A Midsummer Night's Dream- did I actually understand any of it?

I still feel awkward blogging about Shakespeare. I feel like Shakespeare would not approve of the idea of blogs.

I think what I need to do is sit down with an expert on Shakespeare and read A Midsummer Night's Dream again, line by line, so that I truly understand what I am reading. In just trying to sit down and read it, I went too fast to even begin to comprehend any of what I was reading. Even when I understood it word by word, I know that I didn't get anything out of it other than the superficial meaning and basic plot line. Of course there were editors' notes on the side of each page, but they only told me what specific words and phrases meant, not what they suggested on a deeper level. The problem with reading Shakespeare is that since the average reader doesn't understand Elizabethan English very well, we have to rely on editors and other experts to tell us what it means. This removes any chance we have of coming up with our interpretation. The language barrier makes us dependent on others to enlighten us, and there is no way for us to come up with our own meaning. When we read modern poetry, we at least understand what all of the words we are reading mean. Every person can read a modern poem, no matter how profound, and come up with their own meaning. When we read Shakespearean poetry and plays, we rely on the editor to give us the meaning, making it his or hers and not our own.

A Midsummer Night's Dream- what is love?

In A Midsummer Night's Dream, the concept of love is played with in many different ways. Theseus's love for Hippolyta seems more drawn by physical attraction and desire. The opening scene of the play shows his impatience for their wedding night:

THESEUS

Now, fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour

Draws on apace. Four happy days bring in

Another moon. But, O, methinks how slow

This old moon wanes! She lingers my desires

Like to a stepdame or a dowager

Long withering out a young man's revenue.

This impatience for consummating their love proves how love can often be fueled only by physical attraction. Shakespeare continues this theme of love's superficiality with the love triangles that occur within the four lovers. First, both Lysander and Demetrius are in love Hermia, but then with the magical flower both men fall in love Helena. This makes it seem like the objects of the men's love are interchangeable. Their love for Helena was just as strong as their love for Hermia, so how could one be true and one false?

Shakespeare's third display of love's superficiality and meaninglessness occurs when Hippolyta falls in love with Nick Bottom with the head of an ass. Hippolyta falls instantly and simultaneously out of love with Oberon and in love with Bottom. The idea of someone being in love with a man with the head of donkey proves that love is arbitrary and meaningless.

Shakespeare counters all of this at the end of the play, with the marriage of the three couples and the reconciliation of Oberon and Titania. Lysander and Hermia are in love with each other again and Demetrius finally loves Helena. However, Lysander and Hermia were in love before the turmoil in the forest, but Demetrius is still under the power of the herb. The audience is led to believe that all of the couples live happily ever after, even though the love between Lysander and Hermia is "real" and the love between Demetrius and Helena was fabricated. Ultimately, Shakespeare tells us that even though love can be superficial and arbitrary, it still has the power to be true and lasting.

Pay attention to word choice--how is the author shaping your judgement by the words he/she chooses

I finished Alive by Piers Paul Read. If you haven't read it yet, I would highly recommend it. I am now tackling A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare.

I feel awkward analyzing Shakespeare's word choice. First of all, it's really hard to tell what he's saying. Second of all, in my copy of the book, the editor sometimes says something to the effect of "we're not really sure what he meant by this, he could have meant this, or he could have meant this totally opposite thing." What the kindly editors have provided me with, however, is the fact that Shakespeare sometimes has the character of Nick Bottom use a totally wrong word. I feel that he does this to inform the audience of Nick Bottom's personality. He thinks he is a really interesting and knowledgeable person and that everyone loves hearing him talk. He tries to use intelligent sounding words and fails miserably. Someone in Shakespeare's time would definitely have caught his misuse of words immediately, whereas someone in my position with very little experience reading Shakespeare has to read the passage, go to the other page with the editor's notes to try to figure out what we just read, and then be told that Bottom used incorrect wordage. The effect is somewhat lost. Of course, I still realize what the audience is supposed to note, but I don't get the "oh haha, look at Bottom, he doesn't know how to talk" effect.