Over the years, the name, William Shakespeare has resonated within the four walls of literature as one of the most respected and honored personas in the field of writing comedic and satirical plays. Shakespeare has been considered as a very gifted author and playwright who plotted some of the most interesting story lines that have managed to sustain Shakespeares reputation through the ages. However, there appears to be one major criticism as to how Shakespeare develops issues and predicaments in his stories. In this light, Shakespeare must have had his own intelligent reasons why he opted for such treatments for his comedies. This claim shall serve as the main focus of this discussion. The thesis of this paper shall delve on the discussion of reasons why Shakespeare had issues and difficulties in ending his comedies. Possible reasons could be because Shakespeares vision has been constrained, controlled, limited, affected and influenced by other considerations like audience, comedy structure requirements and demands which impacted the individualities of his characters and as well as the storyline in the end. This claim was asserted through the analysis of the critical approaches focused on gender and cultural context. Thus, although it has been easily presumed that Shakespeare holds a particular penchant for unlikely endings as a manifestation for mere futility, this discussion shall substantiate that this feature in Shakespearean works was actually shaped by the different norms and ways of his society during the sixteenth century.
Sudden Change and Turn of Events in Shakespearean Endings
Shakespeare has definitely been successful in establishing his own name as a master is satirical and comedic plays (Dobson and Wells 160). However, although this has been true over the years, critical scrutiny of his works shows that there is something lacking and short as to his literary style. Shakespearean endings have been seen to present some evident flaws.
Change has been a very common feature in most of Shakespeares works. Based from different critical scrutiny on Shakespearean plays, it can be observed that the presence of change in these works is a mere product of the conflict. Schumacher notes,
Another common characteristic of Shakespeares plays one that is a result of conflict is the main characters are somehow changed. They are different at the end than they were in the beginning, having learned something, suffered a great loss, made an important decision, or fallen in love, just to name a few examples. (60)
A lot of critics and readers alike have already noted that in most of Shakespeares comedies, there appears to be a trend involving Shakespeares characters being ensnared in a situation. As it was observed, the crisis and problem seems to be becoming more and more complex as the story progresses, the problem appearing to be unsolvable as the story moves along. It is a condition that would be followed by an unexpected twist in events magical or otherwise that seem to surprisingly lend a solution to the problem and provide the ending to the story. The ending may not be unimaginable but is nonetheless totally surprising to have ever have happened, even inside the context of fiction. This merits an analysis of this particular complexity and condition in several of his plays. Evidently, this gives readers a hint that something is missing. Between the cause of the conflict and the resolution, there has to be something, an event, a persona, a decision or a phenomenon which led to the final conclusion and resolution of the story. However, in most of Shakespeares works, this part is somewhat imperceivable. This entails, that there is an evident flaw in Shakespeares authorship.
Although it cannot be dined that Shakespearean endings hold a strong sense of recall as most of it were perceived memorable, some of Shakespeares selected comedies nonetheless appear problematic as they feature complex plots leading to a surprising and quite unlikely endings. In Twelfth Night, the complexity is found in the problem of mistaken identity. Shakespeare conveniently ends the story with the marriages of Viola and Orsino and Sebastian with Olivia. According to Schumacher, the comedies of Shakespeare is often resolved with weddings at the end (Schumacher 81), without clearly explaining how the people managed to handle the situation and made sense of the confusion. There are strong feelings involved among individuals who, in the end, reveal themselves as someone entirely different from who they were perceived by other people the whole time. It is strange and unbelievable that Orsinos affection for Olivia suddenly disappears and was directed to Viola who deceived him all along. Orsino, at least, should have been subjected to personal confusion and could have not come to a decision such as marrying Viola in such a short period of time. However, this never happened. Instead, the readers imaginations and thoughts are suddenly shifted into a conclusion without having to go through the meticulous process of resolution. The same analysis goes for the emotions of the other characters.
The Two Gentlemen of Verona has always been a favorite piece in school plays. Its distinct and interesting plot has earned itself and its author some sense of prestige which lasted through the ages. However, just like the Twelfth Night, the Two Gentlemen in Verona still appears problematic to some critics as it involves seemingly conflicting features such as the theme versus the ending. In Two Gentlemen of Verona, there again is the concept of hidden identity and patriarchal rule in marriage. The surprising and unbelievable turn of events in the ending is on how Proteus quickly jumped from one emotion to the next and still be considered as a genuine feeling of affection. Moreover, Valentine easily forgave the person who betrayed him and tried to rape the woman he cared for. Apparently, this appears completely absurd. Silvias father who was quickly convinced that his daughter should marry Valentine after showing boldness in threatening to kill the person he originally approved to marry. It was surprising how easily it came to a resolution at the end after the characters display a set of surprising and uncharacteristic disposition considering what has just happened to them and what they discovered about the others. In fact, the ending of The Two Gentlemen of Verona and its weakness is considered by analysts as symbolic of the common weakness of Shakespeare when it comes to ending his comedies (Harbage 118).
In A Midsummer Nights Dream, it appears that Shakespeares ending is questionable in many ways (Lee 139). The conflict here is the interlocking interests of the people involving love and material possession. Oberon could have attained anything he wanted with the elixir or potion. The question is why hadnt he used it many times before to manipulate his wife It cannot be helped but wonder why Shakespeare would go to the extent of pulling in so many characters in a very complex and conflicting situation to teach a lesson when everything can be remedied by magic in the end, without regard for moral values. The conflict is complex and there appears to be no justification done to this intertwined plot when all that was needed was a scheming fairy god and his elixir. Here, it appears that this was what was most convenient for Shakespeare the use of magic. This makes the ending of the story unbelievable and even surprising, not to mention satisfying in hindsight. It seems that Shakespeare seems to find it difficult to identify a strong positive characteristic in his male characters to use for a more positive resolution of the conflict. This is because of how he designed his male characters scheming and self centered, from Oberon to Egeus to Lysander to Demetrius.
Shakespeare, and his use of comedy, directs him to a basic and simple storyline and plot. However, within such plots, Shakespeare creates characters that are complex beings living in an equally complex situation and trapped in an equally problematic predicament. How can a collection of scheming, madly in love, obsessed and desperate individuals come together for an amicable resolution that is fair to everyone when this was something that none of them actively pursues since they are all after their own interests How can something this complex end with something simple and still appear to be acceptable in the view of critical observers
Shakespeare has the tendency to make characters complex, based on their intentions, on what they wanted to do and what they did and on their personal background This was seen in the key and supporting characters in Two Gentlemen of Verona, in A Midsummer Nights Dream, in Twelfth Night and in the comedies Alls Well That Ends Well and Comedy of Errors. Shakespeare has the penchant to explore and present extra complicated human situations but wants to resolve the resulting issues and conflicts with very simple turn of events that is often considered as highly improbable and unbelievable.
Lindsey and Cerasano, who wrote a book regarding drama in the medieval England, explained that some of the analysts and critics working on and studying Shakespearean comedy considers the collection as reflective of the variety present and found in the collection that separates one from the other (Pitcher, Lindsey and Cerasano 274). It is about the presence of what they call as kaleidoscopic variety (Pitcher, Lindsey and Cerasano 274). The works of Shakespeare are characterized by complex happy confusion of characters, genres and contrasting styles (Pitcher, Lindsey and Cerasano 274). Part of the comedies that were analyzed allowing the creation of such conclusion included the dream-land themed A Midsummer Nights Dream, character and identity confusion-laced stories Twelfth Night and Much Ado about Nothing and the politically charged story As You like It. These are all prominent Shakespearean comedy.
After careful analysis of the endings to some of his plays and the establishment of the argument that such endings can be considered as unbelievable and surprising, it is important to ask why the case here. The exploration of the possible reasons as to why Shakespeare was stranded or stuck in this problem merits several different possible inter-connected ideas. This includes (1) the investigation of Shakespeares position and perspective as a writer, including his writing styles and writing tendencies. For an instance, the constant focus on pursuing love, the use of another identity or the presence of mistaken identity and the surprising and unexpected resulting love story. (2) The role of his characters and how they were developed and attributed with several different characters and the impact of plot and conflict in attaining the end and resolution (story-centric).
Fraser offered an excellent insight regarding Shakespeare and his pursuit of happy endings for his comedies. The author explains that the weaknesses of his characters make it impossible or difficult for Shakespeare to achieve a happy ending, and thus makes it difficult for him to create the ending as well (Fraser 134). Lastly, there is also the factor regarding the impact of socio-cultural expectations and conditions that shape how stories in general were created and presented (socialcultural-centric).
The formula and structure for comedy has a role in this particular difficulty of Shakespeare in ending his comedy works and how he comes up with unexpected solutions to his conflicts. Comedies demand a happy ending regardless of the complexities of the lives of the characters in the story. Shakespeare simply tried to accomplish that happy ending even when the outcome and the circumstances resulting from the unfolding of issues and problems make the happy ending improbable and highly unlikely. This is the case in The Two Gentlemen of Verona, A Midsummer Nights Dream and Twelfth Night. Somehow, Shakespeare would make sure that the highly unlikely circumstances will be paired with the highly unlikely reactions of characters to the situation that guarantees the happy ending and the following of the comedy structure for Shakespeare.
Apparently, there indeed is a peculiar unpredictability in Shakespeares endings. Although a lot of people saw this on the positive note, a lot of critics as what can be observed in the discussion above have nonetheless pinpointed this as a weak aspect of Shakespeares authorship. As what Schumacher said, this tendency to commit sudden twists in the plot tends to sacrifice the value of conflicts as well as the impact of the climaxes of the stories. Evidently, this signified a great loop hole in terms of Shakespeares authorship. However, aside from these predicaments in terms of plot changes, Shakespeares characters were also bombarded with criticism over the years.
The Role of Gender Shakespearean Endings
Because of the abovementioned inclination towards unusual and quite unpredictable endings, Shakespeares works were seen to be flawed under some standards and conventions in literature. Unlike most works, his endings usually veer away from the observed flow of conflicts. However, this was not the only feature in Shakespearean works that was seen to possess some level of predicament. His women characters are just as severely flawed. Despite the complexities of his characters, Shakespeare in the end finds it difficult to reach a good ending and conclusion. Making the situation of flawed women worse and complicated are the presence of men who are often caught trying to fix the situation and how the people look at them in lieu of the mistake and confusion made, only to find out later that it was not enough. Even when the confusion is sorted out in the end the men are already burdened with a bruised ego. He was made a fool and was rendered funny during a particular event in the story, something that he is powerless to change or rectify for what it is and what it should have been.
The problem in the stories like Twelfth Night, A Midsummer Nights Dream as well as in Comedy of Errors are the male characters who are ensnared in confusion that made them act funny along the way and robbed them of any chance to vindicate themselves and remove the image of them as being funny, but fail in the end. Whether or not this was done consciously as part of the concept of comedy, or if this was a subtle way to communicate messages on gender roles and feminism, the only sure thing is that in the comedies, men are responsible for making themselves look and act funny.
In Alls Well That Ends Well, the conflict resulting from Bertrams being forced into marriage into a woman he does not approve of ended in an unexpected fashion. All of a sudden, Bertram was in love with Helena in the end. There are no significant prior experiences from which Bertram would be inspired to be affectionate with Helena, besides the swap of bed partner. Like in his other comedies, Shakespeare has a penchant for making people love other people instantly and without strong reasons, even when prior emotions are those strongly contrasting with or far from love. In the end, it makes the story appear to have no clear sense at all because of the details of the ending and how the conflict was resolved. In Comedy of Errors, the presence of twins caused mistaken identity-related problems (another common tool used by Shakespeare to create conflict, intrigue and problem).
Gender roles have been a very pronounced theme in the plays of Shakespeare. Shakespeare would have not admitted that during his time that he was actually discussing and approaching the issue of gender roles through his work. Gender role as a concept would have been something that was not yet known during that time. Gender sensitivity and gender roles were not yet something that is socially shared for its value and significance. Knowingly or otherwise, Shakespeare and his comedy plays speak about gender roles and allowed the modern era to analyze the value of gender and gender roles during Shakespeares time based on how gender and gender roles were portrayed in the comedy plays.
Shakespeare has always held the impression of being a versatile artist in various ways. He was so free of expressing himself that some critics would even say he was able to build a convention of his own. However, contrary to this claim, Shakespeare was actually bound to follow specific standards during his time. During the Shakespearean era, the traditional and strongly conventional society is inclined towards the observation of existing status quo, which also creates parameters for which social behavior is lifted from. This includes gender and gender roles. During that time, men and women have particular roles in the society. This is reflected in Shakespeares works the gender roles in the play either a direct manifestation of the socially accepted practices and norms on gender roles or on the other hand as a way of revolutionizing gender roles and even challenging the existing gender roles in the belief that some of its features and characteristics should and must change. Shakespeare and his comedies feature a story line often featuring an empowered woman. It features a woman who is weak and struggling at first, but who, as a result of her struggle, found her victory and her strength in the end.
This prevailing concept in many of Shakespeares comedies sends the idea that Shakespeare and his works are empowering women. This was made by addressing gender roles and gender issues during his time (and even advocating mild feminism), not so much as to have women overpower men but for women to be freed from the clutch of being subdued by the patriarchal and paternal eras that European women under monarchic rule has been made to suffer from and be burdened with. This was the situation even when there were already strong ruling queens during his time.
The queens were still under the patriarchal system of rule. The women in the lower class and echelon of the society were still under the rule and force of male leaders and figureheads in the society, from family to groups to organizations and institutions, all the way to politics and the monarchic blanket of governance and power (Hawkins-Dady 712). The most significant new directions in comedy criticism to emerge in the last decade have been the feminist and gender-oriented approach (Hawkins-Dady 712).
Critical analysis on gender, gender structure and gender roles assist in explaining this phenomenon. One of the important arguments here is that Shakespeare has the tendency to create individuals and endow them with complex gender roles which either adhere to or break the existing stereotype and acceptable gender roles of his time. In the end, the constraints of the comedy formula overpowers the complexity of the characters particularly their gender structures and gender roles in the story. This becomes irrelevant in the end with regards to the outcome of the play. It is surprising, if not unbelievable and unacceptable, considering the impact and strength of the gender roles and gender power and structure and how it is expected to affect the ending and the turnout of the lives of the people involved in the conflict. For example, Shakespeare has the tendency to empower women in his comedy plays. In the end, the comedys needs for a happy ending often subjugates the innate power of the women characters and make them subjugated by the paternalistic and patriarchal fictional world of Shakespeare.
For example, a womans submissive role on men is reflected in Scene IV of Much Ado about Nothing (Shakespeare 175). Hero orders the presence of Beatrice, who at the time was asleep, Hero asking that she should be woken up and be at his presence (Shakespeare 175). In Much Ado About Nothing, it is again evident that in one way or another the women are subservient to their men and are subject to the sway of the directions men take in the story. Again, this establishes the idea that there are gender roles reserved for everyone in the society as the play dictates. The surprising outcome and turn of events in the end reinforces some of the gender roles and renders immaterial other gender role implications.
The struggle of female characters in the comedy works of Shakespeare like the struggle of Helena reflect the struggle of women in love and in social politics and in inter and intra-personal conflicts. Their struggle to be treated in a different manner contrasting the condition Shakespeare often puts them in so that the values like women empowerment are fully achieved and justified. This explains that the key issue is the contrast of the pro-feminist comedies with the malevolent women of the tragedies, linking gender and genre (Hawkins-Dady 712) as seen in Shakespeares comedies. It is a position that will be questionable come the end and resolution of the story because of how the conditions in the ending sometimes go against this.
In gender and gender roles and power in gender analysis of how the story achieved its ending, Oberons being able to achieve the changeling from Titania sends the message that Oberon as a husband places more importance to his own material needs and wants and does not mind what he makes of his wife just to achieve this need. There is also the presentation of the weak women whose life is strongly affected by men. There is Titania, there is the obsessed Helena and even if Hermia showed control by going against her fathers orders, she is nonetheless subservient to a male figure because of her obsession with her lover Lysander.
The height of the male dominance and female subservience is how Oberon single handedly remedied the problems in the story. In the end, Shakespeare allows everyone to get what they wanted in a convenient manner. In analysis, they cannot be expected to live happily ever after and without that the story cannot be a comedy. The idea was they could only live happily ever after if they achieved what they wanted, which in the end, most characters appear to have failed to experience. Despite the ease with which Shakespeare has put a conclusion to the dilemma enveloping the characters, how he magically turns things around did not result to a situation that merits a happy ever after ending.
First, there is the fake love of Demetrius to Helena and how his love for Helena was actually a punishment and not a form of blessing. There is Titanias emotion once she discovered she was tricked by her husband. There is the problem of Egeus regarding the predicament that he and his daughter have been in after the changes in how Demetrius feels for Hermia. In the perspective of gender analysis, what this situation means is that, for one, females are subjugated to the needs of the male characters. The situation is considered as a happy ending when it cannot be true for the women characters, especially in consideration not just to what they are bound to feel in the present short term but also the repercussions of this event in the long term.
In all the other comedies, there are noticeable gender roles and gender issues that are strongly highlighted in the story but seem to have little or no bearing at all in how the story reached its end. Julia (in The Two Gentlemen of Verona) showed strength in character at first only to falter in the end and be rendered as a person whose life was directed by the tide and direction of the two lead male characters. Helena in Alls Well That Ends Well is a strong woman whose weakness is her obsession for a particular man to whom she did everything just to have him accept to be called by her as her husband. In Twelfth Night, the hardly relevant Sebastian and Orsino were two male characters that determined the fate of Olivia and Viola when it comes to love and marriage.
The Complexity and Dynamics of Shakespearean Characters, a Factor in Problematic Shakespearean Endings
There are many ingredients that Shakespeare uses to create a complex character and a complex plot, story line and main thread of conflict among characters. One of the basic ingredients is the presence of and pursuit of love, and more. For example, Shakespeare and his comedies are consistent with the use of violence and suffering. Shakespeare was to absorb the pole of violence or suffering into his comedies, as in Twelfth Night (Foakes ii). There are also sufferings in his other comedies. The suffering is always standing side by side struggle that is constant in Shakespeares comedies and important in the creation of a triumphant ending that vindicates those that are perceived to have acted morally, or those who have demonstrated bearing supreme above others and above the existing socially accepted behavior and disposition (i.e. Oberon). The characters often suffer emotionally, because they are tormented, they were rendered as outcasts they were removed from the things they want or love and of how circumstances seem to be going against them. Valentine and Proteus were subjected to suffering and violence, and so did Helena and Bertram and Antipholus and Dromio.
Although it can be observed that most of Shakespeares themes are portrayed with so much compassion, violence and suffering actually appears naturally entrenched in his plots As unexpected as it may seem for many people, for Shakespeare, there is a greater purpose from which the violence and suffering will be of use in the comedy stories Shakespeare has written. It will be reflected after further analysis of such aspect of the tone and theme of the works of comedy of this particular literary genius. Looking at the different comedy works of Shakespeare, there are indeed are consistent ingredients of violence and suffering embedded in the story. It is used perhaps to create the necessary staging for struggle, or merely to give the characters depth, versatility and variety from one another. After all, not every one character in the story is to be burdened or blessed with similar predicaments. If that would be the case, it would be a Utopian society to which Shakespeare and his works are never really strongly leaning on or identified with.
For example, in the comedy Twelfth Night, the concept of struggle was found among the servants, who struggled with the prospect of daily toiling even during festive seasons like Christmas. In Midsummer Nights Dream the struggle is evident even at the beginning. First, there is the struggle of Hermia against the wishes of her father for her to marry Demetrius whom she does not like. Violence is found in the concept of Egeus threatening his daughter with death should she go against the will of the father.
The idea of nearly coming to a duel of Lysander and Demetrius is also another example of the inclination of the characters to violence and is proof of the presence of violence. The overall theme of love struggle among the characters in the play is an inclination to the concept of struggle as applied in A Midsummer Nights Dream. In the Comedy of Errors, the presence of beatings was a result of the mistaken identity of the lead characters who are separated twins. The struggle was on how to straighten up the confusion created by the predicament of the twins, especially their separation and their unexpected reunion later in their life.
Considering the aforementioned complexities in Shakespearean endings, a lot of people may have easily assumed that Shakespeare may have indeed fell short in some areas of writing plays. However, though this may appear to be the common impression, it is nonetheless evident that the problem is not with Shakespeares writing ability but with the choices he made. Indeed, the problem is not with Shakespeare as a writer, or with his imagination and his ability to manipulate the story in such a way that an ending is achieved. As the writer and the creator of the destiny of his characters, it is all in his powers and ability, regardless of how good or bad a writer he is. The problem is with his characters and the intertwined lives that Shakespeare has created for them and how the comedy formula appears to be difficult, if not unsuitable, for the people and the stories that Shakespeare brings forward to the audience via his several different comedy plays. Furthermore, there are also external considerations that Shakespeare has to make to not just simply write an ending but to present an ending that people would like and appreciate. All of these basic and simple considerations contradict with Shakespeares complex characters and plots that achieving an ending the audience would like, approve of and appreciate in a period of time allotted for comedy is difficult. It often results to the presentation of an ending that is considered as unbelievable and surprising.
Socio-Cultural Factors that Affected the Basis of Shakespearean Endings
A lot has already been reported as to the basis of Shakespearean endings. But the discussion does not end there. Aside from the abovementioned molders of Shakespearean conclusions, there is also the factor of cultural context which Shakespeare has to address and consider in his creation of his story and how it will end. Granted that he already has a vision of how everything will turn out, the historical or cultural context of particular aspects of human life like love, marriage, family and courtship also comes into play here. In Shakespeares works of comedy, the themes and tones alluding to or pointing to the ideas of or concepts of love and marriage have been strongly prevalent in many of his works of comedy.
This is reflective, according to analysts, of the social conditions present during Shakespeares time. Some of the analysts actually put into consideration actual social conditions as part of their analysis of Shakespeare and his works and the socio-political relevance and bearing of this condition to the conditions in the story and the condition of the characters found there. According to Cahn, love and marriage is the chief concern of young women during that time (Cahn 526). It is no wonder that love and marriage are the chief concerns of the characters in the story, and the problems resulting from this pursuit the struggle the woman is trying to overcome and survive. Given the social constrictions of Shakespeares age, a young woman at that time had to make her chief concerns romance and marriage (Cahn 526).
There is a popular idea about how art imitates life. Literature as a form of art imitates life features in Shakespeares works of comedy, sharing the similarity that all of them are all reflective of real life. An important similarity found in the many comedies of Shakespeare and universal to the comedies when it comes to tone and theme is how the concept of the comedy and the very ethos and essence that made it a form of comedy is extracted from genuine and real personal experiences of the people of his time. Shakespeares comedies are true to life as we know it (Foakes li).
Shakespeares comedies often talk about the situations and conditions of real life as he saw and witnessed all of it. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons why the comedy of Shakespeare has been successful and well loved and was well received during his time, with regards to the concepts of his stories but not generally how it was resolved in the end. The reader sympathizes and identifies with the struggle, not the resolution per se.
The characters are bound by the cultural and historical context of the real-life aspects and this condition forces the outcome even when there might be other possible endings to the story which maybe considered as more realistic or close to the reality of the lives of the people in the comedy and will not appear as surprising to the readers. For example, the complexity of the problems of the characters in the comedy A Midsummer Nights Dream makes it surprising that in the end. Everyone lived happily ever after. They were all successful in landing the love of their life. This maybe because during his time, love is as romantic as it is a task to which everyone endeavors to be successful and has consistently successfully pursued considering the social conditions at the time - the expectations of parents for their children to marry, the pressure from parents and the society, etc.
This ending could have been different, but Shakespeares approach at ending the story may have been strongly influenced by the cultural context of love and courtship during his time. Everything has fallen into place so conveniently to allow the success of the love story of the key people in the story is quite unbelievable possible in real life, but quite unbelievable. This came to be because even though Shakespeare can lead the story towards a different and more realistic ending considering the predicament of the people involved. He didnt because of the consideration to the formula of comedy, because of the expectations of the people regarding how love and courtship is used, presented and concluded in stories that are supposed to be a reflection of real life, and more importantly, because of the responsibility of Shakespeare to entertain above everything else.
What Shakespeare displayed with brilliance in the scheming of how conflict is created and put together dissolves into mere questionable and suspect endings. He cannot risk making stories inspired solely by his vision and his different perspectives on the situations of life alone. There is, above everything else, the taste and the sensibilities of the audience to please. Schumacher explained that Shakespeare was still in his youth when he wrote most of his play and was adventurous as a writer (Schumacher 81). This points to the belief that it is actually possible that he goes for stories that are bolder and do not have the same formulaic ending. His sense of adventure in plotting stories and conflicts was tempered by the need to please the audience to be able to maintain a following and to gain the reputation that he had then and today.
This is important because without the support and patronage of the people in the audience, Shakespeare is no one. In more modern parlance among artists and their creative directions, Shakespeare sort of sold out to what in his time can be considered as the mainstream audience. This career direction for him made him re-think how his stories would end and the most convenient and safe way is for the stories to end happily, at least for most of the characters that the audience would sympathize, empathize or relate to. In turn, it makes the very complex stories end with such degree of simplicity it was nearly impossible that the situation would be approached and settled that easily.
A Normal Case of Writers Block
Though perceived as one of the brightest artists of his generation, Shakespeare was indeed finding it difficult to end his stories. There were even times when he found it hard to construct anything from his imagination. This was even portrayed in stories such as Shakespeare in Love which depicted Shakespeares life and literary adventures (Shakespeare and Donno 52). There was a time when he was already considering what other people think or feel and how this would impact his career. He sought the constant approval of his audience that he sacrificed his vision in exchange for making the audience happy by giving them the ending they want and not the ending that the complex characters and their lives in the story truly deserve.
Also, those that has explored the comedies of Shakespeare and subjected it for analysis have found out important points and aspects. One of this is the variety, particularly in the structure by which Shakespeare is trying to execute comedy. For analysts, the comedies of Shakespeare, despite how it would appear to be similar with one another, are, individually, representative of the different comic structure Shakespeare utilized to give each comedy play a different twist (Brown 25). What does this mean Maybe, this proves that in his own way, Shakespeare was trying to break free from the restrictions of the comedy structure in his own way in some aspects. Although in the end, it appears that he was not completely freed and his own personal struggle here manifests itself in the difficulty in creating the fitting ending for his comedy plays resulting in endings that are surprising and unbelievable.
Analysts and critics are the first to explain the reality that the difficulty in describing Shakespeares comedies in general terms is due to their variety or miscellaneity (Salingar 19). The differences in the comedies written by Shakespeare are also influenced by the fact that Shakespeare sought to approach comedy in a variety of ways and through the use of a variety of tools. Because of this, analysts and critics who studied Shakespeares works particularly comedy considers the diversity of comic form and techniques (Leggatt 12) as something that is central to Shakespearean comedy (Leggatt 12). It is expected to be reflected in the many different comedies written by Shakespeare, from his A Midsummer Nights Dream to Much Ado About Nothing and every else in between, before and after, so long as it is Shakespearean comedy.
William Shakespeare is one of the all time well renowned writer who has influenced many other writers, many cultures, many societies and many people for a long period of time largely because of his works. Shakespeare has produced many works over the course of his career. Indeed, Shakespeares works have become as iconic as he is. His works have as much immortalized itself as it immortalized Shakespeare over and over again. Shakespeare is known for his tragedies as well as his comedies. His comedies have impacted the history of literature significantly.
There is something about his comedies that is always worth investigating. Many analysts have done so and have provided the public with the results of such endeavor, reflected in literature containing analysis of Shakespeare and his works with focus on particular issues, like how he created endings and this process of endingresolution-creation. Proof of Shakespeares inability to end his comedies well is his reliance to the use of magic, supernatural intervention, chance and how these things strongly affect the outcome of the story. In Twelfth Night, representative of the incapability of women as seen by the society during Shakespeares time was when Viola, a woman, was saved by perchance (Shakespeare, Scene II) and not by her abilities. In A Midsummer Nights Dream, the concept of magic and supernatural intervention is as strong as the dependence on the impact of chance. For example, it was by mere chance that Hermia was not aware of Helenas intentions regarding Demetrius. It was by chance that Helena was informed by Hermia and Lysanders plan to elope. This becomes a tool that Helena used and the resulting event critical to the height of the conflict and to the eventual resolution of the problem in the story. Magic was central in A Midsummer Nights Dream as chance was central in the other stories, from the Two Gentlemen of Verona to Twelfth Night. William Shakespeare is a unique individual that has made his mark in the world of literature by writing outstanding and unforgettable plays, especially comedy plays that has become enduring. However, the problem with Shakespeare was that he too was rendered vulnerable and susceptible to the other restrictions and demands in play-writing. There are other considerations that he has to make in creating and finishing his stories and how this appears in the end. As much as there are moral lessons that the story wanted to share, there is also something that Shakespeare expects the audience to experience. Shakespeare was a prominent writer for comedy, but soon the question was not about how Shakespeare shaped comedy but how the structure of comedy shaped the works of Shakespeare.
It is hard to accept that the basic reason is the possibility that Shakespeare doesnt know how to end his plays per se. An occasional writers block is acceptable. Experiencing a writers block in the process of ending the story resulting to an unimaginative conclusion of the story can happen to anyone. However, it is difficult to accept that with Shakespeares caliber and skill in writing, this has become a chronic problem and dilemma in his comedy works. Suspect to his surprising endings is how he allows his characters to act and behave in similar fashions and how Shakespeare makes the characters react to such behavior in an unexpected and surprising fashion. For example, how come it is easy to be in love with a person that resorts to fraud and beguiling even the people they profess they love in the cases of Helena in Alls Well Thats Ends Well, of Viola in Twelfth Night, of Oberon in A Midsummer Nights Dream, and of Proteus in Two Gentleman of Verona
This is not to mention that Shakespeares writing style has its own problems contributing to the issue regarding how he creates his endings, especially in how he develops characters and how he follows and be repetitive of certain story formulas. Richman posited that in some instances like the case of the comedy The Two Gentlemen of Verona, it was Shakespeare and his writing style and direction that affected the flaw and problem in the creation of the ending of the story (Richman 151). The endings flaws grow out of the playwrights exploration (Richman 151). Rosenblum commented that in some cases, Shakespeare appears to be hastening towards the ending which created problems between characters (Rosenblum 517) and the roles they undertake in the continued unveiling of the circumstances, which makes the resulting condition more and more difficult and more unbelievable.
The criticism of this particular issue is not without implications on some critical approaches that can be used to break apart this condition more clearly. There are aspects that are involved in the assessment of this particular problem of Shakespeare. It is focused on some key socio-cultural components like gender roles and the power among genders, cultural and historical context and the practice, observance and depiction of socio-cultural and personal aspects and concepts like love, courtship, marriage etc.
Indeed readers and critics alike may sometimes find themselves wondering about how a certain complex conflict became solved easily in a Shakespearean comedy. However, critics should never forget the fact that during the Elizabethan period, comedies such as the aforementioned writing of Shakespeare should always end happily. Aside from this, it must also be considered that aside from the fact that an author has to make his stories appealing through the crafty utilization of literary elements, he also has to lay these stories down in reflection of the current socio-cultural situations of his time. Hence, a lot of factors aside from mere folly can make an ending problematic, just like how critics looked at these works of Shakespeare. Therefore, there should be no arguments about whether the writer made a bad ending regarding his plays for it is evident that he only complies with the conventions of genres and the needs and issues of his time. Whether the ending is plausible or not, what is important is Shakespeare never failed to provide the world with wonderful and amusing stories to read, that have given the world some of the best and unforgettable stories ever enacted on stage. Hence, Shakespeares particular penchant for unlikely endings has been perceived over the years, based from all the abovementioned truths and facts about Shakespeares preferences as well as the norms of his time, it can finally be deduced that this trait in Shakespearean works was actually molded by the varying conventions and standards of his society during the sixteenth century.
No comments:
Post a Comment