Shakespeare Couples: Henry V & Kate!

I grew up in a house without a television. When our family wanted to watch something, my parents either rented a TV or we went next door to our church (my parents had keys) and watched a VHS on the TV with the VHS player. 

In this way, I encountered David Gwillim in the BBC Henry IV and Henry V. When I went to college, I would visit the AV area and watch Henry IV, Parts I and II over and over again. 

I consider Tom Hiddleston's Prince Hal (from Hollow Crown) to be quite impressive (even if one is reminded that dark-haired Hiddleston is quite tall and lanky; he just doesn't look that way when not acting next to Chris Hemsworth). 

I consider Branagh's Henry V to be a tour de force--and the love scene between Branagh's Henry and Thompson's Katherine showcases the skill and comic abilities of both actors. 

However, I had a HUGE crush on David Gwillim as a teen. Major major crush that was really only replaced, eventually, by Sean Pertwee in the Brother Cadfael mysteries. 

Luckily, for my self-perception, David Gwillim is a good actor. He shows up in Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes as Percy Phelps (with a mustache!).

However, in fairness, I think looking back that my crush was less, ah, reasonable than an objective assessment of Gwillim's abilities. I think it was partly because I considered Gwillim hot but also because his character undergoes a transformation. 

I find double identities and transformations inherently charismatic. In one scene at the end of Henry IV, Part II, Gwillim the newly crowned Henry V, no longer the rapscallion Prince Hal, walks through a crowd. He wears a kind of astonished smile. 

It is utterly charming. (And, yup, I watched the scene a dozen times.) 

The All-Knowing Romance Character

The all-knowing romance character was quite common in early Harlequin romances.* This is the romance character who shows up and sneers at others while informing the lover, "I KNOW what's best for you. I KNOW you truly love me."

Unlike this same character in fantasy and sci-fi (and even there, it gets old), the romance all-knowing character is a jerk, male or female. 

And, as I mention on Votaries, even in fantasy and sci-fi, it is best if that character has depth and some uncertainty. For instance, Tolkien's mentors are limited in their knowledge, and they know they are limited. Even the kingly Aragorn gets frustrated at the breaking of the fellowship and blames himself for waffling: should he go with Boromir, which he wishes to do (and has an obligation to do) or with Frodo/Sam, now that Gandalf has seemingly perished. 

Consequently, it is best in romance if this character not be all-knowing for the sake of itself but merely as a personality trait. 

So, Duke Avon in These Old Shades does come across as sarcastic and aloof and smarter than everyone else. And Leonie rather worships him. But he loses his cool when confronted by his ex, who points out that he has changed. He began by intending to use Leonie as a weapon. He ends by wanting to restore her to her position. 

Likewise, I've always preferred Johnny Lee Miller's Sherlock, precisely because he has a underlying persona of vulnerability and he is willing to admit it. 

And Joan calls him out when he gets truly pompous.

Back to romance! In Dangerous Convenience Store, the masterful yakuza-next-door, who wants to get out of the organization before he tells his lover all about his past, actually puts the relationship at risk for his aloof "I know best" attitude. I find the series quite impressive (so far) because the ordinary college student protagonist doesn't pretend that his semi-boyfriend's occupation might NOT be a problem. Love DOESN'T conquer everything. Being in a relationship with a gangster is NOT a good idea. 

In addition, in Dangerous Convenience Store, the masterful yakuza-next-door doesn't feel masteful. Rather than inviting the audience to be awed by his masterfulness, the reader is encouraged to see him as trying to fix a situation he may not be able to fix--and he knows it. (He is rather like Jane Eyre's Rochester: he appears masterful but is a kind of Golden Retriever underneath.)

The well-rounded character is always more appealing than the all-knowing one. After all, in One Punch Man, Saito carries his uncertainty with him. 

*The character is making something of a come-back in romances these days--I will discuss why in a later post.

Persona Matters: Why Gun and Tinn Can't Switch Places

Years ago, after watching a play at church, my mother said about one of the actors, "He just basically went on-stage and behaved like himself."

She was quite amused. The man wasn't "acting." 

Arguably, a great many actors are simply being themselves. Likewise, when I teach, I am "performing" as a more extroverted, in-one's-face version of myself. 

Sure, there are the Gary Oldmans who become completely subsumed by their roles. But actors have a particular aura that is, to a degree, recognizable. 

Consequently, switching roles doesn't automatically work. 

In My School President, Tinn--a young man who decides to become a doctor--woos Gun--a young man who is seriously interested in music. Despite the choice of careers, Tinn is actually somewhat more laid-back. He would be rather like an ER doctor I know: good at his job, ambitious (enough) but quite ready to stick to the regular schedule of the ER, no matter how crazy it gets in the moment.

Gun as singer.

Gun is, despite his bohemian tendencies, more highly strung. In fact, he is quite in keeping, personality-wise, with many musicians. 

In a later show, the characters switch places, so Gun becomes the ambitious doctor/student while Tinn becomes the bohemian. 

It doesn't work. And it doesn't work because of the underlying personas or attitudes. 

Serious-minded Gun as an ambitious medical student would drive himself into an early grave. He is already highly strung. His almost practiced insouciance in
My School President is self-protection. An environment where he can find himself--despite the highs and lows of a musician's life--will allow him to relax into that insouciance. 

Tinn embracing his whimsy.

Whimsical laid-back Tinn, on the other hand, doesn't become attractive as a bohemian; instead, he comes off as kind of a jerk, a guy who is deliberately playing a role rather than a guy who loves music more than anything else. 

The differences reach back to the actor's personalities. Forth, who plays Gun, is somewhat more reserved than even his character while Gemini, who plays Tinn, doesn't mind mugging to the camera. In the original roles, their underlying personalities give them depth. The outlier musician often proves quite serious on occasion. The serious (if laid-back) doctor gains a playful side.

Switch those roles: the one guy gets himself an ulcer and a nervous breakdown; the other annoys even his devoted friends and parents.

Casting directors truly do know what they are doing. 

The Pleasure of the Non-Canon Couples

In relation to my post on Votaries about Ichabod Crane, I attempted to come up with a romance novel where the central romance is described by someone on the side. 

I used this approach in my tribute to Northanger Abbey. Henry and Catherine's romance is told by a bemused god of love, Ven, the male version of Venus. I chose this approach in part because it is the approach used by Austen: an acerbic semi-omniscient narrator writes about the vagaries of love and Gothic literature. 

However, such an approach isn't that common. Austen's other novels invest far more in the limited perspectives of her main characters. 

But the idea got me thinking of the romances that people love despite those romances NOT being the primary focus of a book/ show. For instance, I far prefer Monica and Chandler to Ross & Rachel in Friends. I know fans of Luke and Grace from Joan of Arcadia. And I've always considered Ryan's marriage on Castle (to his real life wife, Juliana, character name Jenny) to be one of the sweetest on record. 

These romances, in my opinion, are often used to satisfy viewers who are getting restless about the main relationship never being consummated (storytelling-wise). 

But I also think that sometimes the freedom of these non-canon or non-required marriages allow the writers more scope and insight. The non-canon couples ARE more fun than the central couples.

For the sake of comparison, I tried to think of "side" couples from manga and realized...

They often end up with their own series!

A-Z Romances: Eloisa James & The Art of the Short Story

A few years ago, I read a number of Eloisa James' books, focusing on the Essex Sisters series. 

I recently read a short story "A Mistletoe Kiss" in the Mistletoe Christmas anthology. I was reminded all over again how much I enjoy James's writing. She is one of several writers in the early 2000s (and beyond) who made romances more literary, more historically accurate, and also (most importantly) much funnier with clever banter along Thin Man lines.

"A Mistletoe Kiss" has a unique setting, strong characters, well-paced writing, and, of course, more than decent dialog.

However, the story also reminded me of how much short story writing is in its own medium. I wrote and published short stories for over a decade and now struggle to write anything longer than about 20,000 words (I usually run out of steam about 30,000). 

Writers of 60,000 words+ often struggle moving in the other direction. 

The short story is its own piece of art. It isn't better or worse than a novel (though many readers will complain because they want to learn more about the characters). Like poetry versus an epic piece, it concentrates on delivering characters and an arc in a show-not-tell fashion that nevertheless moves quite quickly. 

It takes skill. Agatha Christie had this skill since she could transform stereotypes into quick characterizations that fit the story's arc. She also used voice to great effect: in The Tuesday Club murders, the short stories are told by different narrators, from slightly pompous Raymond to clever and atmosphere-oriented Joyce Lemprière and then gentle yet ever so faintly acerbic Miss Marple herself. 

The hardest part is to have a climax that pays off the conflict set in motion not many paragraphs earlier. And there needs to be a climax; otherwise, the story meanders (there is a stream-of-consciousness genre out there where the arc doesn't go much of anywhere--but I'm focusing right now on stories with romance and mystery). 

Georgette Heyer was quite skilled at short stories, though they do vary considerably in delivery. In the male/male romance genre, Kim Fielding is one of the best.

Eloisa James's story is good but could have used a stronger pay-off/climax. However, it supplies a decent dive into her style as well as an enchanting holiday setting. 

 Related Posts: The Trouble with Manga Short Stories, Part I

The Trouble with Manga Short Stories, Part II 

The Trouble with Manga Short Stories, Part III

 What Makes a Good Manga Short Story and What Makes a Good Manga Short Story Continued...

Interview with a Translator: Twelve Kingdoms, Short Stories & Language

 

Bromance: Vienna Blood

A bromance is a male/male relationship that is as close a friendship as a relationship can get without it being a marriage. 

Some bromances definitely have a sexual component. Marcus and Esca in The Eagle could be sleeping together; it wouldn't change the plot much. Holmes & Watson are not sleeping together but most versions (television and movies) at minimum comment on the possibility. Some bromances, such as Chandler and Joey, don't go down that road but in another universe...

And some bromances don't have a sexual component yet the relationship is intimate, if not through touch than though knowledge of each other. 

Oskar and Max from Vienna Blood are one such couple. The closeness-without-sex works because (1) both men have their own professions (not just their own girlfriends); (2) both men are amused by each other's foibles; (3) both men appreciate the other's perspective; (4) both men confide in each other, which for the time period (and the time period is taken into consideration) leaps a gap in age, profession, class, and blood.

That is, they operate in different spheres that overlap. Their lives are Venn diagrams. Yet they absolutely trust each other as Season 4 indicates when Oskar trusts Max with political secrets. 

I like bromances of all kinds. I appreciate when the writing can produce a bromance that relies on difference, even separation, to make it work. 

Shakespeare's Couples: Everybody in Hamlet is Dysfunctional

The only thing that keeps Hamlet's relationships from being totally annoying is that Shakespeare appears to have been perfectly aware that all the relationships are horrible. 

Hamlet doesn't trust Cordelia. She is weak and lets others push her around. Even Branagh's addition of sex didn't give that relationship more substance. And that's mostly the point. Hamlet is playing a game. Cordelia is a pawn. There's nothing there because there never really was anything there. 

Gertrude's relationship with Claudius is interesting but it is also a relationship that rests on enormous self-deception. And Updike's version didn't improve it. 

On the male/male front, there is Hamlet and Horatio, but Horatio disappears for most of the play, only showing up to deliver a stellar final line. Nicholas Farrell's Horatio is fantastic, but also gives the impression of carrying on a somewhat one-sided fascination with his prince.

I think the play is a good one, but it is the story of entirely dysfunctional people who can't hold onto anything real and consistent for more than 2 seconds. There's a deep cynicism about it which all the profundity can't allay.

There have been several plays/books about minor characters--the actors who show up at the castle, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern--and those minor characters often end up...not completely miserable. (At the end of Stoppard's play, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern aren't dead yet!) And from that perspective, a romance might be possible. To go traditional, one of the players and the gravedigger's sister (I'm inferring a sister). To go male/male, Fortinbras and, say, Horatio. 

Nobody else stands a chance. 

Perhaps, Hamlet was Shakespeare's answer to Greek tragedy.