tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4524780792640068977.post5580422930143377920..comments2023-05-25T02:27:44.565-07:00Comments on William Shakespeare Experience: Thomas of Woodstock - Oh No He Di'n'tRandallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14160201776966708366noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4524780792640068977.post-88191445808994952792009-05-24T18:28:58.585-07:002009-05-24T18:28:58.585-07:00I very much enjoyed your argument on Woodstock. I...I very much enjoyed your argument on Woodstock. It's nice to read somebody write on Shakespeare in a manner that admits he might be wrong. I do think it's a wonderful play, and in some ways it remind me most of all of the language (feminine rhymes excluded) of Coriolanus, not just the theme of rioting commoners and certain nobles that take their side, but also the sparseness of the poetry, which seems much more typical of later Shakespeare than earlier. I wonder, too, if Richard II was in some ways a parody of Elizabeth, if Woodstock might not be a play aimed satirically at King James I and his flattering courtiers (which might explain why it was so much more secular in tone, as you noted).<br /><br />I've always been amazed at Shakespeare's knowledge of court and policy, but if anything this author seemed even more knowledgeable. This play was written, I'd wager, by an insider to policy. It wouldn't shock me if Shakespeare had a hand in it, and if not then whoever wrote it was obviously influenced by Shakespeare, but my hunch (and you were allowed yours) is that this a later play rather than an earlier one. <br /><br />Again, I was swayed by your argument. I'd just read the Jimenez essay and was leaning his way.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06621490105987263880noreply@blogger.com