HIRE A COMEDIAN

Scholars have spent a great deal of time and energy arguing for a word or phrase in which to label Cymbeline. In the 1623 Folio, Cymbeline was classified as a tragedy, although for sure there is a "paucity of corpses in the final act" (Brown, Johnson, 18). There are advocates for the play as a romance. Hazlitt, in 1817, called it a "dramatic romance", Nosworthy an "experimental romance", and Judiana Lawrence an "ethical romance" (Brown, Johnson, 18). Other critics have argued its primary function is historical. As Ros King puts it:

Far from being the courtly romance of most nineteenth- and twentieth-century, criticism, [Cymbeline is] a bold, bloody and hilarious tragicomedy that was using a sophisticated knowledge of classical and contemporary iconography and literary theory to ask fundamental questions about England's place in history, her experiment with religion, and her future in the world. (1)

A tragicomedy that questions history? This is saying everything and therefore nothing. Cymbeline has also been called a "retrospective" play, meaning a reworking of Shakespeare's earlier material (Brown, Johnson, 19). While this is undoubtedly true, it seems to skirt past the question of genre since clearly all work, at some level, takes influence from earlier work, and by saying that a piece particularly does so is to ignore the unique universe or space of the work itself, as if one followed the roots of a tree deep into the ground without also examining its branches. David M. Bergeron argues that Cymbeline belongs with Shakespeare's "Roman plays" in how "closely the characters parallel figures from Roman history". Others have noted the incorporation of Roman ethics in the play, most obviously in how Posthumus' fate is judged by Roman gods (Brown, Johnson, 19).

I cannot help but think that this is a secondary observation, that the crux of the text is not its allusions to Rome. I will contest that allusions support rather than comprise the foundation to any work of art that will engage an audience. There is also the argument that the play is somehow beyond classification. Roger Warren gives Cymbeline special treatment, personifying the text into a rebellious teenager, saying that Cymbeline "as a whole resists conventional labels", although I do agree with him stating the play's "theatrical virtuosity" with the "capacity to astonish and move an audience at the same time" (1).

Cymbeline is a comedy. But it is a comedy not by having thematic similarities to other plays that are considered comedies. Comedy, as I will define it, is when the protagonists' intentions are eventually able to manifest. Tragedy occurs when these intentions are thwarted and permanently crushed. (Let me mention now that this and further analysis is from the perspective of a writer rather than that of an audience. To an audience, comedies cause laughter, tragedies distress.)

More specifically, what can never befall the protagonists of a comedy is action that permanently thwarts intention. This includes real action that cannot be divinely or magically corrected and false action that, by the end, is not revealed as false. Real action includes all events in the plot that actually occurred in the story. False action-plot events that did not actually occur in the story-is a staple in Shakespeare's comedies. False action is a wonderful tool to drive the plot of a comedy because the tension it creates can be resolved by the characters themselves. This is what Susan Snyder is referring to when she says that comedy requires "the operation of a kind of 'evitability' principle whereby shifts and stratagems and sheer good luck break the chain of causality".

Chart for Cymbeline: False Action and Style

Act I

Act II

Act III

Act IV

Act V

1 - V

1 - P/V

1 - V/P

1 - P

1 - V, FA: BB

2 - P

2 - V, FA: B

2 - V, FA: BA

2 - V, FA: AB

2 - V

3 - V

3 - V/P

3 - V, FA: C

3 - V

3 - V

4 - P

4 - V

4 - V/P, FA: BA, FA: BAA FA: BAAA

4 - V

4 - V/P

5 - V, FA: A, A

5 - V

5 - V/P

5 - V, A, B, AB, BA, BAA, BAAA, C, D,

6 - V

6 - V

7 - V

V = Verse, P = Prose, FA = False Action

False Action

A: Queen wants Imogen murdered with poison (I.5.78-82)

A: Cornelius knows of the potion's failure (I.5.34-36)

AB: Simulated death from potion (IV.2.197)

AB: Imogen, as Fidele, shows up to the court (V.5.122)

B: Iachimo cheats the bet (II.2.11)

B: Iachimo confesses cheating (V.5.182)

BA: Posthumus' letter for Imogen's death (III.4.21-31)

BA: Posthumus shows public remorse for (V.5.220)

wanting to kill Imogen

BAA: Death trick for Imogen (III.4.125-128)

BAA: Imogen reveals herself. (V.5.379-380)

BAAA: Cross-dressing trick for Imogen (III.4.154-166)

BAAA: Imogen reveals herself. (V.5.379-380)

C: Guiderius and Arviragus' hidden by Belarius (III.3.80)

C: Belarius tells the truth about G and A (V.5.304-309)

D: Imogen mistakes Cloten for Posthumus (IV.2.308)

D: Imogen's mistake is corrected (V.5.303)

The significance of Shakespeare's two styles, prose and blank verse, is especially important in Cymbeline. In most plays, Shakespeare uses the two styles as aesthetic tools to reinforce qualities of characters; for instance, to distinguish class. In Cymbeline, the styles serve unique structural rather than aesthetic functions. Form fits function rather magnificently.

In Cymbeline, prose is used to indirectly communicate intention. What is directly spoken of is action and foolery, events and conversation, which talks around intention. Emotions and complex intentions are left out entirely. Communication of intention is indirect because real action, if it is going to create tension (and Cymbeline moves in almost constant tension), will threaten intention, and so a direct focus on intention would provide a tragic rather than comedic tension. To clarify, by "indirect" I mean that the charactersessentially do possess intention during the action, but this intention is inferred. At its best, Shakespeare's prose in Cymbeline allows us to understand why characters are acting the way they are acting but not how. In the prose, we understand intention with very little gauge as to the emotional severity or complexity involved in this intention.

In I.2, Cloten is so fresh from a duel with Posthumus that he is checking his shirt for blood. In his conversation with two lords, there is nothing of emotion, nothing of the fear Cloten might have felt, nothing of his disappointment of losing. We get our information from three sources: Cloten, who acts almost as if he had won; from the first lord, who calls Cloten "sir" and who tells Cloten only what Cloten obviously wants to hear, and we also get information from a second lord, who in asides to the audience mercilessly makes fun of Cloten. From this second lord, in his puns and jokes, we get perhaps the most trustworthy account of the duel's outcome, a duel which, involving Posthumus, has great significance to the plot. It is a simple, prosaic, although important scene indirectly communicating its characters' intentions, all emotion absent.

In Cymbeline, verse is used to directly communicate internal states, including not just intention but emotion as well. Emotions are even more difficult to express than intentions, both being far more difficult than action, which of course, is used in prose to talk around intention and thus indirectly communicate it. And so just as one can analyze Shakespeare's prose to discover the indirectly communicated intention, one can peer into the poetry of verse that is attempting much of the work for you; the verse is trying to get you to understand something directly, something inherently inexpressible. To do this, verse uses questions and metaphors.

Let us continue with a discussion of the first act, which prepares the setting for the wildly comedic plot that moves with false action, as indicated in my chart. In I.1 action is slim. Written in verse, it reveals mainly emotion and intention. The only real event in the act, the exchange of jewelry, is meaningful only because of the emotions and intentions it represents. From a scene in which very little happens, we understand the intense nature of Posthumus and Imogen's love, the "fire of rage" (I.1.77) in Cymbeline, and the power the queen believes she has over the king.

I.3 is similar to I.1 in that an event of little meaning-Posthumus waving a handkerchief goodbye-is mined for emotions and intentions through Imogen's verse. We are shown Imogen's idealistic, unshakable love, and through Pisanio's short, patient lines, his caring for the couple.

I.4 is the longest segment of the play that is in prose. This is fitting, as it depicts the real action-the bet against Imogen's faithfulness-which will begin the plot fueled by false action. (The first false action, of course, being Iachimo jumping out of the chest.) Shakespeare's prose is working tirelessly to keep this comedic, to divert us away from the tension that is included in such a serious event. This is incredible, for by the end of their conversation, the bet ends up to be the following agreement: If Iachimo can sleep with Imogen, Posthumus will give him Imogen's diamond and cut off his love for her completely. If Iachimo cannot sleep with Imogen, Posthumus will earn ten thousand ducats of Iachimo's and will challenge Iachimo to a duel (I.4.145-160).

Because this is prose, we do not know for sure either Iachimo's or Posthumus' feelings on agreeing to such a wild bet. Why either would in good reason take the bet is not immediately clear, either. Their intention has been communicated indirectly, and therefore, we need to unweave the dialogue back into the two individual stands-the perspective of Posthumus and the perspective of Iachimo.

The bet is worded in such a way that, understandably, goads Posthumus into it. Iachimo manages to both challenge Posthumus' pride and attack Imogen's faithfulness without attacking Imogen herself, since slandering Imogen directly would only cause fury and cease Posthumus' cooperation. He tells Posthumus, "I make my wager rather against your confidence than her reputation; and, to bar your offense herein too, I durst attempt it against any lady in the world" (I.4.107-110).

Posthumus is right in thinking that Iachimo is incorrect. Not only are there faithful women in the world, Imogen herself is faithful, and so Posthumus' confidence is well-grounded. However, prose ignores emotion, and Posthumus himself is not thinking about the emotionalconsequences of the bet, how the feeling of being proven right pales in comparison to the serious consequences that await him: either ceasing to love Imogen because of her infidelity, murdering Iachimo, or being murdered.

It makes sense that Iachimo, too, takes the bet. Before he even declared the bet, he understood that he could obtain Imogen's bracelet by either seduction or theft, as he had taunted Posthumus, "Your ring may be stol'n too" (I.4.86-87). Also, the way Iachimo initially sets up the bet, he has much less to lose than Posthumus does. Iachimo would lose ten thousand ducats; Posthumus his diamond, his wife, and his reputation. This imbalance must be incredibly tempting, or perhaps Iachimo's pride has blinded him, that he accepts the bet even when Posthumus tacks on the detail about fighting to the death if Iachimo loses.

In I.5, we have our first bit of false action, which is actually resolved before we are aware of its threat. Most of the false action in the play is resolved in the dramatic and highly emotional final scene. The queen admires her collection of poisons and gives one to Pisanio for him to take to Imogen. However, in an aside, Cornelius spoils the threat by admitting that the poisons do not kill; they only put the victim unconscious. This false action is built upon much later in the play, in IV.2. Building upon false action means that a false action is created by treating another piece of false action as reality.

The false action in II.2 is much more essential to the plot, and many Let us end with it. It is a shocking scene, Iachimo popping out of the trunk. But what of it? Is it comical? Is it rape? Or is it simply creepy? This makes for an interesting question of production; how much should Iachimo touch her? The stage directions Shakespeare provides say simply, "Takes off her bracelet," but he at least opened her shirt to see the mole on her chest. And the allusions to Philomel and the rape of Lucrece . . .

But there is no debate. Iachimo must not physically rape Imogen if only because it is in verse, the realm of verse being strictly comprised of emotions and intentions rather than any real action. In contrast, when Cloten plans on raping Imogen, which is clearly the action of rape, it is reported in prose (IV.1).

But more so than that, the entire play rests upon the scene (B) being a trick, an untruth. For when later, when Posthumus' letter demands that Pisanio kill Imogen, if there was a real action would there be tension (BA) (III.4.21-31)? I believe there would not, there would only be the sorrow of lost intent. Nor would the false death Pisanio advises Imogen to perform make sense, (BAA) (III.4.125-128), it would not be adding to anything, it would seem an afterthought, and what would be of Imogen revealing herself to Posthumus at the end (BA) (V.5.379-380)? The cross-dressing, too, what of it? As a comedy, there is a structure, a beautiful canceling of different narrative trajectories back into resolution. As anything else, it is a mess.

Works Cited

Snyder, Susan. "The Genre of Shakespeare's Plays." Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Richard Danson and David Johnson. Shakespeare 1609: Cymbeline and the

Sonnets. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.

King, Ros. Cymbeline: Constructions of Britain. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing

Company, 2005.

Warren, Roger. Cymbeline. New York: Manchester University Press, 1989.

By Brent Lang, The Wrap

Does this mean it's curtains for "FlashForward"?

The ABC supernatural drama logged its worst ratings yet on Thursday, but the network's other heavy hitters, "Greys' Anatomy" and "Private Practice," recorded strong numbers against stiff competition from CBS' "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains" and "The Mentalist."

FLASHFORWARD TO CANCELLATION: ABC dramas performed reasonably well despite being weighed down by "FlashForward." "Grey's Anatomy" was No. 1 in the 9 p.m. timeslot with 10.7 million total viewers and a 3.7/11 in the key 18 to 49 demographic. "Private Practice" drew 8.3 million viewers and a 2.8/8 demo score. "FlashForward," though, was down 19 percent from last week, attracting 4.7 million viewers. Among adults 18 to 49, the series drew a 1.3/4.

SORTA MUST SEE TV: Though it beat Fox's "Bones" (2.5/8 demo, 8.88 million viewers) and "Fringe (2.2/6 demo, 5.85 million viewers), NBC's comedy block was dwarfed by ABC's dramas and "Survivor." Holding steady were "Parks & Recreation," with a 1.9/ 6 and 4.1 million viewers overall, and "30 Rock," with a 2.7/7 and 5.6 million total viewers. "Community" (2.0/7) saw a modest 5 percent bump in the key demo and 4.5 million viewers overall. "The Office" (3.5/10, 6.8m) slipped slightly, but managed to tie "Grey's Anatomy" for first place in the demo. At 10 p.m., "The Marriage Ref" (2.2/6) had its highest score in the key demo since April 1 and drew 5 million viewers overall.

PARTY LIKE A CASTAWAY: CBS won Thursday for the eighth consecutive week. "Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains" (4.0/13, 12.8m) was the night's top program in 18-49, while "The Mentalist" was tops in total viewers (3.3/10,14.7m). "CSI" (3.0/9, 14.7m) also won its 9 p.m. hour

Get HuffPost Media On
Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz!




Know something we don't? E-mail us at media@huffingtonpost.com

I’m pretty sure capitulations, like the way this fella is thinking about don’t happen near the beginning of a bear market, nor after a few days of selling after more than a year of basically an up market. No, any selling climax, or capitulation, occurs after months and months of relentless selling.

Oh…and chewy the lab, your sale would depend on if you had a stop market or a stop limit order. A stop market order would have gone to market as your specified price was triggered. Where that order was eventually filled is unknowable, but in yesterdays action, it would have more than likely be below your triggered price. If you had a stop limit order, that would have resulted in you having an asking price for your shares. Under the limit scenario, prices may have been moving down so swiftly, that your sell order would be higher than current prices, and you would still be left holding them.

Hire a comedian
Hire a corporate comedian
Hire a comedian
Hire a corporate comedian