Winter Wind"--are beautifully written. Certain oddities, such as the relationship between Oliver and disguised Rosalind, or the references to Greek mythology, would make good paper topics. Despite not being as well crafted, the play is still very much intriguing and highly entertaining. It is perhaps more fun to discuss than some of his better ones.

Another post about Shakespeare!

It's the weekend before the finals, hence I am compelled to procrastinate and update my blog instead of doing homework.

Drama is a form of literature; that's how I justify writing about play performances here. This blog, I just realized, should have been called "Lit. for Lunch." That sounds so much better than "Books for Lunch." And it makes more sense. A book is a thing, with no value in and of itself. It's what inside it, the literature, that makes it divine. But this is no time to change the name; I am here to talk about Shakespeare.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is one of my most favorite plays of Shakespeare because of its humor and witticism. But the reason it is very near and dear to my heart is because it was the first Shakespeare play I have ever read. I was but a sophomore in high school; and it was then that I started this love affair with the Bard and his works.

A few weeks ago I went to see a very small production of the play. It was the first time I had experienced the text in years since I was in a production of it in high school. I was completely enamored by the production, and I fell in love with the play once again. I gained insights into the heart of the play that I didn't before at a younger age. More than anything the play is about deception, and from it derives the comedy, tragedy, and irony that orchestrate the story. Lies can bring people together in matrimony, or it can destroy our honor and ruin our life. Such a theme is universal and timeless; it is certainly the reason the play could retain its popularity for so long.

The Re-Theatre's "Much Ado About Nothing"

And few weeks later I went to see another variation of the play done by the same company. This production uses the structure of "Much Ado" to construct a new story, and give birth to a very refreshing and hysterically hilarious performance. By using the same theme and updating the characters and other surroundings, it reaffirms the idea that, in any time and place, the essential truth about human beings remains the same. And by capturing that truth in art can artists offer insights into our souls, and create a work that not only speaks to us but gives us a better understanding of ourselves and makes us a better person in some way.

Obviously I could go on and on about Shakespeare, but I will stop now.

The Tempest

A few days ago I read Shakespeare's "The Tempest" for the first time; it was my way of taking a little break from preparing for the finals. The play isn't one of his best, in my opinion, but it certainly is entertaining and very well crafted. Shakespeare is great fun once you get used to the language, and to looking at the marginal notes and footnotes. A lot of times I feel that my edition (edited by Professor Stephen Greenblatt) offers too many explanations, which could be annoying at times. Oftentimes it is better to just read the text and take whatever meanings you get from it rather than looking at every explanation.

I'm planning to read a lot of Shakespeare plays this summer. It is good to study something important while at the same time having a whole lot of fun. I used to think that no matter how much I loved Shakespeare I could never make it my field of study; I wasn't so much interested in the historical context or the Shakespearean scholarship in general. But now I think I am. I've been spending some time studying the British monarchy and the rein of Queen Elizabeth I; I have also been attending a lot of theatrical performances. This has helped me in many ways to enjoy the works; the history provides insights into the context of the plays, and the theater helps to enhance my vision of the texts. And being older and more literate also helps.

This and That #1

So, I waited too long to write a post about short stories, and now I can't write about them anymore because it has been too long since I read them. I would reread them but I seriously do not have time with school going on and all the things that I have to read. But let me suggest the following:

The Enormous Radio by John Cheever
Roman Fever by Edith Wharton
How to be an Other Woman by Lorrie Moore

These are fantastic writings. Check them out.

I'm doing an independent study on modern and contemporary American drama. I just finished reading Paula Vogel's How I Learned to Drive, a superb play about a young girl becoming a woman while having a sexual affair with her uncle in law. It raises questions about the nature of pedophilia and statutory rape, and gives a very interesting take on a character that we might have otherwise condemned.

I also read Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, which is depressing to read, especially during the time where our economy is fucked. But it is a great play. The characters are multi-dimensional and very intriguing to study. What I love about Arthur Miller is that his works (the 4 that I have read) all have timeless qualities. These are the plays that readers and audiences will always be able to relate to. He is very Shakespearean in that way.