I am not fully done reading yet, but the start of the play, at least for my interpretation, set it up to read like a drama. You have this King or Duke, another guy named Egeus with his daughter and then these two men who are in love with her. I was like oh okay, we see this plot line in a lot of media today, and through this, made an assumption about how the play was going to unfold. But now it seems like the play is surrounding Oberon and Tita, the fairies, so that threw me off. This made it more interesting to me, and gave Shakespeare more depth in my mind. That he is able to balance and intertwine multiple story lines to merge into one production. I am realizing I have never really given Shakespeare as much credit as I should have.

I also had to do some research while reading. There are a lot of outside references throughout this play to Greek mythology. I understood some, having had an interest in this growing up, but I was not aware that these Greek references would have been widely known to the viewers of Shakespeare's plays. Through class discussions, and now this, I am realizing I thought people in the Elizabethen area were lot less knowledgeable than they were. I was under the assumption that only educated or people of status would have been exposed to works of Greek mythology. However, I learned that "classical" mythology was embedded in Elizabethen education. This tells me that probably everyone living at the time had some knowledge as to what these references were, either through direct exposure, or word of mouth.

Anyways, back to this play, I definitely did struggle reading this play, and there were times where I had to look into the Shakespeare glossary and find words that I did not know the meaning of, which made me feel like I was bound to failure in understanding the Shakespearean language. Something that I did do after reading through the whole play was I watched a film adaptation of the play to get that visual picture in my head and tried re-reading the play while watching the film to get a better understand on how the characters were truly feeling in the moment of each scene. 

One thing that I think is worth noting is that one character that I enjoyed revisiting in this play is the character, Helena. She has to go through a lot of ups and downs in this play, from being rejected multiple times by Demetrius for her love, to the shift of both Lysander and Demetrius falling in love with her due to Puck giving them a love potion, and overall, she is a character who struggles with her self-confidence and feeling truly loved by someone. Which really upset me when reading this play, because all I wanted was for Helena to be happy and not suffer anymore in this story.

In short, I really enjoyed re-reading this play, and I feel like starting with this play in class was a good start because the lesson of this play for me is very straight-forward is: do not mess with the complexity of love, because it can lead to conflict, and again, it is not natural. Granted, this play does include magic and is not realistic to what can happen in our world today, but in short, do not mess with love because it could end with you falling in love with a man who turns into a half-man-half-donkey.

Unfortunately, the carnivalesque aspects of the play are my least favorite, so I was pleased to read some commentary on the subject that broadened the appeal of the play overall. Particularly, I appreciated learning more about the Ovid source material. In addition, I had never delved into the full story of Pyramus and Thisbe. I found the commentary on that subject very insightful.

Though I have seen a number of different staged performances each seems to have been noisy for me-which I found to be distracting. In many performances the braying of Bottom was always grating to me; along with a lot of fairies running around the stage. Can I admit that I have seen Pucks that I wanted to punch (just kidding-sorta).

Reading the play is a different experience. My first read was pure confusion-what is a changeling? Is it Hermia or Helena that loves Lysander-or was it Demetrius? Who awakened and saw who? Over time (and a number of performances) I get it. I have long looked at Dream as an introduction to Shakespeare. I have seen watered down pared versions performed for elementary and middle school children (8th Grade). They generally seem to enjoy it, particularly a very spirited Puck.

Still, you can’t beat Dream for the poetry throughout. From simple couplets to full-throated soliloquies, to songs the verse is well, Shakespeare, and that’s always been enough for me.

Dream, in short, is initially a story of two young lovers who are to be kept apart by the girl’s father. It turns out to be a comedy. Romeo & Juliet is the story of young lovers who are separated by family history. It is a consummate tragedy. Why? What is the difference? I have heard theories that Dream is comic because it takes a would be tragic pair of star-crossed lovers and shows how tenuous that inseparable love might be. Double the couples-even times four (Lysander/Hermia; Demetrius/Helena; Theseus/Hippolyta and Oberon/Titania) and the circumstances are made comic.

I am always looking for references to Shakespeare’s work-or I see specters of Shakespeare in subsequent modern theater and songs, poetry and prose…I think of the Chris Thile (Punch Brothers)* lyric, “[Singing] lovers live in a dream that keeps coming true/Go back to sleep my daughter/Go back to sleep my wife/I’m waiting for you there.”

*Highly recommended

            As for the play itself, I mostly thought it was just ok. I had to reread some parts to make sure I understood what was going on, and even then I probably misinterpreted something. What really surprised me was how fast the play seemed to end once I got into the swing of things. It felt like as soon as I had reached the good part, it was over. I liked the contrast between all of the groups of characters, too. In a way, it felt like each character was a parallel to at least a few others, and that is a sign of a good cast.

            I feel like our in-class lecture on A Midsummer Night’s Dream really helped me understand why the play is a comedy. I never would have been able to guess that Theseus and Hippolyta were meant to be played by the same actors as Oberon and Titania, or that the small group of regular Athenians were meant to look interchangeable. Knowing that I was supposed to be confused by who was who is both reassuring and admittingly very funny in retrospect. Overall, while the play might not have been my personal favorite, I can understand why it became one of Shakespeare’s most successful comedies and would definitely recommend it to anybody who is interested.

For example, I believe the way Helena throws herself at the feet of Demetrius seems innocent enough [like he just left her for her friend and she can’t seem to move on], but the way she speaks to him puts herself in a position that could end up disastrous. In one scene, Helena states, “I am your spaniel, and, Demetrius, / The more you beat me I will fawn on you. / Use me but as your spaniel: spurn me, strike me, / Neglect me, lose me; only give me leave / (Unworthy as I am) to follow you” (MND 2.1 222-27). When you give yourself to someone in this manner, it could be disastrous for your future safety and well being. 

Another quote from the book that is noteworthy to me occurs when the author is discussing Peter Brook’s 1970 production of the play. The textbook reads, “This revolutionary technique makes two points… second, suggesting that the supernatural world is ever-present, interacting with the human world, whether benignly or not” (25). I believe this is an interesting way to look at Shakespeare’s original work as well, not just the 1970 play. The fairies are interfering with the humans throughout the play and controlling a lot of the story, it appears. Tatania interfered with the human world when she adopted the changeling boy, as well as when she and Bottom were entangled due to the love spell. Oberon interferes with the humans  ordering the administration of the love spells, as well as when he and Puck decide they should right their wrongs and undo the love spells. The multiple plot lines that occur at the same time show how everyone is connected and how forces humans may not understand are always at play. The interchangeability of the four young lovers is laughable but also may stand to point out how one’s fate can be altered quickly through no choice of one’s own. 

It's interesting to me to see peter brook's performance was revolutionary for suggesting that the supernatural world and the human world were considered to coexist alongside each other. Maybe it's just me and my fantasy brain, but I kinda always assumed that this perspective was implies. After all the fairies do interfere quite a bit with the plot, and fae are kinda naturally association with the forces of nature and being imcomprehensible beings to humans. To me, I just kinda assumed that this would be the angle that most people would take when representing the story.

I do think it would be a mistake to assume that Midsummer or really any of Shakespeare's comedies are simply there to make you laugh, to be benign and subtextually uncomplicated. Shakespeare was a smart guy, he knew what he was doing, and frankly, I think he was too smart to be doing straightforward stuff without getting bored. Learning about the carnivalesque aspect of this play in particular made me think a lot more about his habit of subverting or reinforcing power structures within his narratives. I like Bakhtin's way of looking at it- I think there's almost a sociological aspect to it that I, as a sociology major, really enjoy. For example, the textbook talks about how Titania isn't a "shrinking maid." She instead fits far more into the usual mythological pattern of gods pursuing mortals, usually with dogged persistence and displays of power. At a time where women were expected to be sexually submissive (they still are, but particularly in Shakespeare's time), the way she directs her time with Bottom is subversive in and of itself. She's a queen, and she's fae, and so the rules of the human world don't apply to her. This essentially looked like a way for Shakespeare to do that kind of subversion while still having plausible deniability for why and how it happens. He seems to do this a lot, slipping things under the radar that you'd have to be paying attention in a certain way to get. It feels like getting a message in code, and I really like figuring those out. It's probably my favorite thing about Shakespeare.