Heh heh

( )

Harrowing. One moral of the story: don't be a loyal company man. ( )

The once was a Roman named Titus
Who thought that his cause was righteous,
But he brought in the Goths,
Then the deaths came in swaths;
I guess that’s one way to end this bloody crisis
(Of a play, that is)

Did we write a bullshit limerick in response to Shakespeare’s alleged first tragedy? Yes, yes we did. The tale of Titus Andronicus is so full of seemingly pointless violence and brutality that it’s almost impossible to treat it as a play with any sort or moral compass or seriousness, and instead we must accept that we’re here to see a bunch of people wreak vengeance on eachother from start to finish in a never ending cycle of (military) might doesn’t make right. Unlike Shakespeare’s other Roman plays, Titus isn’t based on any historical account, and the character depth that comes to define the Bard’s more mature work hasn’t yet been developed, so what we’re left with is a play that relies on a pastiche of myths, moments of violence, and a barely developed political schema to drive the narration. I’m sure Elizabethan audiences were as entranced by this shellac as modern day viewers of staged wrestling are (same vapid entertainment for the masses), but damn, William, this is some ridiculous tripe! ( )

3 stars for the play, 4 stars for the edition. Jonathan Bate is a brilliant scholar, however I'd refrain from giving this edition 5 stars - in spite of his fascinating discussions of methods of staging - because I do think that Bate has a bit of a bias here, seeing the play's issues and textual cruces as largely deliberate, and I don't think this finding is born out by modern scholarship. ( )

I hated this book. It was pompous and wooden and incredibly cruel, so I was bored and disgusted at the same time. I didn't enjoy this experience at all and I don't recommend this play. ( )