SparkNotes

Off and on I keep trying to appreciate Shakespeare's plays, but I can't. I love certain lines, characters, speeches, scenes... and even some of his sonnets. But the plays, the stories, just don't work for me.

Not this edition's fault for sure. Sparknotes "No Fear" edition makes it easily readable. Much better than having a scattering of annotations off in the margins.

Otoh, I still need a 'so what' guide at the same time, too. Hamlet comes across to me as a stripling cuss, Horatio as a show more cypher, a nobody, Claudius & Gertrude as royalty just doing what royalty had always done (though usually with a bit more subtlety)... only the gravediggers and the keepers of the watch seemed to me like real people. Well, in a way they are the only real ppl, being the only members of the lower classes I guess. Anyway, obviously I'm missing a lot.

A few things I did note:

"nature cannot choose his origin" - seems pretty modern to me

Old Polonius says, "It is as proper to our age to cast beyond ourselves in our opinions as it is common for the younger sort to lack discretion." - true that

But I'm particularly puzzled by one bit. When the Ghost exhorts Horatio & Marcellus to "swear" not to reveal that they saw Hamlet talking with him, Hamlet seems jocular about the "truepenny" in "the cellarage." What's up with that? show less

Uncritically accepts what I call the "standard interpretation" of the play, which actually wants a great deal of criticism. Whatever the Modern Language Association may have become, for ages literary criticism was élitist and literary critics tended to be social and political conservatives: perhaps friendly to the abstract ideals of republican democracy, but certainly not to its practical extension among the hoi polloi [and, yes, I know that's like saying "the Christ" or "con carne with show more meat," but hoi polloi functions as a two-word noun in English].

[Briefly, this is the "standard interpretation;" you may find it in virtually any introduction to the play. The plebeians are governed more by their hearts and bellies than by their heads, whereas the opposite obtains for the patricians. (As Mayor "Diamond Joe" Quimby has put it: "I'm sick o' you people! You're nothing but a pack of fickle mush-heads!" or "Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?") Politically, the plebeians are allowed no will of their own, or at least none worth the patricians' attention. The patricians, on the other hand, look out for the plebeians in looking out for the best interests of Rome (note particularly how Menenius, who shares many of Coriolanus' opinions of the plebeians, is written as a kindly old man, despite the fact that he tells Coriolanus to lie to the people so he can become Consul, at which time he could break his promises with impunity). It is the people's tribunes, rather, who are portrayed as the self-interested manipulators of the political process, who play for fools the people who chose them, and who cause everyone to suffer because of it. Even where it is conceded that the people have a point, at least initially, the tribunes are nonetheless the ones identified as personally unlikeable, as untrustworthy, and as manipulative.]

And yet: the plebeians always give the patricians the benefit of the doubt. The patricians never give a straight answer; when asked why they let the plebeians starve, they offer non-denial denials: 'why would we do that?' They laugh about the plebeians thinking they're flush with grain, but do they offer to show their empty granaries (as they must be if the patricians are honest)? The patricians fling ad hominem insults upon the plebeians; they plot to be nice only when they want something from the plebeians and then go back to being their everyday jerk-ass selves; they insist upon having their way because they've always had their way; when the plebeians want a voice in government, the patricians refuse to participate in government at all, and then blame the plebeians when things go to hell. And yet, when the patricians insist upon having the most jerk-ass-y patrician of all as the leader of Rome – solely as a reward for victory in battle, not for anything even remotely indicative of political competence – the plebeians are willing to accede if only he'll ask their approval politely. I ask you: which class has the greater nobility of character?

From a strictly literary perspective, however, it's about what you'd expect of a Cliffs-Notes-y thing. show less

I read The Tempest in preparation for reading Brave New World. It was a quick read, a bit like a feverish sea-dream. I much prefer to see Shakespeare performed vs. reading his works. I'm not as enamored with this work as many probably are &, for some reason, I kept getting stuck on trying to understand how Miranda would have had proper clothing per her century if stranded on an island since childhood. (Not that Shakespeare stated whether or not she was properly clothed, but they did seem to show more have regular clothing & such.) I guess Prospero conjured what was needed? Lol. I know, a stupid musing on my part, but things like that just kind of pulled me out of fully enjoying it. By the end, I'm not sure those that were supposed to be contrite & repentant actually were. It just ended too quickly to feel that those strands were fully wrapped up, in my opinion. show less

A Bluffer's Guide to Atwood's The Testaments
Review of the SparkNotes Kindle eBook edition (2022) of the original SparkNotes paperback (2020)

I didn't enjoy The Testaments in 2019, but my QCC Book Club had it scheduled as the BotM for February 2o22. I wasn't up for a re-read, but I still wanted to participate in the group discussion and be able to understand the opinions of others. Luckily there was this quite extensive guide to the plot with an analysis of the structure, the motifs and show more themes, a character guide and a glossary of literary terms.

I didn't hide my use of the guide from the others and explained about my disappointment with the original book as well. Generally there were few in the group (of 14) who enjoyed the book. I was actually surprised that many had not read The Handmaid’s Tale (1985) previously [the group has struck me as well read generally] so that they were especially confused by this sequel and by its episodic switching of PoV between Aunt Lydia and Angie and Jade (Nicole). Most of us had not watched the TV series either, saying they had either not heard of it (it is on the Hulu streaming channel) or simply expressing distaste for a show about the repression of women in a future (some might say current) dystopian society. The group did feel that Atwood was prescient in portraying a future world where environmental toxicity affected birthrates and about hypocritical theocratic governments controlling women's education, roles in society and birthing.

I did note from additional Wiki research that the current TV-series of The Handmaid's Tale will conclude with its upcoming 6th season (late 2023?) upon which there is a plan to continue with a TV-series of The Testaments. Apparently Atwood has cooperated with the TV-series production in aligning the characters for the sequel. I am now somewhat curious as to the character arc of Aunt Lydia in the TV versions because of this.

I felt that this SparkNotes Guide gave me a very thorough background for the Book Club discussion so I rate it highly because of that. The final 20% of the Guide was a generic plan for how to write a student literary essay for a class assignment. This wasn't of use to me, but I thought the Guide did lay out a plan quite well. It ended by warning against plagiarism and saying to always acknowledge your sources 😊. show less