Othello by William Shakespeare

The Tragedy of Othello, the Moor of Venice, commonly known simply as Othello is of course a tragedy by Shakespeare, probably written circa 1603, set in Venice and Cyprus early 16^th century. The title character Othello, is of course a Moor, and a military hero, general in the Venetian army, and recently married to Desdemona without the knowledge and consent of her father, a Venetian Senator.

It is the story…Of one that lov’d not wisely, but too well

Othello picks up enemies quickly. Besides Desdemona’s father, there is also Roderigo who was in love with Desdemona, but the most dangerous is the treacherous Iago, an ensign under Othello’s command, who appears to be the model of loyalty and faithfulness, but who secretly, hates Othello for promoting Cassio to second in command. Iago and Roderigo – though mostly Iago manipulating Roderigo – plot a treacherous scheme of revenge, intended to cause Othello to be suspicious of a love affair between Cassio and Desdemona.

My recent Shakespeare reads were comedies, and those some of the lesser known plays, so this was quite a change – a tragedy, and one of The Bard’s better known plays. It’s been decades since I read a Shakespeare tragedy and I’d forgotten just how – well – how tragic they are.

Othello is the tragic hero, and I get that, brave defender of the republic and all, but I found him quite fickle and faithless. He loses faith far too easily with both Cassio and Desdemona, and is far too trusting of the unctuous Iago. That is my only complaint with this play. But plays are supposed to be enacted – not read. I’ve never seen this performed but I imagine a good performance could cover this small complaint.

Overall very good, but yeah – tragic. Have some Jerome K. Jerome or P.G. Wodehouse handy after reading Othello.

Shakespeare phrases from Othello, that are now part of English vernacular:

I will wear my heart upon my sleeve

Jealousy – the green ey’d monster

Forgone conclusion

The Golden Bowl by Henry James (82 down, 18 to go)

This is the third novel I’ve read by Henry James and the first time I’ve read The Golden Bowl. It is a third-person narrative, realist novel, set in turn of the 19th Century, Western Europe, mostly England. It is the story of a bizarre love quadrangle between an Italian Prince, his American heiress bride Maggie, her widower father Adam Verver, and Charlotte Stant, a friend of Maggie’s, previous paramour of the prince, and now – by the arrangement of Maggie – bride of Maggie’s father.

My rating: 2 of 5 stars

 

I disliked this novel even more than my previous experiences with James [The Ambassadors and The Wings of the Dove]. If it were not for my quest and self-imposed rules, I would have abandoned this novel. I’m going to give James one more chance though and I’m holding out a little hope. Thus far, I’ve only read from James latest writing period. He is known for periods with distinctly different styles: James I (1881 and earlier), James II (1882-1900), and The Old Pretender (1901 and later). All three James’ novels I’ve read are from his last period and The Golden Bowl is the culmination in that period.

His writing during this period has been described as difficult and unnecessary. I concur. Rumor has it that James’ earlier works are much more accessible. So, perhaps I will like The Portrait of a Lady, from James I, a bit more.

I’m so glad to be done with this book that I don’t have much interest in blogging about it. However, I feel I should offer at least some defense of my criticism. My dislike of this novel is not merely about style. James’ characters, through narrative, stream of consciousness and dialogue, express views filled with paradox, hyperbole, vague allusions, and perplexing metaphor. I think it is intended to make them seem complex and philosophical. In my opinion, they are simply absurd and pretentious. Such as:

She talked now as if it were indicated, at every turn, by finger-posts of almost ridiculous prominence, she talked again as if it lurked in devious ways and were to be tracked through bush and briar; and she even, on occasion, delivered herself in the sense that, as their situation was unprecedented, so their heaven was without stars. “Do?” she once had echoed to him as the upshot of passages covertly, though briefly, occurring between them on her return from the visit to America that had immediately succeeded her marriage, determined for her by this event as promptly as an excursion of the like strange order had been prescribed in his own case. “Isn’t the immense, the really quite matchless beauty of our position that we have to ‘do’ nothing in life at all? – nothing except the usual, necessary, everyday thing which consists in one’s not being more of a fool than one can help. That’s all – but that’s as true for one time as for another. There has been plenty of ‘doing,’ and there will doubtless be plenty still, but it’s all theirs, every inch of it; it’s all a matter of what they’ve done TO us.” And she showed how the question had therefore been only of their taking everything as everything came, and all as quietly as might be. Nothing strange surely had ever happened to a conscientious, a well-meaning, a perfectly passive pair: no more extraordinary decree had ever been launched against such victims than this of forcing them against their will into a relation of mutual close contact that they had done everything to avoid.

Really?

There were two things I liked, that saved this from a 1.5 star rating. One of the four major characters fights to save both marriages, and is indeed successful. The second thing I liked is the title. There is a double entendre in the title. In the story there is an antique, flawed, golden bowl that plays a role in the turning point in this novel. The title is also derived from Ecclesiastes 12 verse 6 (verses 7 and 8 added for context):

Remember HIM before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; then the dust will return to the earth as it was and the spirit will return to God who gave it. "Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!"

The writer (Solomon) is imploring the reader to remember HIM (the Lord) before life is over. The silver cord is the spine, the golden bowl is the head and brain, the pitcher by the well is the lungs, and the wheel is the heart. Solomon warns that all these will fail - we should remember the LORD before it is too late.

I'm glad to be done with this one. Have you read Henry James or The Golden Bowl? Did you like it any better than I?

Film Rendition: I watched the 2000 version with Jeremy Northam and Uma Thurman. It was true to the book, well cast, and well acted. I disliked it as much as the book.

.

6 Degrees: Shop Girl to Gone With the Wind

It’s time for #6Degrees and it’s a cinch to play – please join in!

6 Degrees is a monthly meme hosted by Kate @ Books Are My Favorite and Best.

This month’s chain begins with Shop Girl by Steve Martin (yes, that Steve Martin). I have not read Shop Girl, but the synopsis leads so easily to the first association, I thought I’d play. The main character sells expensive evening gloves at an upscale department store in Beverly Hills. This reminded me of…

American Pastoral – where the main character, Swede Levov, owns and operates a glove manufacturing company. The title and the tragic plot leads me to…

An American Tragedy – the story of a Clyde Griffiths’ pursuit of the American Dream. As you might infer, Clyde is not successful, which reminded me of another young man chasing the American Dream in…

The Adventures of Augie March – in which the title character bounces from one largely unsuccessful enterprise to another. Augie is the epitome of a Picaresque Hero and reminds me of…

Vanity Fair – the anti-hero of Vanity Fair is Becky Sharp, who I think could be/should be described as a Picaresque Heroine. Becky, who is beautiful, charming, intrepid, manipulative, and dangerous, reminds me of…

Scarlett O’Hara from Gone With the Wind.

And that’s how Shop Girl leads to Gone With the Wind, which I guess puts Steve Martin in the same class with Margaret Mitchell.  :P

.

My Personal Canon

I promised to come up with my Personal Canon, but I’ve struggled with this task. I wanted to explain why, but I’ve struggled with that task as well. I am undaunted. Be warned; this will be wordy.

I think the difficulty starts with my own fussiness about words: words have meanings. So what is the meaning of Personal Canon? Personal: pretty clear that means according to me. Canon: excluding ecclesiastical references, generally means rules or standards, accepted as axiomatic, most commonly applied to the study of art.

I know I said I was fussy – but you really have to give me this – it can’t be personal AND axiomatic. They’re mutually exclusive. I’m an odd mix of pragmatic and poet. The pragmatic says a personal canon cannot and does not exist. But the poet will now trump the pragmatic and allow that we are using the phrase liberally to discuss something fine and worthy.

My difficulty is not overcome just yet though, because I’m still searching for a meaning. I don’t believe the phrase has been in widespread use for very long and has no dogmatic meaning. Meaning, I am free to infer.

I infer it concerns written works, and that it means something other than my favorites. I found this “definition” and explanation at AP Literature & Composition:

Personal Canon -- a collective list of literary works that are considered significant for the effect they have had on individual readers.

Think about which novels, short stories or authors; poems or poets; plays or playwrights; and even nonfiction texts, philosophers, or documents that have influenced you.  Which pieces have changed your life? Inspired, motivated, or grounded you?  Have shaped you or opposed your sensibilities in some way?

I thought at first I’d go with that – but that gave me a new problem. Let me pull out what I consider two key words:  significant and effect. What works had significant effect upon me?

To be honest, with one exception, there are few written works that have affected me significantly – at least not in the sense of the second part of the definition, works that changed me significantly, that made me who I am. Collectively, they all do that, but individually, there is just the one written work to which I would ascribe that kind of significance.

I’m trying to not be a buzz kill. So, I have to define this in a way that suits me. I think I’m allowed, given the heretofore examined imprecision of the phrase, and the freedom for personal inference.

I define my Personal Canon as those works that moved me profoundly to deep thought and intense emotion. In other words, my Personal Canon are those written works that I consider “Great.” See my previous treatise on Great Literature.

So here’s my Personal Canon. It’s very short.

The Bible – This is in a category of its own. It is more than a book to me. It is a compass for life.

And then…

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Chariots of Fire (movie based on the book by David J. Weatherby)

Please Understand Me and Please Understand me II by David Keirsey

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

The Reason for God by Timothy J. Keller

As I stated earlier, canon usually applies to the study of art, and in this context usually to written word. However, I’m going to add one piece of visual art:

The Voyage of Life (see it here)

This painting by Thomas Cole is actually four paintings portraying the life of a man as a voyage down a river. The fours stages of the journey are: childhood, youth, manhood, and old age. I've had the privilege of viewing the actual painting at the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. I can study it for hours.

.