There’s a bit of a back story to this review. A long time ago I found this book, billed as “a novel of Shakespeare”, and commented that “I wish I had time to read it.” A year later, as I do the occasional book review, the author David Blixt called me out on it. After all, he hangs out here. Fair enough. So I went about getting myself a copy, and just finished it this week. I review it with the full knowledge that the author is one of my most prolific commenters. I was pretty worried about what I’d gotten myself into for the first 20 pages or so. This is a historical novel, set in the 1300’s around the son of one Dante Alighieri, yes, the one who wrote The Inferno. As a matter of fact this is a major arc of the book, as The Inferno has only recently been published, and Dante is something of a rock star, traveling from patron to patron, discussing philosophy while people secretly make signs behind his back to ward off the devil. I’m not usually much of a history guy. “Speculative fiction”, the near future stuff, is more my thing. I knew that there’d be some Shakespeare to come, as that is what caught my attention in the first place. Apparently within this world of the Alighieri’s, I was to learn what started the feud between the Montagues and Capulets. Whenever I saw that the book started with a family tree (more to the point a “dramatis personae”, just like any of Shakespeare’s work, although this one is organized by family) and a number of maps, I thought I was doomed. That’s no failing of the author – that’s just my relationship to this sort of epic story. My “thing” is characters on stage (or on the page) doing things and saying things, and saying why they’re doing things and doing things to back up what they’re saying. If somebody hates his distant cousin because there was a failed hostile takeover between their grandfathers, I internalize it better if one character says it to another character. Seeing it on a family tree does nothing for me. Anyway, back to the story. I got my action and dialogue soon enough as Pietro, son of Dante, is cast into a battle alongside his new friends Anthony Capecelatro (soon to be Cappuletto), and Mariotto “Romeo” Montecchio, under the charge of the Francesco “Cangrande” della Scala, legendary leader of Verona. From that point on, I loved it. There’s action – lots and lots of action. There’s character development. There’s a good story about a prophecy and a child who may or may not grow up to fulfill his destiny. It is particularly fascinating to watch the development of Pietro, recently knighted, who matures into quite a hero indeed. I also like the child, very much. I do not like at all how the adults treated the child. But as a character I thought the child was written very well, and could only imagine that the author’s own child had something to do with that (although I believe I’m wrong there). Along the way, as promised, we learn the history of the “Montecchios” and the “Capulets”. I guess there I got a little confused, as I do not know all the multiple sources to Romeo and Juliet that Shakespeare used. I thought this was supposed to be sort of prequel to the Shakespeare story, the cause of the “ancient grudge” that “breaks to new mutiny.” But one of the characters in the story is in fact named Romeo (although on first introduction he says “Never call me that” and it’s never spoken of again). So perhaps that’s the author’s joke, but it did have me scratching my head trying to figure out if he was supposed to be *the* Romeo. I find, though, that I didn’t end up as interested in that story as I thought. I only ever found this book as “a novel of Shakespeare”, but ended up far more interested in Dante and his son. There are a number of Shakespeare references and jokes, many of which I’m sure I missed. (Update: It just clicked with me that perhaps I do get it, if Romeo grows up to have a son named Romeo, which would be a logical thing to do…..) In the end, I’m not quite sure I understood all of the political twists and turns that were taken. There are characters who seem good that do horrible things, and vice versa. There are several major characters where you’re really left scratching your head, trying to figure out if they’re good people or not. But through it all there’s a certain innocent nobility that follows Pietro. An underlying theme of the story is that of astrology, and Fate, and whether your destiny takes its course automatically or whether you’re expected to take an active role in it. (I love, by the way, the reference to Macbeth right in the middle of all this – if the witches hadn’t told Macbeth that he’d be king, would he have killed the king?) Pietro is a walking example of this question. Does he end up where he does because of free will, the manipulation of others, or just Fate? Or are they all ultimately the same thing? I can’t say that I’m suddenly a fan of historical fiction now. As I said, give me dialogue and action over politics any day. But I can say that I enjoyed this book, very much. I have reviewed books that I felt were a chore, and looked at the end with relief that I could move on. With this one I anxiously returned to my reading each morning and evening (train to work, don’cha know), honestly curious about how it would end. As it seems set up for a sequel, I can honestly say that I’d like to read the sequel. The politics and the prophecy don’t mean much to me, but I can appreciate well developed characters and want to see how their lives turn out.
Author: duane
How'd you get here? This page is boring. Did you find the easter egg yet? (Click on that banner over my head!)
Which Dads Are The Good Ones?
After posting about Lord Capulet and having people argue back that he’s actually a good guy, it seemed logical to post the next question : when does Shakespeare portray the dad (particularly the father of girls) as a good guy, and when is he a right bastard? Polonius and Ophelia are a rather obvious example of the latter. Although Polonius’ fingers never itch, he doesn’t think twice about dangling his daughter as bait in front of the potentially insane prince, just to please the king. And then there’s the opening of Dream, where Egeus basically says of Hermia that she’s his property, and if she doesn’t do what he wants, he insists on the death penalty. But Dream is a comedy! But what about the other side? When is the Dad the good one? How about Desdemona’s dad? In the Capulet post I used Kate’s father Baptista (from Taming of the Shrew) as an example of a bad one, but then I thought, maybe I’m really off base there. What does he do that’s so wrong? Sure he basically sells her off to the first real suitor to come along, but isn’t that what they all do? Wasn’t he showing his concern for his oldest daughter by requiring that she be married off first, before her younger sister? I can’t really see a selfish reason in that. It just dawns on me as I type this that we have to include The Tempest, probably the biggest of the “father/daughter” stories. But where do we put Prospero, exactly? For the most part he speaks down to his daughter as if he’s forgotten that she’s not 3 years old. Most of his manipulations have more to do with his own plan than with her happiness. But somewhere in the middle he apparently changes, and then he’s all about getting Miranda married and off the island. I think he’s one of the good ones. Gruff, to be sure, but you don’t survive alone on an island populated with magical creatures for long if you’re not willing to zap them back every now and then. Who else?
Building A Piece of History
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/HUA/TT/Globe/index.html I’m linking this story almost entirely because the kid is from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, my alma mater. He’s done his MQP, or “Master Qualifying Project”, on “lesson plans for a six-session course about the resurrection of the Globe Theatre”. Your MQP is like an undergraduate thesis, you spend the better part of two years on a project that demonstrates your competency in your chosen major. Mine had more to do with educational software, as I was pursuing a computer science degree. I expect that the student linked above is pursuing a theatre degree. WPI also requires a humanities project, called the “Sufficiency”, during your first two years in which you as an engineering student show that you have a well-rounded education by exploring an area of the arts. My project was a comparison of the role insanity plays in Hamlet, Death of a Salesman, and Long Day’s Journey Into Night.
Why It Would Be Awesome To Play Lord Capulet
I promise I really was thinking about this topic, and not just because somebody woke up the old “Is Tybalt one of the better villains?” thread over in the sidebar. I love Juliet’s dad as a character. He’s got some of the best moments in the play whenever he’s on stage:
- His very first entrance, in his nightgown, he’s yelling “Bring me my longsword!” He sees a fight, he wants in. Sure, maybe he looks like a fool, and his wife gets in the better line (“A crutch! Why call you for a sword?”) Good for a little comic relief. So, that’s one side of his character.
- “Tis not hard, I think, for men so old as we to keep the peace.” When he’s not in the heat of the fight, he’s actually got a reasonable head on his shoulders. If this personality of Capulet’s sat down and talked to Montague, maybe we wouldn’t have a tragedy on our hands.
- “Woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart. My will to her consent is but a part.” He could easily hand over his daughter to Paris, but he doesn’t, and he cites his reasons. Paris points out that girls younger that Juliet are already married, and Capulet smacks him down with “too soon marr’d are those so early made.” He’s actually a good dad here, much better than he technically needs to be. We will see a very different side of him later.
- “Am I the master here, or you?” When Tybalt spies Romeo at the Capulet party, he wants to duel on the spot. So what does Lord Capulet do? Remember, this is the guy who we first saw screaming for his longsword when he saw fighting in the streets. This time, though, he clearly tells Tybalt, “You’re ruining the party, so sit down and shut up.”
- “She loved her kinsman Tybalt dearly, and so did I. Well, we were born to die.” Sounds like he really loved him. Oh well, people live, they die, we move on.
- “I think she will be ruled in all respects by me, nay more, I doubt it not.” Yeah, that’s gonna work out real well for you, chief. This is the guy who said “my will to her consent is but a part”, and now he’s saying “Don’t worry, she’ll do whatever I tell her.”
- “Thank me no thankings, proud me no prouds, but fettle your fine joints ‘gainst Thursday next, to go with Paris to Saint Peter’s Church, or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither. Out, you green-sickness carrion! out, you baggage! You tallow-face!” Funny how he’s changed his tune about the whole “win her heart” thing, isn’t it?
- “My fingers itch.” I don’t know it for a fact, but I’ve always interpreted this to mean “I really think you need a good smack right now and I’m trying very hard not to follow through with it.”
He’s certainly not a nice guy, most of the dads in Shakespeares works are not, at least when it comes to their daughters (look at Polonius/Ophelia, Egeus/Hermia, Baptista/Katharina, etc….) But getting inside his character and trying to come to a place where he’s not just completely schizophrenic seems like it would be quite a challenge. How can he be all “oh my daughter my daughter!” one moment and “I disown you, get out of my sight before I drag you through the streets myself” the next? Is it all just temper? Is that why he runs into the fray with his longsword (almost), but can still say “It’s not so hard to keep the peace?”
Super Mario Brothers Movie Is An Underappreciated Masterpiece
http://www.destructoid.com/why-the-super-mario-movie-is-an-underappreciated-masterpiece-29694.phtml Coworker of mine just passed along this link, in which is hidden this gem: The entire plot is actually a tweaked version of Hamlet. The old Mushroom King (King Hamlet) is de-evolved (killed) by King Koopa (Claudius), and it’s up to an inexperienced hero (Mario/Luigi) to restore balance to the kingdom by avenging the king. Daisy is Ophelia and Spike and Iggy are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Except, you know, nobody dies. You know that was getting posted :). Warning, language is not suitable for young ears or eyes.