Alrighty, Karen...those traits you pointed out in Faustaus that are highly valued in our culture are spot on. Faustus is not my kind of guy, so I did not see his possession of these traits as admirable from jump, but if I looked at him objectively, he is certainly determined.
Because you said in your last newsletter that these alternating scenes are comedy, I knew they should be; however, I had difficulty "seeing the humor." I trust you, though, so...haha ;-).
I did not notice in his speech that it bounced from different disciplines, but I see it now. What it seemed like he was doing to me was delaying his response to the boys because he knew they would disapprove and probably tell someone. So, could he be using humor to mask the truth, or is this simply comedic relief?
Thank you for the book suggestion, "Blessed are the Rest of Us: How Limits and Longing Make Us Whole." Last week and this one included similar pain points for me. This book will be helpful.
I appreciate your sharing your first impressions and processing the reading. It’s really helpful for us all to think about the process of reading and interpreting because we all go through it.
If and when we ever get to Paradise Lost, we will see some similarities in how the character of Lucifer “shines” and appeals in some ways to modern sensibilities. I don’t think that was Milton‘s intention at all, but on the other hand, here in Faustus, I think Marlowe sees the appeal of his character and taps into it in intentional and insightful ways.
"I think Marlowe sees the appeal of his character and taps into it in intentional and insightful ways." I will look for these moments. Thanks for explaining. I appreciate this challenge.
Wagner's gobbeldygook is reminiscent of Dogberry's legalese in 'Much Ado about Nothing'. It is interesting to observe that in the Elizabethan era the clown uses malapropisms and otherwise mangles language, rather than the almost purely physical comedy that clowns are now associated with.
Is Marlowe is satirizing the concept of the well rounded Renaissance man? Faustus has mastered all the branches of knowledge like a good Renaissance man - to an absurd degree (his curing entire towns of plagues, for example) - with only magic left for him to master. His servant Wagner thinks he has mastered all branches of knowledge - a true Jack-of-all trades and master of none.
Oh, I bet John Dee (now that you point this out) is very much hovering in the background here. With so much “occult” and “occult-adjacent” activity in the air, and with knowledge in general booming so much at the time, it makes me consider how the lines between “science” and “magic” were not then drawn so rigidly perhaps as we think we have them drawn now.
There are so many fun characters in drama who are marked by their (mis)use of language. It makes sense that in an art that uses language, language marks so much. Dogberry is a very fun (and funny) example.
Alrighty, Karen...those traits you pointed out in Faustaus that are highly valued in our culture are spot on. Faustus is not my kind of guy, so I did not see his possession of these traits as admirable from jump, but if I looked at him objectively, he is certainly determined.
Because you said in your last newsletter that these alternating scenes are comedy, I knew they should be; however, I had difficulty "seeing the humor." I trust you, though, so...haha ;-).
I did not notice in his speech that it bounced from different disciplines, but I see it now. What it seemed like he was doing to me was delaying his response to the boys because he knew they would disapprove and probably tell someone. So, could he be using humor to mask the truth, or is this simply comedic relief?
Thank you for the book suggestion, "Blessed are the Rest of Us: How Limits and Longing Make Us Whole." Last week and this one included similar pain points for me. This book will be helpful.
P.S. Please write a post for every scene ;-)
Haha, we’ll see about the scenes. Maybe I will.
I appreciate your sharing your first impressions and processing the reading. It’s really helpful for us all to think about the process of reading and interpreting because we all go through it.
If and when we ever get to Paradise Lost, we will see some similarities in how the character of Lucifer “shines” and appeals in some ways to modern sensibilities. I don’t think that was Milton‘s intention at all, but on the other hand, here in Faustus, I think Marlowe sees the appeal of his character and taps into it in intentional and insightful ways.
"I think Marlowe sees the appeal of his character and taps into it in intentional and insightful ways." I will look for these moments. Thanks for explaining. I appreciate this challenge.
Wagner's gobbeldygook is reminiscent of Dogberry's legalese in 'Much Ado about Nothing'. It is interesting to observe that in the Elizabethan era the clown uses malapropisms and otherwise mangles language, rather than the almost purely physical comedy that clowns are now associated with.
Is Marlowe is satirizing the concept of the well rounded Renaissance man? Faustus has mastered all the branches of knowledge like a good Renaissance man - to an absurd degree (his curing entire towns of plagues, for example) - with only magic left for him to master. His servant Wagner thinks he has mastered all branches of knowledge - a true Jack-of-all trades and master of none.
By the way, I wonder if Marlowe had John Dee (https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Dee), the court astronomer of Elizabeth I, in mind when writing Dr. Faustus.
Oh, I bet John Dee (now that you point this out) is very much hovering in the background here. With so much “occult” and “occult-adjacent” activity in the air, and with knowledge in general booming so much at the time, it makes me consider how the lines between “science” and “magic” were not then drawn so rigidly perhaps as we think we have them drawn now.
There are so many fun characters in drama who are marked by their (mis)use of language. It makes sense that in an art that uses language, language marks so much. Dogberry is a very fun (and funny) example.