Nineteenth Century American Plays: Seven Plays Including the Black Crook

Rating:
Summary: The Glories of 19th century melodrama
Review: The late Myron Matlaw was one of the foremost historians of the American stage, with a particular predilection for those amazing, phenomenal successes which criss-crossed the country in touring productions, bringing crowds back season after season with the devotion of theatergoers who imagine that a visit to New YOrk is incomplete without Cats. The plays in this volume include many such smash hits of the 19th century: Anna Cora MOwatt's FASHION (1845), a satirical condemnation of American nouveaux riches eagerly aping continental savoir-fair; Dion Boucicoult's THE OCTOROON (1859), the tale of a forbidden love between a beautiful octoroon slave and the white man who adores her but cannot marry her; Joseph Jefferson's RIP VAN WINKLE (1865), a re-telling of the Washington Irving story which Irving would hardly have recognized, but a glorious vehicle for a character actor; the play made Jefferson famous and kept him rich, as his audiences returned year after year to see him slyly rationalize each drink he takes after he has sworn it off forever. "I won't count this one," he explains each time, unable to resist the familiar pleasure. This book is a treasure house of pleasures which were once as familiar to their audiences as Andrew Lloyd Webber is to us today.

Rating:
Summary: A good approach
Review: When I first found this book, I visited Amazon to look for reviews and recommendations. Finding none, I thought that I would offer my thoughts. I like O'Connor's approach. He does not wade through conflicting scholarly theories or get bogged down analyzing obscure English public records searching from traces of Shakespeare. He makes use of what we know from the spare records of Shakespeare's life; and he extrapolates from his own insights into the plays and his knowledge of the plays in their historical context. O'Connor also makes use of a varied and extensive bibliography.

O'Connor puts the plays and the life of Shakespeare in the context of their time, and Shakespeare emerges as an astute, talented, subtle, and versatile man in a vibrant and turbulent time. We see Shakespeare as a contemporary Elizabethan who had his finger on the pulse of society but who was smart enough to keep his fingers out of the pie. O'Connor shows how Shakespeare also used theater as an outlet to express personal struggles and discord. O'Connor's use of excerpts from the plays and sonnets illustrates this excellently.

One of the drawbacks of the book is that O'Connor's tone is of an insider not only of the theatrical world but also of Shakespeare's world. I got the sense that I am supposed to understand all of the obscure references and the oblique tongue-in-cheek quips. On a few occasions in the book when I got the reference, I could not tell if O'Connor was making a mistake or making a joke. He refers to a novelized interpretation of Shakespeare's love life by Anthony Burgess as "Brighter than the Sun," but the actual title is "Nothing Like the Sun." It was difficult to tell if O'Connor was in error or if he was poking fun at the brilliant, stylized, and occasionally pedantic writing of Burgess. O'Connor also suggests that in "King Lear," it was not Lear who confused his Fool with Cordelia at the end of the play ("And my poor fool is hanged"), but rather that the tired playwright mixed-up the two characters because they were played by the same actor.

Another drawback is the general style of writing. O'Connor's sentences are often very long and complex. I found myself rereading sentences more than twice in order to get his point. This drawback is minor and has much to do with the British style of punctuation, but it is also obvious.

O'Connor presents assumptions about Shakespeare's family relationships that I can accept, in particular the relationships with his mother, father, wife, and son. These assumptions are based on the scant historical records, commentary by writers and actors, and excerpts from the plays and sonnets. O'Connor also writes that despite the opinion that Shakespeare did not reveal his personal beliefs in his plays, we really can know Shakespeare through his writings. There are speeches and characters that exactly fit their places in the plays, and yet somehow they also transcend the context of the play and speak to us. Through these passages we know the personal musings of Shakespeare. Perhaps that is the most important thing of all, and that is a notion that definitely can be taken from O'Connor's book.

Rating:
Summary: A good approach
Review: When I first found this book, I visited Amazon to look for reviews and recommendations. Finding none, I thought that I would offer my thoughts. I like O'Connor's approach. He does not wade through conflicting scholarly theories or get bogged down analyzing obscure English public records searching from traces of Shakespeare. He makes use of what we know from the spare records of Shakespeare's life; and he extrapolates from his own insights into the plays and his knowledge of the plays in their historical context. O'Connor also makes use of a varied and extensive bibliography.

O'Connor puts the plays and the life of Shakespeare in the context of their time, and Shakespeare emerges as an astute, talented, subtle, and versatile man in a vibrant and turbulent time. We see Shakespeare as a contemporary Elizabethan who had his finger on the pulse of society but who was smart enough to keep his fingers out of the pie. O'Connor shows how Shakespeare also used theater as an outlet to express personal struggles and discord. O'Connor's use of excerpts from the plays and sonnets illustrates this excellently.

One of the drawbacks of the book is that O'Connor's tone is of an insider not only of the theatrical world but also of Shakespeare's world. I got the sense that I am supposed to understand all of the obscure references and the oblique tongue-in-cheek quips. On a few occasions in the book when I got the reference, I could not tell if O'Connor was making a mistake or making a joke. He refers to a novelized interpretation of Shakespeare's love life by Anthony Burgess as "Brighter than the Sun," but the actual title is "Nothing Like the Sun." It was difficult to tell if O'Connor was in error or if he was poking fun at the brilliant, stylized, and occasionally pedantic writing of Burgess. O'Connor also suggests that in "King Lear," it was not Lear who confused his Fool with Cordelia at the end of the play ("And my poor fool is hanged"), but rather that the tired playwright mixed-up the two characters because they were played by the same actor.

Another drawback is the general style of writing. O'Connor's sentences are often very long and complex. I found myself rereading sentences more than twice in order to get his point. This drawback is minor and has much to do with the British style of punctuation, but it is also obvious.

O'Connor presents assumptions about Shakespeare's family relationships that I can accept, in particular the relationships with his mother, father, wife, and son. These assumptions are based on the scant historical records, commentary by writers and actors, and excerpts from the plays and sonnets. O'Connor also writes that despite the opinion that Shakespeare did not reveal his personal beliefs in his plays, we really can know Shakespeare through his writings. There are speeches and characters that exactly fit their places in the plays, and yet somehow they also transcend the context of the play and speak to us. Through these passages we know the personal musings of Shakespeare. Perhaps that is the most important thing of all, and that is a notion that definitely can be taken from O'Connor's book.