Shakespeare

I was reading an article today that was talking about Shakespeare and whether he was a real person or not, ie whether Shakespeare was really the writer. I like the mystery of not knowing, it makes him more real. The facts of his life seem to suggest that he married early, was a member of an acting troupe, was affiliated with the local theater, got in a lawsuit, and died in relative anonymity in Stratford.

What I like to do is study the language and the observations of the plays. Part of the interest is that the plays are not perfect. There are very clear flaws in storytelling (there are parts that are boring, there are jokes that go on way too long, there are ridiculous plot conventions). The history is all muddled. People assume that he must have been of noble birth to be able to comprehend issues of royalty and such. I say that he just needed to have had his eyes wide open. A person living in a society could have observed those people and made judgments and assumptions about what they were like, and written that. What strikes me about the plays is that it sees people psychologically, why they do what they do. Othello particularly is an incredible case study in jealousy. Some are case studies in women. The plays have observations that, while they may not be implicitly stated, show an understanding of real people even if the people themselves are very stereotyped. You can satirize behavior without having had done it.

The plays were the popular entertainment of the day, and thus had their madding uniformities - how often do we get sick of movies that have the same storylines? - their ridiculousness, the insipid mix of flattery and real truth (pandering to the powers that be while delicately taking a stab at them). I think people think of literature or any other field as having been great based on its perfection, how it lives up to rules. But the literature is what comes from beneath. The writings are great because they have elements of greatness in them. It came from work and an astute eye, ie virtues of the everyman. It's not that they came from someone who knew everything or was a "master."

As the article states, it is part of the fun to imagine what you imagine him to be, yourself. It's an aura about him that compels. As I was reading, I was thinking, "I don't want to lose that." I can't tell exactly what it is that I love about Shakespeare. I do know that I find in it some of the best, clearest language I have ever heard, phrases that are instantly memorable. What is so interesting about the creative faculty is that it comes under time constraints and realities. Shakespeare, I am sure, had to crank out plays because that was what people were expecting, or what he was being paid to do. In that crucible, there is a spark of brilliance even amidst imperfection or standard ways of storytelling. History is wonderful, but looking at history doesn't mean we have to die to our dreams.