10/11/2000-3/8/2001
10/11/2000
Smokescreen by
Dick Francis
[continued from Journal 1]
Dick
Francis excels in his portraits of even minor characters, for instance
Johnathan is also well drawn surly teenager.
But this one the few Francis novels were you really don’t get to know
the bad guy. Danilo’s looks and
appearance are presented more than his character. This is possibly due to the theme and use of
acting in the novel. Link is the actor
in the novel but yet the reader is shown far more of his private life. The same is true for varying degrees for the
characters of Conrad and Evan. Yet the
real actors, seem to be acting – such as Danilo and Greville, Is he comparing
actors to non-actors? The difference is
that actors get paid for their talent but everyone acts. As Welles said -masks grow to fit. The only one who doesn’t seem to be
acting in any way, shape, or form is
Nerirsa (love that name). Perhaps this
idea of acting appears when Link reflects
upon actors putting too much of themselves in their roles.
Dick
Francis does deserve points for not shying away from apartheid. Madeline’s remarks are dismissed by Link but
they are made. Unlike Slayride
where it seems Francis didn’t like Norway, Francis seems to have liked Africa
while he was there. Of course, not much
as Dinesen. But he does show the evils
of apartheid when Link tries to eat or ride with his guide, and when he shakes
the hand of the man who realized he was missing.
While
the main characters do not mention it, the minor characters comment freely on
the problem. During the ride the horse
say that Link tipped the man too much, Madeline’s talk, the surprise of the
guide receiving the handshake. Francis
leaves the question of apartheid up to the reader. Do Afrikaners read the novel? Do they see it as attacking them or not.
There
are more points about taxes. Danilo’s
involvement, there is the question put to Link about living in England with
taxes “an expensive luxury” he is asked.
Link replies, “Yes.” One of
Francis’ other books also focuses on taxes.
10/11/2000
The New Pelican Guide to English Literature: Vol 2 The
Age of Shakespeare. Ed. By Boris Ford.
“The Social Setting” by L G Salingar
“Like
music, the second national medium, drama was a communal art, admitting personal
virtuosity. A tradition of entertainment
in the form of festival or pageantry – communal
celebration of communal evens -accounts for many prominent features of the Elizabethan
plays. And the central theme of Elizabethan
literature is the clash between individuals and the claims of social order”
(17)
Much
background information in both essays by Salingar.
“Spenser and the Faerie Queen” by W W Robson
“One
of the charms of Ariosto’s extravaganza is that we are always aware of his
presence besides us. Spenser is enigmatic:
he has reverted to the manner of the old anonymous storytellers” (131). He’s right.
You never really know Spenser, except perhaps from the Amoretti. Aristo is for more present in the Orlando. He makes asides to the readers. Spenser tells us a wonderful story but distances
himself from it. Perhaps because of the
allegory.
“Sidney’s Arcadia and Astrophel and Stella”
by J C A Rothwell
“In so
for as the young princes are treated critically by Sidney, it is not, of
course, because they have allowed themselves to fall in love, it is because of
the deceptions to which ty they resort in order to purses their desires”
(141) Arcadia sounds like Orlando Furioso or Innamorato but
with more moralizing.
“Two Elizabethan Poets: Daniel and Raleigh” by Peter Lire
Seems
to be more of a study of Raleigh than Daniel. Daniel seems to be used more in
terms of a means to enlightened Raleigh.
Skipped the next five essays or skimmed. There were information I either already knew
or was not interested in.
“The Plays of Christopher Marlowe” by J C Maxwell
This is a nice review of Marlowe’s major
plays. I am still unsure in terms of
where he stands in regards to the Frontline Special [Note – this was
an episode that had a guy who argued that Marlowe hadn’t been killed and
actually wrote with Shakespeare. This
was based on secret files in the Vatican.
Because, you know, the Popes know everything]. This especially true to Tamburlaine and the
character of Zenocrate. Yes, Tamburlaine
does desire her but is Part 1 merely a wooing story as the author suggests it
is? I’m not so sure. The marriage seems to be more of a way of
Tamburlaine’s thumbing his nose at people.
She is not wooed so much as taken.
She seems to lack a personality.
She gives in without a protest.
Yes she was to be given in marriage (treated as property) but is Tambourine any better? Either way, she doesn’t seem to have much of
a choice. She lacks the courage to try
that most of Shakespeare’s female characters seem to have. Reminds me of Queen Anne (?) in Richard
III that whole remarkable wooing passage.
She yells at him only to be talked into marrying him. She isn’t claimed or forced into the marriage
like Zenocrate is but there is still that lack of caring or even interest in
lost lover/husband to be [Note – the only time that the wooing scene in Richard
III works for me is in the Ian McKellen version. It works there.]
“The Young Dramatist and Poet” by Derek Fraversi
This
is basically a quick overview of the early plays [Note – of Shakespeare]. I do like the observation of Falstaff
however. “The Falstaff of Part 2 is, by
comparison, a very different figure, grown notably in age and obvious decay as
though in anticipation of his necessary rejection by the Prince” (296).
“Shakespeare: The Middle Years” by J. C. Maxwell
I
agree with his statement that, “. . . and Wilson might have done service by pointing
out how much of Macbeth, too can be seen in Brutus” (306). I never saw Hamlet in Brutus like the author
claims others have seen. Like Macbeth,
Brutus, sees himself as noble and yet succumbs to the desire for power. The difference is that Macbeth recognizes and
embraces his desire for power, while Brutus denies his own inner thoughts and
desires, justifying what he has done with noble causes.
“Brutus
in this soliloquy is and is not a republican, and the obscurities in the
speech, though in part the result of Shakespeare’s lack of sympathy with the
idea invoked, also convey . . . “ (*306).
“King Lear and the Great Tragedies” by L C Knights
[Note:
Glenda Jackson is the best Lear].
I
disagree with his idea of the lack of true feelings between Anthony and
Cleopatra. I think he brings in his own prior views about the play itself.
“Shakespeare The Last Plays” by Derek Troveini
Just
a basic overview.
“Changing Interpretation of Shakespeare” by Kenneth Muir.
Good
overview.
“Ben Johnson, Dramatist” by L C Knights
His
argument to see Ben Johnson as a dramatist is strange. His plays have too much comedy, especially Epicene
and Volpone. He should not have used these two plays but others to prove
his point.
“Chapman as translator and Tragic Playwright” by Peter
Ure
Just
skimmed.
“Fournier and the Tragedy of Revenge” by L. Salingar
Nice
overview
“Middleton’s Tragedies” by John D Jump
I find it hard to
believe that people failed to see the importance of the sub-plot in The
Changeling. True, it was mostly like
not written by Middleton but that does not mean it has no importance. Like Cleopatra is balanced by the good
Octavia [Note – I really think those two roles should be played by the same
actor], Joanna must be balance by Isabella.
Without the presence of Isabella the movie [Note: I am referring to
the version with Elizabeth McGovern] has no redemption in it. It is as much of a bloody plays as Women
Beware Women. Isabella is also
trapped in a situation where she lacks
control over her own life as does Beatrice.
But Isabella plays within society
and morality rules. The sub-plot is
needed or else Beatrice would be seen as a quasi-heroine for trying to take control
of her own life. The counterplot
balances this out.
“Elizabethan and Jacobean Comedy” by D L Enright
“The Decline of Tragedy” by L D Salinger
Both
of these are good overviews.
Comments
Post a Comment