aglarien-Literature (EN) @[email protected]

Me: (almost lose it) there is no plot in What You Will, only vibes.
Published scholars:

Scholars have long been debating whether the so-called "War of the Theatre" was indeed a "war" instead of a pompous fraud dispute. In recent years, more and more scholars tend to believe there were really nasty insults exchanged in the so-called "War" between Marston/Dekker and Jonson. However, the stance of any single piece in the "War" remains ambiguous. For Marston's infamous induction of What You Will, who on earth did he criticize? Jonson, Shakespeare, or himself? Who was the "implied author" of What You Will? Jonson, or Marston himself?

Me, after reading Endymion for the first time: what a weird, cosmic play...
Me, after reading several scholarly works on Endymion: what a piece full of weird shit did I read last week?!

To a 21st-century reader's eyes, the Jacobean masques must appear overtly didactic and were filled with presumptuous cheesy praises. However, we should remember, these masques were part of the wider contemporary dialogues in the court. They aimed at teaching the monarchy how to behave as well as praising them. Poets were supposed to accomplish their civil services for the country by writing these works——that was exactly why, Ben Jonson, who wrote dozens of masques to praise the kings, dared to write "that poets were far rarer births than kings".

Jeanne H. McCarthy argues for Queen Elizabeth's patronage of children's companies with a political motive...Quite an interesting idea, isn't it? While the courtiers funded the adult companies or other forms of performance at court in an attempt to persuade Queen to select a consort, she invested in the children's companies to fight back.

Dear Willy Shakes,

How many lines have you copied and pasted from Lyly's Endymion to your Much Ado About Nothing? I swear Benedick is no more than Tophas plus Endymion!

I think the exchange between "Luce" and "Ephesian Dromio" in Shakespeare's The Comedy of Errors is perhaps also an extraordinary example of such a pattern recognized by Tribble.

Evelyn Tribble, in her article "Marlowe's boy actors", identifies a significant pattern in the cues by adult actors preceding speeches of Marlowe's boy actors. These cues are usually repeated, or contain embedded instruction on the role's subordinate social positions. This pattern is seemingly designed specifically to train young actors.

For early modern writers, Greek and Roman mythology allows an opportunity to explore topics and interests that are otherwise censored. Interestingly, similar things happen in the 20th and the 21st century. E.g. horror games usually use supernatural elements to explore cultural taboos.

women for female roles in the continent. Both assertions are proved false. Now scholars believe the female roles by boy actors are more of a custom or convenience thing. Also, this practice may reflect the contemporary anxiety of women speaking in public spheres as well as the English public stage's emphasis on homosocial relationships and homo-erotic/hetero-erotic appeal. (2/2)

Stephen Orgel posited a famous question in early modern theatre studies decades ago: "why did the English stage take boys for women?" Years later, the academia's honest answer is, we still don't know. Yet the scholar consensus has progressed a long way since Orgel's question. For example, in the past, people inclined to assert that the female actresses on public stage was unlawful in Shakespeare's time, or England simply had little to no knowledge of the popular acting practices using real (1/2)

Attended a hybrid lecture online yesterday about boy actors on the Renaissance stage. The lecture was given by a Cambridge academic to his fellow scholars. Not a very in depth one in general. But it argued intriguingly that the boy actors might integrate elements of their childish play onto the stage. That explained the high playfulness of some plays (esp. some Jonson, Dekker, Lyly) and some physical and musical aspects of them.

Eh, hi, sorry for the long break of my posting. I changed my phone and kind of lost the way to log onto two accounts on Mastodon. Now I'm back! I'll continue to post about English Literature here, if only as my own way of praticing English.

Early Modern Publisher didn't distinguish "i" and "j", though we're almost certain (almost) that British people back then pronounced sound "j" in the same way as we did. Thus the name Benjamin Jonson went "Beniamin Ionson" in published texts and Jonson signed "B.I." under his epigram on Shakespeare's portrait.

I'm doing another presentation this week. This time it is still the form study: how/why Chartist poets called for social change in their epic poems. There are many intriguing findings in the textual analysis, among which there is a main point I'd like to write down here: by "conquering" the epic form, the oldest and the most prominent form in English Literary history, these working-class poets reclaimed the literary "canon" for their own class.

I mean it. As an experienced narrative designer of video games, I dare say video game scripts have much more in common with play scripts than with prose fiction. Games are like immersive plays. You lead the players through a journey, play with them, grant them satisfaction, make them sympathize with your own characters and so on. Mostly they just watch what you present. Sometimes they interfere (in a very limited and contrived way). Audiences participate in a play in a very similar way to that gamers do games.

Be like Jonson. Still bullying generations of scholars 400 years after his death. How many people managed that?

What's drama and video games have in common? They're both plays.

The preface of "Daphnis and Chloe" described the story as, "a delightful possession for everyone,/that will/heal the sick/and cheer the desponding,/bring back memories to those who have loved/and give needful instruction to those who have not".

However, as to Comedy of Errors this specific play, we should note that the only two performance record entries of Comedy of Errors in Shakespeare's time were both in private housings. One in a small pub(?), another in the court. Before we evacuate solid evidence of this play performing in public theatres, it is still unsafe to say Shakespeare meant to write a tragic comedy in the first place if only by depicting the sufferings of servants.