I think I've decided why I'm not connecting to Love's Labour's Lost. It's contrived. It is contrived and boring and inauthentic. By inauthentic, I mean that the characters don't seem to be fully fleshed out, they don't tend to have much character development, and their motives are stale. There's nothing real about them.
Contrast these characters with Hamlet. Hamlet had a constant, hugely complex inner monologue through the duration of the play, regardless of the actor's or director's interpretation. The inner monologues for these characters can be summed up as follows:
Men: "I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid, I wanna get laid. But I don't want to look stupid."
Women: "I wanna get laid, but I'm playing hard to get."
And that's it, with maybe a couple exceptions. The plot is like a maze, preventing stale, wooden characters from getting laid via artificial obstacles.
It seems to me that this play is just an excuse for Shakespeare to show off how clever he could be. It's not about the characters or the plot or anything that would make a compelling story - it's Shakespeare showing off his intellect.
Let's take the scene in act V between Sir Nathaniel and Holofernes, where they're speaking Latin for no apparent reason. It does nothing to further the plot or develop the characters, it's more like "HEY EVERYBODY I CAN SPEAK LATIN ISN'T THAT COOL DON'T I LOOK SMART BECAUSE I CAN SPEAK LATIN." In this case, Shakespeare is Dwight Shrute, and we the audience are people who don't really care about beet farming or martial arts or paper sales. Only Shakespeare isn't as funny.
I think the reasons why you are so frustrated were purposefully made to be obnoxious :P As we discussed in class, Shakespeare is satirizing the scholars of his time and their ridiculous obsession with rhetoric and seeming smart. Their schooling has no real significance or advantages, but they flaunt it like it's something to be proud of. But really, it just makes them look retarded.
ReplyDeleteI kind of still don't think that means it's a good play. I mean, I love me some satire, but I don't think that the satire should be put above the plot or characters. I know one of Professor Burton's arguments was that a play can still be good even if it isn't plot or character driven, but I really disagree.
ReplyDeleteIf I may weigh in a bit, I think I'm on Cassie's side here. I understand that Shakespeare is trying to satirize the Scholars of his day, but that seems like a weak basis for a whole play. It almost seems like something he should have thrown in as a side plot or a lesser character in one of his other comedies. As a whole play, I found it tedious to read and repetitive.
ReplyDelete