These two are suppose to be Siblings?

I am having an issue with the relationship of Isabella and Claudio in this play. The situation Claudio is in, being put to death and all, you would think that Isabella would do almost anything to save him, but she accepts his fate because she is preoccupied with her own situation. To her, her chastity is more important than her brother.  I don’t think she knows that once you are dead there is no coming back. Remaining pure is the top priority to Isabella and this makes me  conflicted on that idea. Her virtue means everything to her and Claudio’s life means everything to him, one is not thinking of the other. I know that being a woman during this time you were a virgin, you got married, had children and lived for the rest of your days. Isabella to me is an independent female that can hold her own. She did when she approached Angelo in the garden in Act 2.  Meeting together in the prison clears up the idea of how close they are to each other and it is not close at all. She makes the decision to let her brother die than to live in shame. I think she would live in more shame that knowing she let her brother die just to keep her name clean. Claudio on the other hand is afraid to die. “Death is a fearful thing/and shameful life a hateful” (3.1.131-132). It is weird that she places the loss of her virginity on the same level as being killed. When Claudio finishes speaking be turns and tells he that giving up her virtue would be a virtue in itself. He doesn’t care about her feelings on the situation. She basically says I give up on you, you will die tomorrow and I don’t have to think about this anymore, because we're done.   As we read you can tell she loves her brother if she didn’t care she wouldn’t have made an effort to go see Angelo and beg for his life. Not see the other point of view and are not thinking clearly.  The main issue of this play is how selfish the people are in this play. The self is greater than the whole. Claudio and Isabella are better off without one another. In this play, nothing is sacred. We see how our true selves come to light when we encounter certain situations.  In addition, a relationship between siblings can become damaged and two people who are supposed to love one another turn against each other. That is the issue I have with these two “siblings”.  

Measure for Measure is Flat Out Flat

One problem I have with some of Shakespeare's work is lack of development. I understand that he wants to write what he wants to write, and the parts he chooses to flush out are amazing, but I'm left with several questions that I would really need answered if I were to understand this play. 

I need more development here. Angelo is the worst character here, but that's kind of thrown in our faces without any backstory or precedent, so it's difficult for me to immerse myself in this play and see more than what we're given on the surface. We get this apex of tension with Isabella and Angelo arguing quite early in the play, which makes the play move rather quickly. It might just be me, but I don't feel like I know everyone quite well enough yet. Where Shakespeare's thoughtfulness shines through is his dialogue. The confrontation between Angelo and Isabella is such a well-written scene, as it sets the situation up, explains the characters, and builds into an early climax for the play. That being said, I just don't approach this scene with the same level of interest as I would another play that had been written with more development. I'm not swayed either way, except of course I thought Angelo was slimy and gross. 

I think my main problem is that this play is rather flat. I was turned off by the fact that deception is the pervasive theme here. There is a presented and acknowledged problem, and all the characters are woven into this web of lies in order to solve it. In the end, Claudio is spared, but what is actually accomplished? The Duke reveals his disguised self, proposes to Isabella, and sentenced Lucio to marry the woman who comes forth with claims of his child. Angelo is pardoned, and Isabella doesn't have a chance to respond. The play just ends. It reads like a deus ex machina style play, with the last-minute interference of the Duke, but it has all the closure of a kid who closes his/her toybox when they get bored of playing. The good aren't really rewarded, the evil don't get their comeuppance, and no characters really learn any lessons. 

I felt as though I was watching from outside a house here, not knowing the full story or who each character is. 

How did y'all feel about this? Did the story seem to fall flat? Why? Why not? Is the ending too thrown together?

Not a Fan

The brother sister relationship in this play is so strange, neither sibling is willing to sacrifice for the other, understandably, and the shifting of opinions and actions is a little bit unbelievable. Claudio in particular seems to shift his feelings and opinions often. Also I find the the general sexual nature of this play a little boring, it's the entire force behind the plot. I forget Shakespeare was a crude guy when reading Hamlet or MacBeth but this play proves it. I want to talk about Isabella's character a bit in this blog post. Against the sexual overtone of the entire play she is a stark contrast clinging to her virginity and her virtue. The play tries to cast her as rigid and prude because she will not give up her virginity to save her brother, which is a very strange and uncomfortable position to be put in. I find that in most of Shakespeare's tragedies the main female characters are either cast as villains or victims. His female characters in his comedies seem to have less rigid boundaries, however Isabella is still written as a very one dimensional character with very limited choice in her own life.

Angelo is obviously the most despicable character in the play, but I wish Shakespeare had given him more reason to be how he is. I know it is a play so we cannot have pages of character development but I think he would be a better character if we were given more definite motives for his actions. Why does he want to have sex with Isabella in particular? This might have a lot to do with the trope of men wanting to take virgin girls virginity because they are threatened by their control over their own bodies. I think Angelo is probably feeling threatened by Isabella’s conviction in what she believes in.

There is a lot of debate on if Isabella’s decision not to save her brother is justified. I believe it is totally justified, she does not owe anyone anything, especially not something so personal and sacred to her own identity. Also it is not as if she would sacrifice for her brother, she actually states that she would give her life to save him if possible, just not her virginity. Which is understandable. It would be a violation of her own body while giving her life would be her choice. Also Claudio seemed pretty comfortable with dying for a while, what happened to that? The solution the characters come up with seems like a good idea. However I do feel bad for Mariana who has to marry Angelo. Ugh I am not a fan of Shakespeare's comedies.  

Make up your Mind!

At the beginning of this play I felt really bad for Claudio. He was going to be killed to send a message to everyone else. His transgression, getting his soon to be wife pregnant, was hardly worth the death sentence. I know that people were a lot more religious back then, but jeez, couldn't they just fine him or make him clean the streets or something that did not involve the removal or his head? That seems more than a little extreme to me. Besides that, isn't religion suppose to emphasize forgiveness, redemption, and things of that nature? Killing Claudio would seem to go against that message. Furthermore, Angelo is not very upstanding or holy. He left a woman because her dowry (and brother!) are at the bottom of an ocean. He also tried to trade one sin for another. Who is he to pass judgment on Claudio?

Now, we all know that Angelo is an egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot, but what can we say of Claudio's actions? I feel for Claudio, I really do. That being said, I would never ask someone to tarnish their name and reputation because I committed a crime. That is what he is asking of Isabella. Claudio did something that he knew he could be punished for. He was caught, he is going to be punished, but now he wants Isabella to take the fall for him? That does not seem very fair at all to me.  I like Claudio and I understand that he is scared. I actually was not surprised when he initially told Isabella to not give into Angelo's request. That is exactly what I expected him to do. I was shocked when he suddenly changed his mind! I suppose I had Claudio in my head as a character meant to be likable and pitiable. When he asked his sister to do that for him, he was neither of those things in my mind. Okay, well, maybe there was still a little bit of pity, but I am actually having a harder time liking him now. I give Isabella a lot of credit for saying no to him still. She is probably my favorite character in this entire play.

One thing I have noticed is that this play is not filled with a lot of likable characters. At least, I am having trouble finding characters to like. A lot of them have something that makes me feel kind of "eh" about them. The Duke, for instance, has the ability to put a stop to all of this right away. Yet, he waits, and gambles with other people's lives while he waits. It is very frustrating. How do you guys feel about the characters? And what do you think of Claudio given what has happened?  

Not a Bad Guy?

Mephostophilis is a conflicting character for me. He is, of course, a devil, which should make any sane person run in the opposition direction. But, there’s something about him that I find charismatic and agreeable. He lays the fact that hell is actually a terrible place for Faustus, in warning. It makes me question if he is actually a terrible guy.

Faustus was entertainment for MephostophilisHe could bring the guy women, wealth and audiences that enable his outlandish behavior. I find his cunningness and witty ideals to be impressive. Most attributes of a devil are manipulative, tempting and of course, evil. But, he speaks openly in vain to the Lord (obviously, I know, he’s a devil), but he knew he could bend Faustus to his will. I find it ironic, since religion was taken quite seriously in this time period.

Even though Faustus was a fool, who went against all warnings and chances to repent, I found myself siding with the devil more and more. This guy obviously was on a power trip when he decided to summon a devil, and he paid the price with his soul. I appreciate Mephostophilis mind, in the sense that he knew exactly how to trick Faustus into making this deal with the devil, in exchange for 24 measly yeas? I mean, come on, can we argue that it’s borderline genus?

Mephostophilis is one of the most confusing devils. He’s splendidly evil. There is no level of Faustus’ inevitable destruction at every turn, but he openly admits to Faustus that hell is actually a terrible place to be. If nothing else, I can appreciate his honesty.

Also, this is how I picture a modern day Mephostophills. 

"Fools that will laugh on earth, most weep in hell"

That "Faustus is gone to hell" (5.2.92) is really not a shocker. He repeatedly chose earthly gain over eternal pleasure, and ignored the Good Angel's urges for him to repent. That's the point I'd like to stress: he made a choice. Mephostophilis was upfront about hell - he didn't sugarcoat it! I don't think Faustus really believed that he couldn't repent or that it was too late to do so - I think he was "in denial", so-to-speak, because he desired those earthly possessions. Perhaps he really thought it was too late there at the end, but I have trouble believing that.

The reason I find it difficult to believe that Faustus truly didn't think that he could repent and be saved is that everyone else seems to know that he can do this! The Good Angel repeatedly tells him he can be saved, and even the scholars in Act 5 tell him he can repent. Lucifer and Mephostophilis tell him he can't be saved because they know he can be - think about it: did we expect Lucifer to pat Faustus on the head and say, "There, there. You can totally repent and be fine"? Of course we didn't. Lucifer and Mephostophilis act just as we'd expect them to (Duh, Faustus! They're playing you, fool).

We make choices everyday, and those choices have effects (I don't want to say "consequences" because I think that tends to have a negative connotation, and choices can have a good effect just as much as a bad effect). Faustus chose to make a deal with the devil. I repeat, Faustus chose to make a deal with the devil - for vanity. He knew God would frown upon this, and he knew he could chose not to make a deal with Lucifer, but he made that choice. Just as Lucifer chose to turn against God, so too did Faustus, and to hell he goes!

How would this play be different if Faustus had repented? Well, if he had repented or never signed the deal with Lucifer, then we wouldn't have a play. But, if he had repented in Act 5? It seems significant that Marlowe chose for Faustus not to repent even at the end.

Why did Christopher Marlowe write this play? Did he expect us to pity Faustus, to empathize with him? Did he want to stress the choice with which Faustus was presented? Was he interested in what such a person as Faustus would do in this situation? 

He's Not Worthy

Oh, Faustus, you spoiled, spoiled brat. How in the world can you be so smart and have all this intelligence in many fields but not see how making a deal with a devil was a bad idea? And the “change of heart” at the end of the play – I have absolutely no sympathy for you.

Honestly, Faustus. After all you've done, after all the pranks you've pulled and all the enemies you've made, you have to understand that in the end you got what you deserved.

And, of course, I side with the Good Angel. I really wish you would have changed your ways and looked back to God for guidance in order to be saved from the terrible life in Hell you promised yourself. However, the fact that you didn't, at least not until your very panicked pleas during the last hour of your life on earth before the devils took you, proved to me that you have no respect for yourself or anyone else for that matter.

Side note:

Can we just appreciate how wonderfully spoken and detailed the Good Angel and Bad Angel’s conversation (5.2, 106-139) was?

“O, thou hast lost celestial happiness,
Pleasures unspeakable, bliss without end.”

“The jaws of hell are open to receive thee.”

“There are furies, tossing damned souls
On burning forks. Their bodies boil in lead.”

“He that loves pleasure must for pleasure fall.”

So many wonderful quotes, one after another, that held me to the story, flipping page after page, and just think, “Wow, great word choice and imagery, Marlowe.” Brilliance like that deserves a little shout out.

In my opinion, Faustus is not someone who should be admired or respected at all. Making a deal with the devil is never a good idea, even if the original thought is to do something for the greater good. I think it's common knowledge: if the Devil agrees to it, it's not good. The fact that Faustus seemed to know this and still continued to make the deal, and treat everyone poorly afterwards for his own amusement, is not a sign of a good man. And then he just gave up. Multiple times he was told to repent, to change his ways so that we could be saved, and he did absolutely nothing. He just whined and cried that it was “too late”. I don't understand: how someone can just give up so easily like that? This is your future, man. Don't just allow yourself to live an eternity in torment. Fix it!  Anyone who just gives up on themselves like that is not a very admirable person in my book. And when he suffers at the end of the play, it is well deserved.

Like I said before, no sympathy.