Shakespeare - Pericles, Prince of Tyre

"F%&k you William!!!! Imagine if Romeo and Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter, actually got made!!! What a pile of crap. Based on the Monkeys on Keyboards Adage...one half-cocked drunk monkey....5 minutes."


I SOMETIMES THINK THE REVIEWS POSTED HERE CAN BE SORTED INTO TWO CATEGORIES: WE HAVE THE MOUTH-BREATHERS, THE SCHOOL-CHILDREN, THE APPALLED MOTHERS AND SO ON, WHOSE FAILURES TO APPRECIATE A GOOD BOOK CAN BE TRACED TO A SORT OF HORROR AT THE ACT OF THINKING, AT THE WRITTEN WORD ITSELF. THESE PEOPLE AREN'T INTERESTED IN LITERATURE, AND THAT'S OKAY. THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A MASSIVE CLASS OF PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE BOOKS.

IN SOME WAYS, THIS FIRST CATEGORY IS A LOT LESS OFFENSIVE THAN THE SECOND, BECAUSE THE FIRST TYPE OF REVIEW IS JUST THE ANIMAL STUPIDITY OF THE HUMAN RACE BUMPING ITS HEAD ON WHAT IS ABOVE IT, LIKE THE PEOPLE YOU SEE AT THE ART GALLERY SPITTING "MY KID COULD DO THAT" AT A PICASSO. THE SECOND TYPE, HOWEVER, IS WRITTEN WITH A SMUG PRETENSE OF ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE, OF ACTUAL INTEREST, AND IT MARRIES THIS ARROGANCE WITH THE BASEST IGNORANCE AND LAZINESS. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE A LIFE OF READING AND YET DO NOT ENJOY IT, THE ACADEMICS AND THE COFFEE-SHOP INTELLECTUALS FOR WHOM LEARNING IS A PROJECT OF INCREASING ONE'S STANDING IN SOCIETY, NOT OF ASCENT FROM THAT SOCIETY INTO THE INFINITE HEIGHTS OF THE SELF. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO TALK ABOUT THE SMELL OF OLD BOOKS -- YOU MIGHT KNOW IT BETTER AS THE STENCH OF INTELLECTUAL FRAUD -- MORE THAN THEIR CONTENT. THESE ARE THE FAUX-READERS LURKING IN OUR UNIVERSITIES, FOR WHOM THE MAIN THING TO CONSIDER ABOUT A BOOK IS HOW GOOD IT LOOKS BETWEEN ONE'S ANTIQUE TYPEWRITER AND THE FEDORA ON THE HATRACK.

ALL OF THIS TO INTRODUCE SOME FUCKING IDIOT WHO HAS WRITTEN PRETTY MUCH THE WORST REVIEW OF PERICLES, PRINCE OF TYRE I CAN IMAGINE:


"Fun, but essentially a failure. The first two Acts are marvelous ... and worthy of the Bard. I'm told by some that he wrote the first two; I'm told by others that those are the ones he didn't write. Basically, we don't know who wrote what. After that it just gets stupider every page."

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SCHOLARSHIP WHICH ATTRIBUTES THE LAST HALF OF THE PLAY TO ANYBODY BUT SHAKESPEARE. THE REAL QUESTIONS OF THE PLAY'S AUTHORSHIP IS WHO THE FUCK WROTE THOSE AWFUL, PRACTICALLY UNREADABLE FIRST TWO ACTS?

THERE'S A NICE THEORY, I THINK, THAT OUR TEXT OF PERICLES WAS COMPILED FROM THE TEXTS OF TWO PIRATES -- AUDIENCE MEMBERS WHO WOULD EITHER NOTE DOWN OR ATTEMPT TO MEMORIZE THE LINES AS THEY WATCHED THE PLAY, THEN SELL COPIES OF THE SCRIPTS AS ENTERTAINMENT. KIND OF LIKE PEOPLE WHO RECORD NEW RELEASE MOVIES AND PUT THEM ON THE INTERNET (EXCEPT THEY WERE PIRATING THE ABSOLUTE HEIGHT OF HUMAN GENIUS INSTEAD OF WHATEVER BULLSHIT OUR DARK AGE IS USING TO AID ITS COLLECTIVE RETURN TO THE SYMBIOTIC STATE).

ANYWAY, ONE OF THE PIRATES HAD A FAR BETTER MEMORY THAN HIS COLLEAGUE, AND HIS PORTION OF THE TEXT MAKES UP THE LAST THREE ACTS GENERALLY ATTRIBUTED TO SHAKESPEARE. BUT THERE'S NOT MUCH BEYOND CONJECTURE TO SUPPORT THIS, AND I MOSTLY LIKE IT BECAUSE IT'S AN INTERESTING STORY. CURRENTLY SCHOLARSHIP TENDS TO FAVOUR ONE OF TWO THEORIES:

THE OXFORD SHAKESPEARE SAYS THAT THE FIRST TWO ACTS ARE THE WORK OF GEORGE WILKINS, A FAIRLY DREADFUL PLAYWRIGHT WHO WORKED FROM 1606 TO ABOUT 1608. TEXTUAL ANALYSIS HAS REVEALED AN AFFINITY BETWEEN WILKINS' PLAYS AND THE FIRST TWO ACTS OF PERICLES. THE CAMBRIDGE SHAKESPEARE ATTRIBUTES THE WHOLE PLAY TO SHAKESPEARE, CLAIMING THAT THE STYLISTIC INADEQUACY OF THE FIRST TWO ACTS IS PARODY, PARTICULARLY OF JOHN GOWER, THE CONTEMPORARY OF CHAUCER, NOW MOSTLY FORGOTTEN OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA.

POINT BEING NOBODY WOULD EVER SERIOUSLY SUGGEST THAT THE LAST THREE ACTS ARE ANYTHING BUT SHAKESPEARE'S (WHETHER WE GET THEM SECONDHAND FROM A PIRATE OR GARBLED BY PRINTERS OR FAIRLY ACCURATELY). THEY CERTAINLY RESEMBLE PLAYS OF THE SAME PERIOD, LIKE THE WINTER'S TALE, CYMBELINE AND THE TEMPEST, AND THEY CONTAIN SOME OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL POETRY SHAKESPEARE EVER WROTE, ALL OF IT VERY MUCH IN THE STYLE OF THE LATE PLAYS, A STYLE WHICH DEFIES IMITATION.

NONE OF THIS, THOUGH, IS REALLY IMPORTANT -- BECAUSE IT ONLY TAKES A CURSORY READING OF THE FIRST TWO ACTS TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE REALLY FUCKING BAD.

"As you might have suspected from its narrator, John 'moral' Gower, this is a morality play, a rather low art form anyway. And it's not even a good morality play: the tone for most of the play is comic, and therefore the play is often categorized as one of 'the problem plays' that shirk genre."

THE PROBLEM PLAYS ARE THREE EXTREMELY DARK COMEDIES SHAKESPEARE WROTE IN THE LATE 1590s: ALL'S WELL THAT END WELL, TROILUS AND CRESSIDA AND MEASURE FOR MEASURE. SOMETIMES SOME OTHER PLAYS ARE TALKED ABOUT AS PROBLEM PLAYS, BUT PERICLES IS NOT ONE OF THEM. IF PERICLES HAS ANY CATEGORY IT IS IN THE LATE ROMANCES.

"It doesn't help that the text is a little mangled in places, and we are obviously missing some lines (especially with the fisherman--they say stuff that doesn't make sense. They sound drunk.)"

BOY SOME DRUNK PEASANT CHARACTERS IN A SHAKESPEARE PLAY IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO THINK OF ANY PRECEDENT FOR THAT. (NOT TO MENTION THE FISHERMEN ARE PART OF WILKINS' PORTION.)

"The first theme, or apparent subject, we meet is incest, an unusual choice for morality plays about chastity (the most poetically potent of which is probably Milton's Comus) and it's something of a red herring, extraneous at best, a distraction at worst. There is nothing more shocking to a human than incest (except death)--it is a universal taboo and always the gravest [interesting since primitive societies certainly knew/know nothing about genetic disorders:]. Oedipus Rex will never not horrify.



As for Acts I and II, there are really some great lines in here, most of which are spoken by Pericles. Once his poetry dries up in Act III, he stops being so likeable and the play stumbles.

'I see that Time's the king of men,
For he's their parent, and he is their grave,
And gives them what he will, not what they crave.'"

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS

OKAY, HE HASN'T MADE IT CLEAR, BUT THIS LINE IS FROM WILKIN'S PIECE OF THE PLAY, IN ACT 2 SCENE 3, SO PRESUMABLY THIS IS MEANT TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF "SOME REALLY GREAT LINES" BEFORE "HIS POETRY DRIES UP". LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK A SOMETHING FROM THE WINTER'S TALE. LEONTES BELIEVES HIS WIFE IS SLEEPING WITH HIS BEST FRIEND:

"There may be in the cup
A spider steep'd, and one may drink, depart,
And yet partake no venom, for his knowledge
Is not infected: but if one present
The abhorr'd ingredient to his eye, make known
How he hath drunk, he cracks his gorge, his sides,
With violent hefts. I have drunk,
and seen the spider."

SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN EXTREMELY VISCERAL, REVOLTING IMAGE TO ACCOMPANY LEONTES' STATE OF HORROR AND DISGUST. THE METRE JUMPS AROUND AND EVEN FALLS APART AT THE END, GIVING US A CHARACTER IN TURMOIL TO THE POINT WHERE HIS LANGUAGE FAILS HIM. LOOK AT THE SECOND TO LAST LINE. NO LONGER PENTAMETER, IT LEAVES A NATURAL PAUSE AFTER "DRUNK" - ONE OF SHAKESPEARE'S GREAT GIFTS BEING HIS ABILITY TO GIVE US A SENSE THAT HIS DIALOGUE IS ACTING THROUGH ITS METRE.

THAT IS THE LEVEL SHAKESPEARE WAS WORKING ON IN THIS PERIOD. NOW LET'S RETURN TO OUR LITTLE SNIPPET OF ACT 2 OF PERICLES...

TIME'S THE KING OF MEN? BECAUSE HE IS THEIR PARENT BUT

ALSO THEIR GRAVE? WILKINS YOU PIECE OF SHIT THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

METRICALLY IT'S STRAIGHT PENTAMETER (THE FIRST LINE'S MISSING FOOT IS "WHEREBY"), NOTHING TO SEE HERE. AND WHAT EXACTLY IS THE SENTIMENT BEHIND THIS AWKWARD LITTLE COUPLET? "SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T GET WANT THEY WANT"?

WELL
GOLLY

"Now, the first two Acts give us enough to believe; the third Act is where the audience can no longer suspend its disbelief, as the plot becomes preposterous even by classical pagan standards:" WHAT DOES THIS MEAN "it was one thing to ask us to believe the sea had agency (Neptune) and is therefore something of a character in the play; it is altogether another to believe that someone would survive being buried at sea in a box nailed shut;"

IT'S A FAIRY TALE YOU BLITHERING BABY. IF THIS WEREN'T A RIFF ON AN EXTREMELY COMMON THEME IN MYTH WORLDWIDE (PERSEUS AND DANAE, MOSES ETC), YOU'D STILL BE DUMB AND WRONG BECAUSE SHE DOES DIE; SHE IS BROUGHT BACK TO LIFE BY THE PHYSICIAN CERIMON DID YOU READ THE PLAY

"to believe that Pericles wouldn't raise Marina and instead would give her to a local king who owes him a big favor; to believe that any woman would be crazy enough (and she seems sane, even insightful in Acts I and II)"

AGAIN THE IDEA OF AN EVIL STEP-MOTHER IS UNIVERSAL IN WORLD FAIRY-TALES AND I REALLY CAN'T THINK OF ANY WAY TO READ PERICLES EXCEPT AS A DEEP MEDITATION ON FAIRY-TALES AND THE CONCEPT THAT FREUD LATER CALLED THE FAMILY ROMANCE. DIONYZA APPEARS ONCE IN ACT ONE. SHE SAYS LITTLE MORE THAN THIS, IN WHICH I CHALLENGE ANYBODY TO FIND INSIGHT:

"That were to blow at fire in hope to quench it;
For who digs hills because they do aspire
Throws down one mountain to cast up a higher.
O my distressed lord, even such our griefs are;
Here they're but felt, and seen with mischief's eyes,
But like to groves, being topp'd, they higher rise."

SHE DOES NOT APPEAR IN ACT 2 SERIOUSLY DID YOU READ THE PLAY

"to have her adopted daughter murdered for being so hot that her real daughter gets jealous. But there's more! Pirates show up just in time!" DO YOU ALSO COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS IN HAMLET "Everyone just believes her attempted murderer that she died; they build her a monument. Far-fetchedness upon far-fetchedness..."

SHE'S THE QUEEN? THAT'S USUALLY A PRETTY GOOD WAY TO GET OUT OF A MURDER INQUIRY

"Some stuff just didn't make sense at all, perhaps due to text corruption. For example, why is Lysimachus disguised? Is it because he doesn't want to be recognized in such a disreputable place as a brothel?"

YES BECAUSE HE'S THE GOVERNOR OF MYTILENE DID YOU READ THE PLAY OR NOT YOU FUCKING HACK AUGH FUCK

OKAY I CANNOT GO ON WITH THIS GUY

THE CONSTANT INVOCATION OF A BODY OF SCHOLARSHIP HE CLEARLY HASN'T READ, THE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND BASIC POINTS OF PLOT, THE CONDESCENDING TONE THROUGHOUT -- THIS IS SO MUCH UGLIER, SO MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN SOMEONE SAYING "I CAN'T READ OLD ENGLISH", BECAUSE IT EXPECTS THAT ITS AUDIENCE WILL, OUT OF IGNORANCE, ACCEPT THE PICTURE IT PAINTS OF THE WRITER. A PICTURE THAT HE IS WILLING TO SPEND AN HOUR REPRESENTING, BUT IS COMPLETELY UNWILLING TO BACK UP WITH REAL RESEARCH, REAL WORK. THIS IS THE POISON OF OUR CENTURY; IT'S NOT THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T READ, IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO DO, THEY TURN IT INTO A DRESS-UP GAME

GOING TO GO TAKE A NICE WARM BATH WITH A RAZORBLADE, MIGHT SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW