Usage In Shakespeare's Play example essay topic

Since plays first began, writers sought a way of formulating sequences of events into an order which brings about meaning to the reader. Over time, many writers have come and gone, some more influential than others, but a set of rules or standards that probably stick out into the minds of all English majors are the Poetics of Aristotle. They served as guidelines in our history to manufacture the "ideal narrative" in which everyone could follow, similar to what we now refer to in the present day as a "formula for success". These Poetics were back then a way of giving your audience that meaning and fulfillment that everyone enjoyed by hitting on each point directly and at the end leaving the audience or reader with a clear theme. With that established, there was not much room for anything else, that is until a very creative mind came along and changed the meaning of a playwright as people knew it. William Shakespeare began his own era of literature which included in a lot of ways everything Aristotle's Poetics wasn't.

He didn't follow any particular standard, especially where the plot was concerned, which probably was where the biggest contrast in styles were, taking his play Henry IV Part 1, for example. Instead of using the straight to the core ideology, Shakespeare took you around in his play, letting you view different aspects of what he considered the plot was which somehow came together at the end, directly or indirectly. The use of different scenes served as this tool in Henry IV. It is also important to take a look at the "hero" usage in Shakespeare's play as oppose to Aristotle's belief that this individual should stick out like a "sore thumb" and as the play progresses, be indistinguishable at the end. On the other hand, Shakespeare took a different approach in Henry IV by bouncing the heroic possibilities all around and ending the story in a heroic stand of irony with the character Falstaff. The fact that Falstaff was the most neutral of all characters, despite his physical characteristics and jargon, gave the reader something to think about as far what a hero should be which is clearly revealed at the end of the story.

This would probably be all relatively foreign to Aristotle and his Poetics because his laws that he abide by did not create irony of that sort. Henry IV is a prime example of how an author can use a different style to change the likes of a play in general and bring about a new genre of his own that could pave another way for future writers to come. Looking at how the plot progressed in Henry IV, it is not completely obvious that the plot developed around Falstaff until you read the end and in a way trace back on how he actually brought both sides together which would be a complete contrast to Aristotle's straight and narrow tactics. On one side of the story, he is this low life that poses a bad influence to the prince Harry, hanging around lower levels of society and not really striving for anything far beyond his sub-par endeavors. Then as the story goes along, he is still a low life but brings about one of the most meaningful aspect of the play which would even be considered the theme with his take on honor and how it's useless if you " re dead. During that time, people felt if they died mightily in battle that it was more meaningful than life itself, but Falstaff disclaims that theory when he fakes his own death which was considered a cowardly act by saying", The better part of valor is discretion in which better part I saved my own life".

By Shakespeare doing this, it opened up a broader spectrum of ideas in realizing that there were more important things in life than glory, living being one itself. Although this idea may seem practical, I believe more audiences leaned towards the big-shot hero that saves everybody at the end and gets the girl type of script. The interesting thing about Henry IV is that it is misleading in that sense. The play could have taken that approach easily by emphasizing Harry stepping out of his sluggish ways and saving the kingdom which it does, but not without Falstaff's own "claim to fame". I believe that Shakespeare did a great job of giving the people what they wanted and expected but also adding another dimension to it; a little food for thought, so to speak. By reading Falstaff's point of view it made you question what a true hero is and let's you take the angle in deciding for yourself, clearly something that Aristotle's Poetics was not about.

If you look at how the play progresses and observe that all of the characters playing potential hero roles (Hotspur, Mortimer, King Henry) were either killed off or downsized at the end in some kind of way, it will leave you with two characters whose presence in the play would give them enough volume to be considered an important aspect: Falstaff being one and Harry being the other. The important thing about Falstaff's character is that he never changed his ways throughout the whole play and stays true to himself, at least the amount he could muster. He did not come close to fitting the bill for a hero, but, in my opinion, shows qualities of heroism at the end by taking that stand. I believe that any time a person decides take a chance on creating a new style from something that's been established for a fair amount of time (Aristotle's Poetics); they should be commended for their boldness, even if the innovation sucks. In this case people took to Shakespeare's way of writing and it brought about the whole idea of creativity and humanism which writers use till this day and will continue to use for periods to come. You still must commend Aristotle's in his efforts for establishing a way of getting a clear cut and understandable work of literature across but at the same time applaud Shakespeare for his craft and unwillingness to stick to the norm.