Shakespeare in love--a Meta-fiction that re-created the Bard.

In the wake of postmodernism, the very concept of creative literature has come to a serious jolt. Since the proclamation of the death of the author by Rolland Barthes and the theory of deconstruction by Derrida & Mitchel Foucault, the writers have become experimental rather than original. Truly speaking, the meaning of the very term Original has been changed. The idea becomes cleared when we read John Barths 1967 seminal lecture The Literature of exhaustion. John Barth has shown how Original literary work can be created by making use of old resources. He cited Argentine author Borges recreation of Miguel de Cervantess Don Quixote, and also Story no.602 of Arabian nights which have invoked a new genre of narrative termed as Meta narrative or Meta story or Meta fiction and which is basically story about a story. To the writer of a Meta fiction, there is no obligation to create or invent an original story. Barth wrote, In Borges' story entitled, "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote," in which a turn-of-the-century French Symbolist produces, not copies or imitates, but actually composes several chapters of Cervantess novel. Borges thus broaches issues as diverse as the death of the author, intellectual property rights, and the historical specificity of aesthetic and cognitive modes. What impresses Barth is that Borges thus (re)uses Cervantes' novel in order to produce a "remarkable and original work of

literature, the theme of which is the difficulty, perhaps the unnecessity, of writing original works of literature.i He added, Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" is indeed literary criticism but through the medium of fantasy, irony, and humor. His narrator/reviewer considers Menard's fragmentary Quixote (which is linefor-line identical to the original) to be much richer in allusion than Cervantes's "original" work because Menard's must be considered in light of world events since 1602. Cervantes, the reviewer claims, "Indulges in a rather coarse opposition between tales of knighthood and the meager, provincial reality of his country". While Menard writes of the distant past ("the land of Carmen during the century of Lepanto and Lope), in Cervantes there are neither bands of Gypsies, conquistadors... nor autos de f". In this, Borges anticipates the post-modern theory that gives centrality to reader response; his name appeared in Jacques Derrida's question and answer section that followed his delivery of his [1966] essay "Signature, Event, Context: A communication to the Congress International des Societies de Philosophies de Langue Franoise." Shakespeare who himself practiced this art in the 16th century,[Shakespeare collected only the basic story line from different sources] has become the most fertile ground for re-creative literature in the postmodern age. Long ago Prof.Amitav Roy (Founder and Chairperson, Shakespeare Society of Eastern India) told that at least 20 thousand stories/dramas/novels have already been written as re-creative literature in imitation of Shakespeares

life and Works. The number must have increased in geometric progression in recent times.

Shakespeare in Love is a comedy drama filmed in 1998. It was written by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard. The theme is a fictional and invented biographic story of William Shakespeare. He is presented as a young, poor but aspirant (Willie Shakespeare), involved in a passionate love affair at the time of writing his tragedy (not comedy) Romeo and Juliet. He found his creativity blocked and suffering a bottleneck situation. The time is 1593, which is historically 2 to 3 years before the full flourishing of Shakespeares career as a playwright. The fictional narrative of Shakespeare in love tries to furnish a background reference behind the ultimate success of the playwright through the imaginary, fictional-biographic incidents of Bards life. However, the fictitiousness succumbs to factuality in the magic-stroke of Tom Stoppered. The credibility mounds through the presentations of contemporary personalities in their natural attire and mannerisms. The characters surrounding Willie, like teenage Proto-Gothic playwright John Webster, actors Richard Burbage and Ned Alleyn and oddball theatre manager Philip Henslowe--are all real and well researched projection in the story. For instance, both Alleyns and Henslowes diaries and also

Henslowe's financial hardship and consequent humiliation that he had to encounter. His character tends to support the movie's image of him as an eccentric but theatre-dedicated person. He is also shown as a personality having managerial capacities. The story line is out and out dramatic and spellbound. Young Will is desperately desirous of having recognition as a great playwright like Marlowe in the Elizabethan stage. He wants to earn money also. He is busy in writing a play Romeo and Ethel, the pirates daughter. But, he finds his creativity blocked. In this bottleneck condition he meets Christopher Marlowe in a pub who gives him a few tips. Marlowe is shown as the prince of the theatres. He shows his intelligence and poetic skills. His wonderful scorching poetical words Was this the face/that launched a thousand ship, And burned the Topless towers of Ilium-----/Sweet Helen, Make me immortal with a kiss from Dr.Faustus figuratively set the stage in fire. His poem is appreciated openly by the Viola and is seen reciting earnestly. Willie sees the reaction of Viola and tries to meet her. He finds satisfaction in seeing his verse appreciated. Then, Marlowe in a typical Marlovian style advises Willie how to write his play Romeo and Ethel. He gives Willie the plot of the play in brief, "Romeo is Italian. Always in and out of love. Ethel, The daughter of his enemy. His best friend is killed in a duel by Ethel's brother. Or something. His name is Mercutio." With this much of help Willie returns home and completes the play very rapidly. Marlowes presence and advice indirectly supports the followers of Marlovian Hypothesis which upholds that it was actually Marlowe who wrote all Shakespearean plays. Tom Stoppered has paid due respect to the age-old conspiracy theory in regard to Shakespeare authorship problem.

However, Romeo and Ethel, the pirates daughter is completed and Willie is about to hand it over to his theatre manager. But quite accidentally he comes to know about the secret relationship of his love and the patron of Elizabethan stage. The utterly disgusted Youngman frustratingly returns and burns the manuscript of his way back home. Then vacillating in uncertainty and anguished in heart, he happens to meet Viola and finds his love. The rest of the story moves in the very line of a traditional Shakespearean play. Shakespeare in Love offers the fantastical romantic view wonderfully tagged with the contextual reference behind the creation of Romeo and Juliet. It invents the story that Young, poor, aspirant Willie was inspired by an impossible-to-fulfill love affair that he had with Gwyneth Paltrow or Lady Viola. To a certain extent the story line is very similar to that of a 1945 comedy titled No Bed for Bacon by Caryl Brahms and S.J.Simon.ii The story is fiction, and as such historicity of the incidents may evoke suspicion. But, Shakespeares marriage with Anne Hathaway, a lady nine years older to him in 1582, speculated as an unhappy union and secondly no information about Shakespeares life in between 1585 and 1592 make even the well-educated readers to believe the imaginary story as a real one. Like the postmodern African-American writer of Ragtime, E.L.Doctorow, here, writer Marc Norman and playwright Tom Stoppard have made use of the historical personalities like Queen Elizabeth, Christopher Marlowe, and Henslowe etc. The Elizabethan society with its minutest details has been projected not as a flash back but as a living entity. In addition, many of the

characters, lines, and plot devices are direct references to Shakespeare's plays like Two gentlemen of Verona, Romeo and Juliet etc. One especially remarkable aspect about the heroine here is she is Juliet but she behaves like Viola. (i,e Violas name has simply been changed to Juliet). Next, Marlowe is presented in person with a mention of his unfinished play The Massacre of Paris. He departs telling Shakespeare that he is going to meet his

publisher at Deptford house (the home of Dame Eleanor Bull, where eventually he gets killed. The episode is a direct reference to Marlowes mysterious death. A threadbare analysis may provide or help finding new interpretation of this hazy chapter of Marlowes life and thereafter, the birth of Marlovian Hypothesis in the latter period. The manner of his death narrated (not shown) here, is very similar to that of his actual murder by Ingram Frizzier in a country tavern in the 16th century. Shakespeares publisher Henslowe is shown more than once. Actually the story gets momentum begins with Shakespeares disgusting chance happening of seeing the illicit activity of the so long considered Gentleman. Queen Elizabeths presence extends this Elizabethan air to a further level. However, even the Queen is shown helpless in front of the law of the country and the demand of the people. The disguised heroine evokes reprimand from all quarters. The Queen appreciates the talent of the disguised Viola but she has to manage the situation by awarding the young

lady 50 pounds so that she can go somewhere else and pursue her cause in

some distant place. However, like a traditional Shakespearean Comedy, Shakespeare gets his real beloved at last, and starts writing one play follows another in a quick succession. The film closes as Shakespeare starts writing Twelfth Night, Or What You Will, imagining his love washed ashore in a strange land after a shipwreck and musing. In the language of KE Monahan Huntley Willie Shakespeare, a "sad wretch" who must let Viola go, allows it to happen. Picking up his quill he begins a new play; Willie has found a muse "that will never age . . . nor die, nor fade." A lifelong heroine to inspire poetry for the centuries.

There

is an air of traditional Shakespearean Comedy from the very

beginning up to the lastdisguise, chance meeting, irony of situation, love at first sight etc. But, at the end, the spectators can leave the theatre hall fully satisfied murmuring Bards words: Alls well that ends well; and of course, -----not in a well. Now, although a Meta fiction, the drama has provided the scope of new historicism, if not historiography. Here again, like Doctorow, a fine projection of historical characters and incidences fused to produce an air of reality. While reading the script or watching it on the stage nobody feels

that he has been reading a re-created fictional work. The whole story takes the shape of an unknown episode (like many new researches) of Shakespeares life. This is more so because of innumerable mysteries surrounded with the Bards life and works since the beginning. But, it is undeniable that the presence of various historical personages and references of numerous historical occurrences have given the story an original flavour. The film (narrative and dialogue) is "not constrained by worries about literary or historical accuracy" and includes anachronisms such as a reference to Virginia tobacco plantations, when there was no Virginia.iii The most apparent deviation from the actual literary history is the made-up play title "Romeo and Ethel" allegedly preceding the present version. In fact, the story of Romeo and Juliet had been invented before Shakespeare. It was well-known from Arthur Brooke's 1562 narrative poem The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, which itself was rooted in an Italian original.iv But, its impossible to make a final comment on a personality like William Shakespeare. Even after four hundred years and 40000 million (Hyperbolic) research works, Shakespeare is still mysterious, mischievous, irresistibly tempting as well as inconclusive. Stephanie Hopkins Hughes has published a story named Shakespeare in Loveiv just after the release of the drama Shakespeare in love in the webpage of www.shakespeareauthorship Sourcebook claiming the story of Shakespeare in love as the only truth so far known about the Bards life. He tries to prove with research based

history that the incidents were real and not at all fictitious. After reading Stephanie Hopkins Hughes well-researched narration of the Bard of Avons life in general and his love life in particular, we again feel ourselves submerged in the doubtful and speculative plane. We cant help asking ourselves; then, Whats the truth? [2083 words] [i.s-26-03-2013]

References & Links:i.No Bed for Bacon by Caryl Brahms and S.J.Simon ii. Maslin, Janet (11 December 1998). "Shakespeare Saw a Therapist?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-02-16. iii.www.shakespeareauthorshipSourcebook iv. KE Monahan Huntley in the website of Dramatica. v.Shakespeare in Love by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard vi.www.wikipedea.org vii. Free Films org viii.www.creativecommons.org