As You Like It, 21st Century Version

I was wondering what a 21st Century version of the Shakespearean comedies, such as As You Like It and Twelfth Night would be.  That is, how to preserve the cross-dressing , gender confusion, and sexual dynamics but place them in a modern setting.

Here is my vision and synopsis of my 21st Century Shakespearean comedy:

Linda and Justin were recently married after a short but purposeful love affair.  Hector was 29 and Linda was 42, not quite a May-September relationship, but getting there.  Linda had wanted a child for years – ten years to be exact – and she was getting desperate.  She knew that her eggs were getting old and withered and there was very little time remaining for her to conceive a healthy child.  She was not particularly attractive, even to men of her own age; and she knew that her chances of conception improved the younger her mate was.

She did everything she could to make herself look younger.  She went to a hypertrichololgist  to remove the mustache from her upper lip.  A few years ago it was a turn-on to younger guys who thought it was Sicilian sexy, but now, after many shavings, it was a permanent five-o’clock shadow that was now an embarrassment an impediment.  She joined Weight Watchers, got a personal trainer at the gym, went to a cosmetologist who had many Washington and New York luminaries as her clients, and always met new guys in a favorable light. 

Finally she met Justin, a PhD student who had been too serious about his studies to be active socially or sexually, but who, like Linda, knew that the clock was ticking and that it was time to get serious about a family.  Of course, his clock was ticking at a far slower rate than Linda’s who felt that she heard her biological clock marking off the hours and minutes of fertility.  In any case, they both were ready for marriage and children.

Their first year of marriage was as happy as it could have been.  Rather than calculate Linda’s time of the month, temperature cycles, and rhythms of desire, they simply made love every night, assuming that this high-frequency copulation would certainly produce results.

Unfortunately, nothing happened.  They went to various fertility clinics which counseled relaxation therapy for her and boxer shorts for him.  Apparently tighty-whities constrict the balls, raising their temperature and making the sperm groggy and unwilling to make the trip up the canal.  In their elaborate history told to the fertility experts they explained that their lovemaking could not possibly increase, and therefore these exogenous factors had to be invoked. 

Meanwhile, Larry, a good friend of Justin’s and something of a pussy hound, figured that he now had an even better chance of getting into Linda’s pants than ever before.  She had always been diffident and concerned, worried about an unwanted pregnancy, but as her desires for a baby totally distorted her concerns about a ‘legal’ child, she became more promiscuous.  She had always liked Larry, and now she felt liberated and somehow more primitively human.  In caveman days women were fucked by many men, men of their choosing.  Who cared if it was The One; only that the fucker was a Good One.  So, who cared if the baby were Justin’s or Larry’s, just so long as she conceived. 

She fucked Justin, Larry, and Hector from her office but she still did not conceive.  Justin was tested and, being 29 and healthy, it was not surprising that his sperm count was high.  In reproductive terms she could leave off fucking other guys, so she did, but gradually.

After a year and no baby, Linda felt desperate, and she and Justin needed to change plans.  Artificial insemination?  Not good since it obviously was her eggs and her problem.  Surrogate mother?  Well, possibly, but the idea of relinquishing all her DNA was abhorrent.

At the same time her younger sister, Marta, a lesbian, got married to Chloe in a ceremony in New York shortly after the laws permitting same-sex marriages was passed.  Both Marta and Chloe were younger than Linda, both around 30; and as life would have it, they both wanted a child.  They toyed with the idea of anonymous sperm donors from Harvard, especially since the donor program now created sub-categories.  That is, not only could you get a Harvard student, but you could get a scholar-athlete with a WASP pedigree.  Of course the price was high, but the rewards were significant.  They dismissed this option, feeling that although their son or daughter would be Harvard educated and blond, it was still a crap shoot.

After much reflection, they considered the possibility of having one of Linda’s brothers – Jaime or Herbert – be the sperm donor.  This would preserve the DNA and would keep the baby within the family.  Neither Jaime nor Herbert were married and it was unlikely that they would be.  Both were introverted intellectuals and dreamers who would settle for nothing less than….you guessed it….their sister.  Linda, however, refused to even consider this twisted form of incest – and New York law specifically forbade it – so if either Jaime or Herbert contributed their sperm, it would have to be to Chloe, Marta’s partner.  OK, said Marta, both your brothers are dorks, but I have to admit they’re cute and intelligent.

Marta and Chloe discussed the possibility of either Jaime or Herbert fucking Chloe to ensure a “natural childbirth”, but Chloe was a stone dyke for whom the idea of some guy’s dick in her made her wretch.  OK on the brothers, but it had to be the test tube route.

Along the way, Linda and Marta began talking about their reproductive dilemmas.  Years afterward, neither one could remember who came up with the ingenious solution to satisfy everyone; but they had to agree it was ingenious:  Jaime or Herbert would impregnate (or contribute to an in vitro fertilization of) Chloe, who would give the child to Linda; and Justin would impregnate Marta who would keep the child and raise it with Chloe.  The hook-up between Justin and Marta was not as DNA pure as Marta might have hoped, but it was close enough.  The deal was done.

The only issue was which of the brothers would contribute the sperm.  Jaime could care less.  He had fucked so many women that his genes were well into the mainstream.  Herbert had no particular ethical dilemmas and agreed readily to help out both his sisters.  Jaime and Herbert flipped a coin, and Jaime won.

The fertility ceremony was talked about for years.  All the families, once the children were born, got together in a family estate in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and celebrated birth and life.  The relatives, particularly the older ones, could never quite keep the biological and social links straight – that is, whose kid was really whose – but in the end, like in a Shakespeare comedy, all’s well that ends well, and everyone lived happily ever after.

Fried Rice the Easy Way

I have made fried rice for years, but never bothered to write it down because it is so simple.  My wife last night suggested that I should write it down, because although simple to make, it has a number of steps that the home chef might not think of.  So, here it is.  The trick is to make the rice ahead of time and let it cool and dry out.  Otherwise it will absorb all the liquid ingredients and get soggy and gummy.  I am writing this recipe for chicken, but you can easily substitute pork.  Shrimp is also OK, but I like it much less.

* 1 cup rice (any kind, Basmati, Jasmine, etc.)

* 1 lg. boneless, skinless chicken breast (should be about 1/2 lb.)

* 1 med. handful fresh coriander leaves, chopped

* 1 small handful fresh basil leaves, chopped

* 5 lg. cloves garlic, chopped

* 1 med. onion, chopped

* 1/2 lg. red pepper, chopped

* 3 Tbsp. soy sauce

* 2 Tbsp. Amontillado sherry

* 2 Tbsp. Balsamic vinegar

* 1 Tbsp. sesame oil

* 3-4 Tbsp. olive oil

- Cook the rice well before preparing the other ingredients.  This should be done at least 4 hours before; but you can prepare the night before if you wish.  There is never too much time before cooking, for it is important to have dry, cool, rice.

- Boil the chicken breast until done.  Depending on the thickness, this could take between 10-15 minutes.  I often used frozen chicken and throw it right into the boiling water; and if this is the case, then 20-30 minutes would be about right.  If you know how to judge doneness in chicken, it should be relatively firm to the touch – that is, it gives a bit when you press your finger on it.  I would avoid cutting into the meat as most of the juice will flow out, giving you a drier chicken than you want.  Besides, if it is not quite done, as you will see below, you will cook it a bit more anyway.

- Sautee the garlic, onion, and red pepper in the olive oil until soft

- Add the basil and coriander, stir well over high heat for about 3 minutes

- Add the sherry, soy sauce, and vinegar, and cook over high heat until the liquid has almost evaporated

- Chop the chicken which has been allowed to cool into 2” pieces and add to the mixture.  Add the rice. Turn on to medium heat, and mix well, tossing frequently.  Taste for ingredients.  At this point you can add more soy, vinegar, or sherry.  You can also add more chopped basil and/or coriander.

- Before serving add the sesame oil, mix and stir, grind black pepper, and serve.

As you Like It - Rosalind, A Tough Cookie

 

I have three books of  general Shakespeare criticism (i.e. that cover all the plays) that I use as primary reference sources for Shakespeare’s plays – Harold Bloom’s The Invention of the Human (1998) ; A.D. Nuttall’s Shakespeare The Thinker (2007); and William Hazlitt’s Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays (1817).  I use Bloom because I think he is the best, most insightful, most thorough, and most entertaining of them all; Nuttall because of his erudition which matches Bloom; Hazlitt because all modern critics respect and refer to him.  Bloom and Nuttall refer frequently to the early criticism of Samuel Johnson, and later Coleridge whom I have not read but intend to.  I read Jan Kott’s Shakespeare Our Contemporary (1964) and A.C. Bradley’s Shakespearean Tragedy (1904) on tragedy, the latter being one of the very best books on Shakespeare; and the former offering the most important view of the Histories and the historical tragedies that I have read.

Bloom and Nuttall, the critics I rely on for the Comedies, are both scholars and interpret Shakespeare within a broad historical perspective, drawing on Greek tragedy, Roman and Greek myths (to which Shakespeare often referred), the Bible, earlier critics like Samuel Johnson, specialized critics like Nietzsche and Freud whose critical lenses are very focussed, contemporary Elizabethan history, literary traditions (such as the Pastoralism central, in their minds, to As You Like It), and as a counterpoint to their arguments, Post-Modernist Historicism.

In most cases this scholarly, if not academic approach to the plays is the right one to take, for Shakespeare was aware of, made reference to, and was influenced by current and past history, literary trends, the work of his contemporaries such as Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe, the Bible, and the Classics.  As importantly it is relevant to do ex post facto criticism – relying on Freud and Post-Modernist gender theory to help elucidate and explain the complex of factors that were behind characters’ actions, inactions, and reactions.  One cannot read Hamlet without thinking of Oedipus; nor Macbeth without turning to Freud; or Richard III without Nietzsche.  Jan Kott grew up in Soviet era Poland, and his theory of the Grand Mechanism is derived in large part on this experience.

In most cases this erudition does not get in the way of interpretation.  On the contrary, it is essential for deconstructing and analyzing the plays.   In the case of As You Like It, however, this academicism gets in the way of appreciating the central character in the play, and one of Shakespeare’s greatest creations – Rosalind.  Bloom and Nuttall write almost exclusively about pastoralism, the conflict between rural and courtly (urban) life, Arden before the Fall, etc.  The melancholy or pessimism of Jaques or the cynicism of Touchstone are important for putting Rosalind’s exuberance in perspective, not only important for their commentary on rural and courtly life.  Here is Nuttall:

This [Touchstone’s wish that Audrey could be more ‘poetical’] is more dazzling than profound.  But it is embedded in a pastoral, and pastoral has built into it certain philosophical potency…Pastoral, the poetry of shepherds, was bequeathed to the Renaissance by classical antiquity as was Stoicism.  But whereas Stoicism is a philosophy that aims at static unity, a closed and invulnerable integrity…..Nature in pastoral literature is made antithetical to art, and so becomes distinctively green….

Artful Touchstone is hardly satanic, but he is certainly subtle (the word applied to the serpent in Genesis).  He introduces sexuality into Eden/Arden and seeks to induce a Fall…

Come on! Touchstone is a boring court jester who, cynical of the rural environment in which he finds himself, nevertheless marries Audrey because he wants to get laid.  Crude, yes, but true.  Touchstone wishes that Audrey could be more like him and have his culture and intellect, but obviously he’ll take whatever he can get.  Rosalind’s admonition to the ugly Phebe,  “Sell when you can, you are not for all markets” is appropriate here.  He does not get what he deserves, in the view of these critics, he is “transformed” by the idyll of Arden like the usurping Duke who finds pastoral religion there. 

Both Bloom and Nuttall love fools and jesters or characters who are like them.  They are in love with Falstaff (Bloom in particular), Feste, Lear’s Fool, etc. for their witticism and intelligence, which, in academia counts for a lot.  To me Touchstone is a distraction from Rosalind and her spirited, funny, and strong manipulation of Orlando; her spirited reaction and handling of the improbable love of Phebe for her; her lively putdown of both Phebe and Silvius; and her happy and conspiratorial relationship with her cousin (who loves her in more than a family way). 

Rosalind is another of Shakespeare’s strong women, of whom there are many; but she is unique in her dismissal of pomp and circumstance, puncturing both men’s and women’s faulty and idealistic views of themselves, but still wondering at the many forms that love can take and its importance in life.  I call her a Tough Cookie because she pulls no punches, is extremely confident of herself, and there are no holds barred.  Her disguise lets her play both sides, and she does it to perfection.  Here is her marvelous pillorying of men:

Were it not better,

Because that I am more common tall,

That I did suit me all points like a man?

A gallant curtle-axe upon my thigh,

A boar-spear in my hand; and in my heart

Lie there what hidden women’s fear there will,

We’ll have a swashing and martial outside,

As many other mannish cowards have

That do outface it with their semblances

When she reads Orlando’s poems that he has lovingly posted on trees in the forest, Rosalind says:

O, most gentle Jupiter, what tedious homily of love have you wearied your parishioners withal, and never cried, ‘Have patience, good people!’

She is merciless in her description of simpering male love:

A lean cheek, which you have not; a blue eye and sunken, which you have not….a beard neglected, which you have not….your hose ungartered, your bonnet unbanded, your shoe untied, and everything about you demonstrating a careless desolation…You are…point device in your accoustrements, as loving yourself than seeming the lover of any other.

And the famous and oft-quoted:

The poor world is almost six thousand years old, and in all this time there was not any man died in his own person, videlicet, in a love cause.  Troilus had has brains dashed out with a Grecian club; yet he did what he could do to die before, and he is one of the patterns of love.  Leander [died from a bathing accident, not love]…Men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love.

When Rosalind is explaining her ‘cure’ to Orlando, she makes fun of women in their fickleness, ruses, and manipulation of men; and makes fun of men for being duped by them:

I would be effeminate, changeable, longing and liking, proud, fantastical, apish, shallow, inconstant, full of tears, full of smiles…would now like him, now loathe him; then entertain him, then forswear him; now weep for him, now spit at him…and in this way I will take upon me to wash your liver as clean as a sound sheep’s heart, that there shall not be one spot of love in’t

She punctures Jaques’ pomposity concerning his education, enriched by travels, when she says: “I fear you have sold your own lands to see other men’s.  Then to have seen much and to have nothing is to have rich eyes and poor hands”.   No one escapes her poison darts.  She makes Silvius’ love for Phebe seem ridiculous:

Come, come, you are a fool,

And turned into the extremity of love.

I saw her hand.  She has a leathern hand,

A freestone-colored hand.  I verily did think

That her old gloves were on, but ‘twas her hands.

Rosalind, like Prospero in The Tempest, forgives all, and all live happily ever after.  She gets what she wanted all the time – Orlando.  She settles for him.  After all she has played him like a puppet for the whole play. She proclaims her love, but we have to doubt the sincerity of this.  In fact, all the relationships are distorted in some way.  Hers for Orlando; Phebe and Silvius – she didn’t much like him, and he had an overly romantic view of her; Oliver and Celia because if there was ever an unreal love at first sight, this was it; Touchstone and Audrey because, as I said before, he just wanted to get laid in the forest.  So, actually, we end the play suspecting that all these marriages will go on the rocks soon, but who cares?  Rosalind has been our hero.

In closing, I still wonder why the critics didn’t write more about this nexus of love-false love-foolishly romantic love-pessimism-cynicism the center of which was the dynamic, energetic, ebullient, and irrepressible Rosalind?  I, like Bloom, prefer Twelfth Night and think that it is the best of the comedies, but, like Bloom, have to give As You Like It a close second because of Rosalind.  I am bored with Touchstone and Jaques, the insipid Orlando, and the incidental Phebe, Silvius, and Audrey.  I enjoy the girls’ night out conspiratorial hijinks of Celia and Rosalind (although Cleopatra is much, much funnier with her minions and retainers laughing at Antony); but all these secondary characters do not diminish the play because of the genius of Rosalind.