Why is The Merry Wives of Windsor so disliked? Harold Bloom, a self-described "bardaloter" literally detests the play, referring only to a pseudo-Falstaff in his comments in Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. W.H. Auden, in his Lectures on Shakespeare, said that the only good thing about the play was that it inspired Verdi's Falstaff, and then played a recording of the opera rather than discuss the matter further. These are not rare opinions, either.
What's going on? I think the answer lies in Falstaff. It is commonly acknowledged that Sir John ran away with the two parts of Henry IV. In fact, he became so popular that Queen Elizabeth, according to legend, requested another play showing him in love. I think at this point Shakespeare may have become somewhat tired of him, and may have felt like the violinist that, told that his violin had a beautiful tone, held it to his ear and said, "I don't hear anything." And so, in this play, a very different side of Falstaff is shown, and he ends up being the butt of the humour, rather than its source. In fact, he isn't the funniest character in the play, for once. There is great and varied humour from a large cast - but it may not be what a Falstaff fan would like or expect. Approaching Shakespeare with assumptions is not a wise plan, though. More on all of this tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment