It doesn't sound at all like you're trying to make things difficult. If I wrote an essay on Pokemon's setting and mythology? Someone is DEFINITELY allowed to write an essay on how they present a Shakespearean character.
Anyway, here's what I wanted to say: I'm an English Major. Or was, rather. I've taken countless courses on the history of the English language and on Shakespearean/Elizabethan English so if I notice anything is off I'll let you know. So far so good. And characters who speak in unusual ways do get easier to write.
Haha, yeah, I was studying linguistics/English myself before I decided I didn't like the college I was going to, so. XD But yeah, if you catch something, lemme know. I'm normally pretty good with grammar, but it's also easy to slip up, especially with things like the thou/you formalities and all that. And yes, they do get easier, though it takes a bit of time getting used to.
Oh, definitely. I played a character here who spoke a slang that consisted largely of Not!Russian (but we don't talk about that, shh). That slang doesn't really exist in the real world. But if I can get used to that then people can get used to anything.
I've played some characters with interesting speech quirks in other RPs before, so yeah. ^_^;; It just takes time, and I'll probably stick to ninja-ing now that I've into'd for now. XD
I meant to post this a while ago but I got distracted. Essentially, these are points that I disagree with you on your interpretation of Horatio's voice. To make this simpler, I'm going to number things
( ... )
I had a few problems with your argument and characterization of Horatio I wanted to discuss. You don't have a crit post, so I don't know where else to put it so sorry if it's in a bad place!
The first problem I had with your argument about Horatio and prose is that not all of Shakespeare's characters speak in prose or poetry in his plays. If you've read Julius Ceaser, you know that Brutus gives a speech to the Roman people after the assassination of Caesar. If you take a good glance at his speech, you'll notice it isn't in prose. It's in block writing. There's no rhyme or structure to it at all. In this speech, Shakespeare shows how Brutus tries to connect with the mob, addressing their emotions, and speaking in the way that the mob would speak. In this sense, the way a character speaks is very important to how they are. Especially when comparing the more educated and upper class (Hamlet, Horatio, Mark Anthony, Lear), to the lesser educated (The porters, the night watch, the sailors in The Tempest). While
( ... )
Sorry it took a while to get back to you here, I've been a little distracted/preoccupied lately. ^_^;;
Basically my only comments about the difference in texts is only in regards to the issue that was raised about very particular details/meanings in Shakespeare's prose. The characterizations don't change across versions, no, but some of the wordings and such do. Especially if you take the First Quarto into consideration.
To be honest I think the comparison with Epros is a little bit flawed- speaking in verse is a trait not shared by the others in canon, so it's clearly an unusual feature unique to that character. Whereas all of Shakespeare's plays are written in iambic pentameter, so that is what passes for 'normal' speech.
However, when actually performed/recited, I don't think I've ever heard an actor actually speak in the exact iambic pentameter, rather it's performed according to the meter of normal speech. Iambic pentameter does make it quite easier to memorize the lines, but having a character artificially speak in it,
( ... )
I think what this anon was trying to point out to you is that no, not all of Shakespeare's plays are written in iambic pentameter. The Brutus speech the anon referenced is a prime example of this. If you know what iambic pentameter is and look at that speech, it is clear that it is not iambic pentameter
( ... )
You've been told this multiple times, but Shakespearean characters (in general) do not exclusively speak in iambic pentameter. Nor do they exclusively speak in block text. Intelligent characters (which Horatio is) swap between iambic pentameter and prose depending on the circumstances. Your argument about spoken performances is, I think under camp circumstances, irrelevant. The characters are hearing Horatio speak. The players, on the other hand, are reading him speak. The players also have studied Shakespeare at either secondary or tertiary level, which means we have certain expectations for what is required for a Shakespearean character. One of these expectations is that we as readers can identify Horatio's state of mind purely by the way you structure his replies. We are not getting this sense because you are not choosing to acknowledge this fundamental quirk to Shakespearean characters
( ... )
Comments 11
Anyway, here's what I wanted to say: I'm an English Major. Or was, rather. I've taken countless courses on the history of the English language and on Shakespearean/Elizabethan English so if I notice anything is off I'll let you know. So far so good. And characters who speak in unusual ways do get easier to write.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I had a few problems with your argument and characterization of Horatio I wanted to discuss. You don't have a crit post, so I don't know where else to put it so sorry if it's in a bad place!
The first problem I had with your argument about Horatio and prose is that not all of Shakespeare's characters speak in prose or poetry in his plays. If you've read Julius Ceaser, you know that Brutus gives a speech to the Roman people after the assassination of Caesar. If you take a good glance at his speech, you'll notice it isn't in prose. It's in block writing. There's no rhyme or structure to it at all. In this speech, Shakespeare shows how Brutus tries to connect with the mob, addressing their emotions, and speaking in the way that the mob would speak. In this sense, the way a character speaks is very important to how they are. Especially when comparing the more educated and upper class (Hamlet, Horatio, Mark Anthony, Lear), to the lesser educated (The porters, the night watch, the sailors in The Tempest). While ( ... )
Reply
Basically my only comments about the difference in texts is only in regards to the issue that was raised about very particular details/meanings in Shakespeare's prose. The characterizations don't change across versions, no, but some of the wordings and such do. Especially if you take the First Quarto into consideration.
To be honest I think the comparison with Epros is a little bit flawed- speaking in verse is a trait not shared by the others in canon, so it's clearly an unusual feature unique to that character. Whereas all of Shakespeare's plays are written in iambic pentameter, so that is what passes for 'normal' speech.
However, when actually performed/recited, I don't think I've ever heard an actor actually speak in the exact iambic pentameter, rather it's performed according to the meter of normal speech. Iambic pentameter does make it quite easier to memorize the lines, but having a character artificially speak in it, ( ... )
Reply
Reply
You've been told this multiple times, but Shakespearean characters (in general) do not exclusively speak in iambic pentameter. Nor do they exclusively speak in block text. Intelligent characters (which Horatio is) swap between iambic pentameter and prose depending on the circumstances. Your argument about spoken performances is, I think under camp circumstances, irrelevant. The characters are hearing Horatio speak. The players, on the other hand, are reading him speak. The players also have studied Shakespeare at either secondary or tertiary level, which means we have certain expectations for what is required for a Shakespearean character. One of these expectations is that we as readers can identify Horatio's state of mind purely by the way you structure his replies. We are not getting this sense because you are not choosing to acknowledge this fundamental quirk to Shakespearean characters ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment