Paul Rudd in Twelfth Night, or What You Will
taylor price

No title available
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
occasionally subtle

izzy's playlists!
$LAYYYTER
Sade Olutola

tannertan36
d e v o n
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ

pixel skylines
styofa doing anything
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"

JBB: An Artblog!

Product Placement

@theartofmadeline

Janaina Medeiros
Monterey Bay Aquarium

JVL
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from Russia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@nerd-geek-solidarity
Paul Rudd in Twelfth Night, or What You Will
NO ONE knows how to use thou/thee/thy/thine and i need to see that change if ur going to keep making “talking like a medieval peasant” jokes. /lh
They play the same roles as I/me/my/mine. In modern english, we use “you” for both the subject and the direct object/object of preposition/etc, so it’s difficult to compare “thou” to “you”.
So the trick is this: if you are trying to turn something Olde, first turn every “you” into first-person and then replace it like so:
“I” → “thou”
“Me” → “thee”
“My” → “thy”
“Mine” → “thine”
Let’s suppose we had the sentences “You have a cow. He gave it to you. It is your cow. The cow is yours”.
We could first imagine it in the first person-
“I have a cow. He gave it to me. It is my cow. The cow is mine”.
And then replace it-
“Thou hast a cow. He gave it to thee. It is thy cow. The cow is thine.”
This is perfect and the only thing missing is that when “thy” comes before a vowel it’s replaced by “thine”, i.e. “thy nose” but “thine eyes.” English used to do this with my and mine too (and still does with a and an).
The second person singular verb ending is -(e)st. In the present tense, it works more or less like the third person singular ending, -s:
I sleep in the attic. Thou sleepest in the attic. He sleeps in the attic.
I love pickles. Thou lovest pickles. He loves pickles.
I go to school. Thou goest to school. He goes to school.
The -(e)st ending is only added to one word in a compound verb. This is where a lot of people make mistakes:
I will believe it when I see it. Thou wilt believe it when thou seest it. He will believe it when he sees it.
NOT
*thou willst believest it! NOPE! This is wrong
If you’re not sure, try saying it in the third person and replacing the -(e)st with -s:
*He will believes it when he sees it. ALSO NOPE!
In general, if there’s one auxiliary, it takes the -(e)st ending) and the main verb does not. If there are multiple auxiliaries, only one of them takes -(e)st:
I could eat a horse. Thou couldst eat a horse. He could eat a horse.
I should go. Thou shouldst go. He should go.
I would have gone. Thou wouldst have gone. He wouldst have gone.
You can reduce the full -est ending to -st in poetry, if you need to drop a syllable:
thou sleepst, thou lov'st.
In some common words–mostly auxiliary verbs, or what you might have learned as “helping verbs”–the ending is always reduced:
I can swim. Thou canst swim. He can swim.
Sometimes this reduction takes the last consonant of the stem with it:
I have a cow. Thou hast a cow. He has a cow.
Or reduces the -st down to -t:
I must believe her. Thou must believe her. He must believe her.
I shall not kill. Thou shalt not kill. He shall not kill.
However! UNLIKE the third-person singular -s, the second person -(e)st is ALSO added to PAST TENSE words, either to the past stem in strong (irregular) verbs or AFTER THE -ed in weak (regular) verbs:
I gave her the horse. Thou gavest her the horse. He gave her the horse.
I made a pie. Thou mad’st a pie. He made a pie.
I wanted to go. Thou wantedst to go. He wanted to go.
This is different from the third person!
*He gaves her the horse. He mades a pie. He wanteds to go. SO MUCH NOPE!
It’s not wrong to add -(e)st to a long Latinate verb in the past tense, but it’s unusual; it’s much more common to use a helping verb instead:
I delivered the letter. (Great!)
Thou deliveredst the letter. (Not wrong, but weird)
He delivered the letter. (Great!)
I did deliver the letter. (Normal if emphatic, or an answer to a question; otherwise, a little weird.)
Thou didst deliver the letter. (Great!)
And a couple last things:
1.) Third-person -(e)th is mostly equivalent to and interchangeable with third-person -s:
I have a cow. Thou hast a cow. He hath a cow.
I love her. Thou lovest her. He loveth her.
I do not understand. Thou dost not understand. He doth not understand.
HOWEVER! Third-person -(e)th, unlike -s but like -(e)st, can, sometimes, go on STRONG past-tense verbs:
I gave her the cow. Thou gavest her the cow. He gaveth her the cow.
This never happens with weak verbs:
*He lovedeth her. NOPE NOPE NOPE!
And even with strong verbs, from Early Modern (e.g., Shakespearean) English onward, it’s quite rare. But you will see it from time to time.
2.) In contemporary Modern English, we invert the order of subjects and auxiliary verbs in questions:
Will I die? I will die.
Has she eaten? She has eaten.
If there’s no auxiliary, we add one–do–and invert that:
Do you hear the people sing? You (do) hear the people sing.
In Early Modern English, this process was optional, and mostly used for emphasis; all verbs could be and were moved to the front of the sentence in questions:
Hear ye the people sing? (Or singen, if we’re early enough to still be inflecting infinitives.)
Do-support was also optional for negatives:
I don’t like him. I like him not.
Thou dost not care. Thou carest not.
She does not love thee. She loves thee not.
3.) Imperative verbs never take endings:
Hear ye, hear ye!
Go thou and do likewise!
Give me thy hand. Take thou this sword.
4.) Singular ‘you’–that is, calling a singular person by a plural pronoun–arose as a politeness marker; and ‘thou’ fell out of use because it eventually came to be seen as impolite in almost all contexts. In general, once singular ‘you’ comes into use, it is used for addressing
people of higher social status than the speaker
or of equivalent status, if both speakers are high-status
strangers
anyone the speaker wants to flatter
‘Thou’ is used for
people of lower social status than the speaker
family and intimate friends
children
anyone the speaker wants to insult
It is safer to ‘you’ someone who doesn’t necessarily warrant ‘you’ than to ‘thou’ someone who does.
5.) And finally, that ‘ye’? That’s the nominative form of you–the one that’s equivalent to ‘I’ or ‘we.’
I → thou → he/she/it → we → ye → they
Me → thee → him/her/it → us → you → them
My → thy → his/her/its → our → your → their
Mine → thine → his/hers/its → ours → yours → theirs
Any time you’re using ‘thou’ for the singular, the second person plural– ‘y’all’– declines like this:
ye: Ye are all a bunch of weirdos.
you: And I love you very much.
your: This has been your grammar lesson.
yours: This grammar lesson is yours.
My friend and I were discussing The Tempest at work and we were talking about Ariel’s big speech where he terrifies Prospero’s brother and Ferdinand’s father and how it might be difficult for an actor like me to pull that off.
“Unless of course,” I mused, “at this point Ariel just pulls a gun. Everything else is still historic, but Ariel. Just. Has a gun now.”
So now I’m wondering, if one (1) character in each Shakespeare play gets a gun, who is it?
(We did come to the conclusion that EVERYONE in Twelfth Night gets a gun except Orsino)
Richard III: Richard would be the obvious choice but George whipping one out during his arrest scene and having it swatted out of his hand would be comedy gold
A Midsummer Night's Dream: Peter Quince, for when Bottom appears ass-headed. He doesn't actually shoot he just aims it
Henry VI, Part 1: Whoever says the "I wish my eyeballs were to bullets turn'd" line
Julius Caesar: *everyone stabs Caesar with knives* *spotlight falls on Brutus* "Et tu, Brute?" Brutus: *shoots him point blank*
Hamlet: Fortinbras busts in guns a blazin' but alas
Every play that has Falstaff: Falstaff. Even funnier if the guy named Pistol who keeps making gun innuendos doesn't get one
A Winter's Tale: The bear
Romeo and Juliet: "Tis the east, and Juliet's got a gun"
King John: You know it's Constance
Antony and Cleopatra: Clown selling asps? No. Traveling glock salesman
Much Ado About Nothing: Beatrice is the clear pick but Hero deserves it the most. Forgiving Claudio < Shooting Claudio at the altar
Classic Literature Sexyperson Tournament; Round 1
Viola/Cesario (Twelfth Night) vs Jane Bennet (Pride and Prejudice)
violacesario
jane bennet
propaganda:
Everyone, we can fix Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet if we just switch the leads.
Romeo wakes up in Hamlet's body and meets the ghost of "his" father telling him to kill his uncle. So if course Romeo just fucking does it, because he never considers consequences, and then gets onto more important shit, like romancing Ophelia, political fallout be damned! But given that he's the son of the murdered king, he'd probably end up on top.
Hamlet wakes up as Romeo and is told that he can't marry the love of his life because his family hates her family. Instead of killing Tybalt and getting Merucio murdered, he's planning elaborate meet-cutes for the two warring families. He's putting on plays about blood feuds and how to overcome them. He either succeeds in bringing the families together or bores Juliet enough with his indecision that the glow wears off and she moves on; both positive options. Everybody lives.
@common-grackle
anyone who told you much ado about nothing is good and worth watching was RIGHT and you should listen to them
In Much Ado About Nothing, Beatrice and Benedick are adamant in their mutual dislike, while Claudio and Hero are deep in love, and the two s
Ah here we go! Free full play for anyone who needs it, i watched it last week so i still had the link in my history heh :D enjoy!
God I love this version
spectacular version. Tennant and Tate are on fire. Their comedic and dramatic chops are outstanding. They both should have gotten Tonys for this production. Tennant has always had the gift of making Shakespeare sound spontaneous and contemporary, but Tate more than holds her own with him.
Reblogging, because frankly I can’t get enough of these two. :)
I hate you Rosaline (2022) I hate you & Juliet I hate you “RoMeO aNd JuLiEt wErE jUsT dUmB kIdS” I hate you “Romeo was actually 3960 years old” I hate you tragedy misunderstanders I hate you people with no media literacy skills I hate you Romeo and Juliet haters
Sebastian Twelfth Night design from a while ago
truly one of the most influential productions of our generation. i think about all the cunt they served daily
Thinking about David Tennant and Catherine Tate’s “Much Ado About Nothing” and just loving the fact that in any other play, they’d be the side characters.
Cause Hero and Claudio are the main drama of the plot - they’re the “love at first sight”, misunderstandings abound, tears and yelling and heartbreak couple.
Comparatively Beatrice and Benedict are low drama. Their biggest issue is getting over themselves to realize they’re in love. They do have a little bit of yelling and crying when Beatrice asks Benedict to kill his best friend. But he’s against it for a grand total of 30 seconds until they talk about it and he agrees, and then they go back to being stupidly cute in love together.
Beatrice asks Benedict to defend Hero’s honor, but the dual doesn’t even happen cause everyone realizes they were tricked by that point. Benedict isn’t part of the big “shaming Hero at the alter” drama - it took several minutes of Claudio being the world’s biggest drama king for Benedict to realize something MAY have happened to throw off the wedding plans. Beatrice and Benedict’s impact on the overall plot is really low. The priest comes up with the plan to reunite Hero and Claudio, Dogberry exposes the villain’s plans, Beatrice and Benedict are there for emotional support, to show how a more emotionally mature couple acts, and to basically tell Claudio and Don Pedro they’re acting really shitty.
They’re so low in terms of the overall story that they barely interact with the villain. They spend a whole play flirting and being in love with each other (to the point where all their friends can see it), and Don John doesn’t even think about ruining their relationship too, they’re so far off his radar.
I love Much Ado About Nothing cause it’s a play where all the rules are flipped on their heads - the typical climatic event of a dual is cancelled, the villain runs off and is an afterthought rather than being dramatically caught, even the entire plan of ruining Hero and Claudio’s wedding is (in terms of acting against the prince) small. Don John hates his brother, but he’s too spineless to even actually try and act against him so he’s just making up rumors. It’s not even a DIRECT ATTACK against Don Pedro - he’s just hoping to ruin his brother’s friend’s wedding.
And Beatrice and Benedict, who normally would be comedic side characters, are the heroes of the plot. I personally think it’s why they’re so beloved - leave the screaming and crying and heartbreak to the other characters - they’re FUN.
Shakespeare fandom be like "it is the greatest Shakespearean tragedy" and then the characters are fourteen bras and whore atio
op u forgot rose in france && guild interns
not to mention I Feel Ya
and layered tees
Alright, Shakespeare fans!
I am a robber and I have broken into your house and stolen your most precious belonging. I will not give it back unless you pick just one play from each genre (comedies, tragedies, histories, romances) to call your favorite. What do you say?
(If you haven’t read any plays in a certain genre, you can forgo answering for that one.)
(History lovers: the plays count individually. Ex: you cannot say your favorite is the entirety of the Henriad)
i want to make a "he should've been at the club" post about hamlet but there's so much controversy about his actual age that i can't while still maintaining any claim to academic integrity
"should hamlet have been at the club", the world's longest unanswered question in the history of academia, still ongoing after 400 years of debate
rozencrantz and gildenstern should have been at the club
they went to the great big club in the sky
A successful crowdsourced joke is genuinely impressive.
does anyone want an unnecessarily long-winded analysis of why nick carraway is to gatsby what horatio is to hamlet
hamlet is a very flawed character, but part of the reason the readers like him, if the readers like him, is that horatio loves him. to horatio, hamlet is the “sweet prince,” a man with a “noble heart,” despite all the disaster hamlet causes. hamlet reveals his true self only to horatio, and horatio says hamlet is good, so we believe him.
gatsby is a very flawed character, but part of the reason the readers like him, if the readers like him, is that nick loves him. to nick, gatsby is “something gorgeous,” a man with an “extraordinary gift for hope,” despite all the disaster gatsby causes. gatsby reveals his true self only to nick, and nick says gatsby is great, so we believe him.
gatsby is dishonest, obsessive, and shallow, yet because nick loves him, we do too. nick lives to tell the story and he tells it with gatsby in a positive light because he loves gatsby. hamlet is dishonest, obsessive, and cruel, yet because horatio loves him, we do too. horatio lives to tell the story and he tells it with hamlet in a positive light because he loves hamlet.
ALSO both nick and horatio are gay
@frogadir
HAMLET????