This play feels like an episode of Maury.

            The Duke is… a strange man. Though he had been attempting to manipulate practically every character throughout the length of Shakespeare’s play, Act Five really emphasizes just how ridiculous this man is. It seems as though he really wants to control every aspect of everything, from who lives and dies, who gets married, and who gets arrested. The entirety of Act Five is really just the Duke saying over and over “HAHA! Look at my cunning scheme!” even though his “scheme” is a massively convoluted plot to accomplish things he could have done if he had simply exercised the power that he already had.

            Throughout Act Five, the Duke acts as though he wasn’t secretly watching everyone, and has Isabella ordered to like five different things. Every time anything happens, he’s just like “OOOOOOKAY, how can I blame this on Isabella, but like not actually because I’m being SNEEEAKY!” He thinks he’s being clever with this plan, but really it’s just confusing. He sort of reminds me of the Mayor from Portlandia. He’s more or less a big man-child with all these ridiculous ideas.

            Departing a little from this idea, I also feel the need to address the common use of disguises in Shakespeare’s works. I know that suspension of disbelief is a thing, but how can no one point out the Duke when all he’s doing to disguise himself is wearing a hood? In addition, how did Angelo never see Mariana’s face or notice that her body wasn’t so much like Isabella’s? This isn’t something I should be worrying about, and likely wasn’t something anyone watching this play would have cared about, but it’s weird to me that such simple disguises are what the entire play hinges on.

            Measure for Measure was as frustrating as it was entertaining. In the end, no one dies and the only punishment is that several people have to be married against their will because the Duke has apparently seen how people treat a ruler who tries to kill people and he’s not about that. He cares waaaayyy too much about public opinion. The play is so convoluted and crazy in its scheming and planning, but the way it unravels is certainly a fun read, and almost definitely better to see acted.

Justice vs Morality

Justice is the implementation of fairness and consequences, due to a rational set of what is right and wrong, especially as it is defined by laws set up by a government or a religion. Mercy involves empathy and forgiveness (over justice), and often a guilty or powerless person receives mercy from someone in power.

I think that a balance of a merciful justice is needed for any society. Angelo fulfills the role of a leader by enforcing laws, but he is not necessarily “just,” since he puts himself above fairness and certainly is not moral. The Duke disguises himself as an ordinary citizen, providing mercy, even if it is through trickery. The balance, I think, may sometimes lie in the different roles: leaders enforcing justice and society providing mercy.

Now, Isabella’s dilemma is very creepy, and I agree that she should stick to her beliefs and not give into Angelo’s blackmail. As she puts it, damning her soul forever by having sex with him does not justify saving her brother’s physical body. Angelo’s character is only a satisfying villain in that he contrasts and provokes Isabella’s character. I can’t stop thinking that Isabella’s strong resistance to Angelo’s advances is preferable to Tess’ ignorance when faced with Alec in Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the d’Urbervilles.

If she decided to give into his wishes, it would not be justice since there are not laws saying that a volunteer tribute of virginity can pay the bail for a man on death row. It certainly would not be merciful either, since she is not the one in power; she would be the victim of Angelo’s uber-creepiness. Her choice coincided with the justice of her religious faith, since it is her fear of consequences to her soul which keep her strong against Angelo’s intimidation.

Shakespeares' Worst Character To Date.

                     
                     I don't mind reading Shakespeare. In fact, I often enjoy his work. To be honest, when it comes right down to it, my favorite thing about his writings are usually the characters.
                    So, let's talk about Angelo in Measure for Measure. In my head, Shakespeare could not have written a worse villain. He is smarmy, conniving, dirty, power hungry, and overall, he just gives off a general feeling of "ew". I almost wanted to wash my hands after reading his lines. One of the things that got to me the most was when he turns to Isabella and says "The only way to save your brother is to give me your virginity". My initial reaction to this scene was: Sorry, what? Are you kidding me? No. Ridiculous. Only a total creep without any game would propose that as a suitable arrangement. (This is actually pretty word for word, you can ask my roommate).
                    Though Angelo is pretty much as miserable a character as you can get, he is a great foil for Isabella, Claudio's sister. She is a strong, independent character who reminds me of a modern day feminist who would rather march the white house than accept a less than desirable fate. She is intelligent, quick witted, self aware, and most importantly, she knows her worth as a woman. Having a jerky, moral-less asshole stand opposite her really brings out her strengths as a character.
                   The ending of this play is what makes everything that happens in the middle of it it okay. I do feel like what happens to Angelo at the end is justly deserved, though I do feel badly for Mariana. No one deserves to be shackled to that jerk for the rest of their earthly life, but she seems to be happy with her outcome.

 Some final thoughts on the play: 1) I thought that the Duke, though his actions don't always make sense, was one of the best parts of the play, and that he was hysterical, 2) Angelo is probably the least satisfying character I have ever read. I hate him.

Lil Stupid Ass Bitch!!!!

WARNING: IF YOU DONT WATCH REALITY TV OR YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH SLANG ON BLACK TWITTER/INSTAGRAM, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET WHAT THE FUCK I'M SAYING THIS WEEK...LOL

I went on so many tangents last week when I commented that I really don't have much to say this week. Awkward. Sooooo... I'll just base my post off of Big Sean's new song, "I Don't Fuck With You" because I assume that's how the Duke feels about Lucio.

So this hilarious exchange begins in Act 3.2 line 86. Lucio asks the Duke (as the friar) if he's heard any recent news about the Duke and his whereabouts. I know that he did this just to gossip because he had a lot to say about him. Lucio says little underhanded comments like "it was a mad fantastical trick to steal from the state and usurp the beggars he was never born to" (3.2, 93-95) and "he would have hanged a man for getting a hundred bastards, he would have paid for the nursing a thousand. He had some feeling of the sport, he knew the service, and that instructed him to mercy" (3.2, 117-120). Lucio talks all types of crap about the Duke, whom he's never met, but he insists that he was an "inward" of his (3.2, 132) quarters with him. He also claims that he loves the Duke, but all he is doing is talking shit:"A very superficial, ignorant, up weighing fellow...Sir, I know him, and I love him" (3.2,141-151).

The Duke first checks this asshole when he says, " Love talks with better knowledge, and knowledge with dearer love" (3.2, 152). In reality tv, this translates to "BITCH YOU DON'T KNOW ME!" Which is usually followed by a hand clap and hair pulling. But the Duke keeps his cool. He lets the little crunt sack talk his shit and says he will get in his ass when he reveals himself, which Lucio does not understand, " And I pray you, your name...He shall know you better sir, if I may live to report you" ( 3.2 10-163). I was ready to get a bag of popcorn and wait for this confrontation to go down because I thought the Duke would be all in Lucio's face.

Welllllll that didn't happen, but Lucio put that bitch in his place when he revealed himself: "You were not bid to speak.  No, my good lord, nor wished to hold my peace. I wish you now, then." (5.1, 92-95). The Duke wants to hear nothing from Lucio because he knows he's a liar that  loves attention.

Lucio can't seem to understand that by trying to kiss the Duke's ass and cosign with him, he's only shoving his foot further into his mouth: "Right. It may be right, but you are i' the wrong to speak out of your time" (102--104). Ooooooohhhhh, burn! The library was open and the Duke read the house down! He was not having any more of Lucio's bullshit! Then. Lucio tried to cop a plea and blame his bashing on the Duke (AS THE FRIAR) because he knows "the friar" will tell on him. Come on now, you lil stupid ass bitch!

Lucio realizes how bad he's fucked up when the friar rips off his hood and GASP he's the Duke!!!! Lucio then says, "this May prove worse than hanging" (5.1, 405). I think the Duke should have beheaded Lucio for talking so much shit about him---maybe that's why I wasn't born as a king. Lol. But I think it was a great punishment to make Lucio marry a whore because he'd be miserable as long as he lived---which is ten times worth than death. YASSSSS BITCH YASSSS!!!

“Uh, that is not my job.”

Isabella.  What an interesting predicament she has gotten herself into through this story? In Act 1 Scene 4 Isabella is addressing a Nun when she states, “[R]ather wishing a more strict restraint / Upon the sisterhood, the votarists of Saint Clare.” This little tid-bit gives great incite into her character by showing her devote nature to the rules and following of the church.  Also, a foreshadowing of what she will decide to do on her brother’s behalf.

            So, in theory she is not part of the nunnery when she is faced with the decision to save her brother or not. Consequently, she does want to be in the nunnery in the future and her decision could affect her ability to join.  Just because her brother couldn’t contain himself and acted as “rats that raven down proper bane” does not mean that she has to give up on her dreams.  Understandably, one can assume that this wasn’t the most feminist era. Even so, women shouldn’t be forced to give up their dreams to save their brothers for the mistake they knowingly made.

            Yes, one could argue that the Duke wasn’t holding down the law and that poor ‘ol Claudio did not know that it was that bad because the rules weren’t being enforced.  Whatever, he totally knew. As Angelo put it, "Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus, another thing to fall.”

            Then Claudio goes off in Act Three and tells his sister that he supports her in not giving her virginity to save his life.  But, just like Isabella called it, he sissies out.  He takes it back and then asks her to do it, even after talking to her and knowing how painful it would be for her.  She is willing to die for him and he asks her that? Really? Really.

            I believe that this in itself is a big pill to swallow for poor Isabella.  She just wants to become a nun and do holy things, but no, her brother messed up and now she has to make a choice.  Thankfully she called him out and basically told him to take a hike.  I fully support her decision and her beliefs on her brother showing his true (darkened) colors by having premarital sex and asking for this humongous favor. 

            Sadly, Isabella could not save her brother, would not save her brother.  Although, this outcome of justified death may tie into the idea of justice verses mercy.  Did he deserve to be saved after knowingly making a decision?  I don’t believe someone deserves mercy when they willingly decide to do unjust things and I believe that Isabella did the right thing by deciding to do what was best for her. You go, girl.

           

            

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...

Well, it seems that Shakespeare was able to keep up his usual Comedy pattern of chaos, clowns, chaos and marriage. Not to be confused with the typical Shakespeare tragedy pattern of chaos, clowns, chaos and death. While I don't find this play particularly comical, I will admit that there is a good amount of wit in it, and there are some great lines and passages that make you think...damn.

However, I am very satisfied with the title. In past Shakespeare experience, I have been privy to reading The Tempest, Othello, Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and a few others. Aside from The Tempest, it seems that my teachers have only really assigned me plays that have the title of a character or two who are in the play. As I'm sure Dr. MB is from her title contest, I am someone who loves book and play titles and finds it great when they appear in the text or their meaning is snuck in. It's a beautiful AHA! moment. And Shakespeare does not disappoint. I probably got too excited when I found this one, Act 5, scene 1, line 465, page 203:

"An Angelo for Claudio, death for death. Haste still pays haste, and leisure answers leisure; Like doth quit like, and measure still for measure."

While I am not a firm believer in the theory of an eye for an eye, as made clear in my little Gandhi quote title, I do like that ounce of justice that Shakespeare has provided us. He gave us a title and then that title rang true in the set up of the punishment and the conclusion of the play. Everything finally came together. A lot of the previous blog posts complained that there was no justice and that these characters had no shame in running around in disguise destroying each others lives. In some cases, I completely agree, but in others, this line sort of changes my mind. Maybe in his time disguised as a friar, the duke has learned a better way to dole out punishments among his people. He may not be at 100% as a ruler, but he is certainly trying to get there. I still judge him for hiding, but after he is revealed, he does eventually fess up and explain everything too.

And although I like the title coming into play and the duke stepping back into his role, I am also unsatisfied with the ending. The Duke comes back and acts like some fairy godmother, hopping around and pointing at each character giving them their own happy or unhappy ending. And while like I said, I do not always agree with the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, WHY DOES ANGELO PRETTY MUCH GET AWAY WITH ALL HE'S DONE? The Duke makes this whole measure for measure speech, declaring that there will be justice for justice and saying that for Claudio's death, Angelo will die, but then he pardons it so that Marianna can have a husband. "Lend me a knee" she begs Isabella. Give me a break! I don't see how this whole part fits with the title, unless that's the whole point? Is there such thing as measure for measure? Or is Shakespeare saying, we can't follow anything measure for measure as much as we want to because it just never works out that way. One punishment will never be equal to another.

I'm waiting for an epiphany here or for someone who gets it. I think the title is meant to be ironic, like you can't always get what  you want, or at least you can't always get what you want in exactly the same way that someone else has it. But I can't seem to quite peg why such a significant title was used, appears in the book, but then just doesn't fall through. Any ideas? Lend me a knee.

(also very upset that all the funny shakespeare memes are romeo and juliet and hamlet...give some measure for measure love, internet!)

I didn't wanna get myself started with the Duke, but what the hell....

            In a play (or really, semester) full of characters that are not-so likable, The Duke has made his way to the top of my “you suck” list. I mean, this guy has been a shmuck all these years, leaves this imbecile in charge who messes everything up even further and then decides it’s appropriate for him to be the orchestrator of this big scheme. Maybe it’s just me, but if I was such a royal screw up, I would not give myself the responsibility of all these people’s lives, virginity, ect. And then, as his great comeback, he decides to do this elaborate finale where he bounces Isabella in and out of jail, summons the Friar version of himself, who pretends to be too sick to show up, and then shows up anyway (and then proceeds to confuse me). In the end, he thinks everyone is happily ever after… but I disagree. Simply because in what universe did Isabella show any interest, at all, in marrying the Duke (or Friar, or whoever the hell he is). To me, she is not a character who really changed her morals and personal beliefs throughout the play; if anything, she went through a rollercoaster of emotions and seemingly stayed relatively true to herself. If she wanted to stray from her goals of joining the super strict convent, then she would have slept with Angelo, got her brother back, and moved on with her life.

            Also, how in the world does the Duke get away with all of this stuff? It has been made clear in this course that these people are more evolved than I previously thought: they know the earth was round, they bathed frequently and they SOMETIMES, I repeat sometimes, care about women’s rights (or maybe that was only the Wife of Bath). If they’re not complete morons, then they should be able to see that all these heads are, in fact, not Claudio’s, and have enough reason to know that Angelo would see the difference; if he can’t, he’s just dumb. I mean, I get death takes a toll on these guys bodies (I can’t find the exact quote in the text but sometime along the lines of it changing how someone looks) but I doubt, even with death, Claudio looks like all the guys who are conveniently dying that day.

            Overall, the Duke gets away with everything, he’s an idiot, no one seems entirely happy and this all doesn’t feel measure for measure, arm for an arm to me… cause this jerk is still living “happily ever after.”

What is a Villain?

As Rebecca mentioned in her blog post, I too have contemplated the idea of the Duke being the villain in this story, rather than Angelo. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a villain is a character who does bad things, evil things. If this is the case, there would be multiple villains in this story, and every story for that matter. I believe that a villain is someone who purposely does bad things, manipulates people simply for the pleasure of it and perhaps for some gain in power. With this definition, it is easy to see Angelo as the devil. Angelo was given the power of the Duke, and abused his power, simply because he thought he could (why not right? The Duke said he’s in charge of everything). Angelo enforced rules that the Duke had not, but he also made up some of his own (unless it’s apparently a law for an adulterer’s sister to sleep with the man in charge to save her brother’s life, but that seems a bit crazy to me). Anyway, I think Angelo is an evil person and a villain, by my definition of a villain.

                  If I were to judge the Duke’s status as a villain by the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition as well, he too would be a villain, but I no longer think he is. It is unclear what the Duke’s motifs were in the first place for leaving (maybe because he was terrible at his job, maybe he was afraid of having so much power, or maybe he secretly, maliciously wanted to see someone tear the land apart so everyone would hate the new man in power and not pay attention to the Duke’s lack of enforcing laws and doing poorly at his job). Although there are many possibilities, I have a hard time believing that the Duke was plotting for the land to fall apart. It seems much more logical to me that the Duke was having trouble enforcing laws, because his own personal morals were not the exact same as the laws; so, the Duke thought perhaps putting someone else in power would help laws be enforced, and he wouldn’t have to feel guilty about it because he was not enforcing the laws himself. Regardless of the Duke’s motifs, his actions do not mirror those of a villain (yes, maybe he was a bit entertained by the chaos, but who wouldn’t be?).

Marriage...The Ultimate Eternal Justice!

I have to admit, it took me a really long time to finish Act 5 because there is so much going on.  So they all end up betrothed/married, right? I actually found myself laughing at this ending, because it really does deliver justice to all the characters.  It just happens in the weirdest way.  What I find funny is the fact that she begs for Angelo’s life because she claims that he didn’t know what he was doing.  But does it really matter whether he had sex with someone else, or with her? Either way, he’s doing it out of wedlock. Of course this confuses me because I’ve been getting mixed messages on this issue.  Many times throughout the play, I get the impression that it’s okay to have sex out of wedlock if it’s with your betrothed.  Technically, that’s what Angelo does.  Of course, he broke it off because she lost her dowry, so I guess the justice really is the fact that he has to marry her anyway. 

Each character who does something wrong ultimately receives justice in the end.  We spend this entire play searching for this justice, and it actually ends in an (almost) satisfying way.  No one dies, no one gets corporal punishment—both things we expect to see.  Both are things we want to see.  But the real punishment is that each is tied to a person with whom they do not really want to marry.  It’s perfect! Angelo would rather die than actually marry Mariana.  He begs for death, even.  The fact that the Duke does not spare him eternal entrapment is the ultimate form of justice! So the character we hate most gets what he deserves.  But what about Isabella? She is forced to marry the Duke.  Does the really deserve it? In my eyes, I think she does because of her deceit.  The issue of freewill comes up here, because we could make the argument that the Duke was involved, yet Isabella made the decision to go along with his plan.  If you ask me, it was her choice, so she needs to face the consequences.  I honestly don’t think the Duke was going to let Angelo kill Claudio in the first place.

As for the Duke…this is the only place where I feel the play doesn’t deliver justice.   So he gets to mess with people’s lives and lie and deceive., but he gets away with it? Where is the justice for the Duke’s actions? Honestly, I think he’s the most villainous person in this play.  But perhaps he’s there to teach us the importance of freewill. He sways these characters in certain directions, but ultimately, their decisions are their own.  An interesting use of a villain, I think.