Love's Labour's Lost

I enjoyed the absurd interactions between Holofernes and Nathaniel, and the whole play was a good bit of light-hearted fun. But I couldn't help but feel that even Shakespeare went a bit too far with the ostentatious verbiage on this occasion. ( )

Not so profound a play as Twelfth Night, but an entertainment which has stuck with me over the decades. To the modern eye this is obviously a satire upon manners of the time, and it is more accessible to the modern reader than many of the other plays from the same hand. A king decides to absent himself from duties and cultivate his mind. His male courtiers perforce fall in with the scheme. but the ladies are annoyed to be deprived of male company, and break into the plan, with predictable by-play. Biron and Rosaline find each other, and even the king finds himself compromised. He shortens the period he will be cloistered and everyone promises to meet again in a year, to see how their affections have held. And, we all go home, wondering which couples will stand the strain. ( )

Had a pause of a few days before reading the last scene, so really these four stars are for the last scene. Otherwise, it seemed pretty much like a proto-Merry Wives. Boyet really came through in the end, as did Berowne. ( )

Usually I’m a big fan of Shakespeare’s comedies, but this play is so strange and underwhelming that I just can’t quite get on board with it. The premise is simple - 3 scholars plus a king make a vow to devote themselves to study and forswear any indulgences including the company of women, so of course along comes three ladies and a princess hoping to form a marriage alliance. The play isn’t particularly well-developed in my opinion (all the characters are pretty interchangeable and their tomfoolery is much simpler than in other plays), but that makes a certain amount of sense considering that it is one of his earlier efforts in the genre. Shakespeare utilizes similar techniques to explore male and female relationships in later plays (using masks, heightening the vocal sparring, and going as far as swapping genders) to much greater effect, but here we can see the simple beginnings of a playwright flexing his pen & ink. ( )

36. Love's Labor's Lost by William Shakespeare
editors John Arthos & series editor Sylvan Barnett
Essays afterward Walter Pater, Northrop Frye (“The Argument of Comedy”), Richard David, Robert Shore
originally performed: c1595
format: 176-page Signet Classic paperback
acquired: May
read: May 31 – July 3
time reading: 11 hr 32 min, 3.9 min/page
rating: 5
locations: Navarre, Spain
about the author April 23, 1564 – April 23, 1616

On a lighter note, a Shakespeare play on Love's Warriors flinging and deflecting sonnets, with calls to arms. As one character puts it, "Assist me some extemporal god of rhyme, for I am sure I shall turn sonnet.” Beware.

The premise is the King of Navarre (not Henry, but a reference to the then current French King) takes three friends and founds an ascetic community dedicated entirely to knowledge. No women are allowed in to distract. Alas, a princess visits on business, attended conveniently by three ladies. Four love matches spontaneously develop and the ascetic rules the king set up get deeply tried.

Love's Labour's Lost has some stage trouble because of the difficulty of the language. But it works wonderfully on the page and probably also on the stage when done well. Essentially there are three short clever but lingually difficult acts, then an Act 4 of ridiculous love sonnets, four long ones. But these sonnets are surficial and their silliness is the point. The last act, Shakespeare's longest, drops everything, plot and language, down to an easier level, includes an entire play within a play who purpose is to mock to actors. It offers a conclusion that roughly, and appropriately, shows all was for naught, hence the title. Thoroughly enjoyable and recommended with a touch of caution. Not everyone in the group I read with liked it.

2020
https://www.librarything.com/topic/318836#7219080 ( )