Is Romeo and Juliet Overrated?

What’s a classic book that you think is overrated?

As a big Shakespeare nerd, I love all of Shakespeare’s plays, but even I have to admit some of them have been overhyped and over sold. In fact, I basically started my Shakespeare Club because I wanted my students to read more than this one Shakespeare Play. While I love the poetry and the characters, even I acknowledge the flaws of Romeo and Juliet

  1. The hype around it- People see this story as the ideal love story, which it definitely is not. Shakespeare isn’t trying to put these lovers on a pedestal, he’s trying to show how hard it is for love to flourish in such a toxic, violent world. The feud between the Capulets and Montegues ruins everything and makes Romeo and Juliet make rash, foolish choices.
&Juliet
  1. The creepy age gap- Juliet is only 13 years old in the play. This was a deliberate choice on Shakespeare’s part to make us all wonder if the romance is actually a good idea
  1. The ridiculously short timeline- the play only takes place over six days! As I mentioned in an earlier post, this was another deliberate choice by Shakespeare to  make the action more intense.
Fake news report for Romeo and Juliet’s deaths.
  1. There are better plays- I would argue that plays like Hamlet do a better job capturing the experience of young people, and Julius Caesar has more cultural and historical value. That said, this play has still resonated with people for 400 years so, overhyped or not, it still has value!

If you enjoyed this post, please consider signing up for my online courses on Romeo and Juliet

Get $10 off my class “Romeo and Juliet: Why Do We Still Read This Play?” with coupon code HTHES4KG1E10 until May 23, 2026. Get started at

https://outschool.com/classes/romeo-and-juliet-why-do-we-still-read-this-play-wAhPqsrx

and enter the coupon code at checkout.

Review – ‘William Shakespeare’s Star Wars: The Mandalorian of Nevarro’

Happy May 4th Everyone!

With the upcoming release of The Mandalorian and Grogo, I knew there would be lots of tie-in Star Wars merchandise capitalizing on it. What I didn’t expect,  was that, after a six year hiatus, playwright Ian Doescher has once again taken up his quills and lightsabers to dramatize the next installment in the Shakespearean Star Wars cannon, The Mandalorian of Nevarro.

What Is William Shakespeare’s Star Wars?

William Shakespeare’s Star Wars is a series of parody plays written by Ian Doescher that takes the prose screenplays of the Star Wars story and transforms them into Elizabethan verse. Last time, I mentioned how much I loved the cheeky references to Shakespeare and Star Wars, and how Doescher adapts the cinematic quality into Elizabethan drama very well. In my podcast, I also emphasized the way Doescher gives each character verbose Shakespearan language that works very well for radio and theater:

I’ve written reviews about Mr Doescher’s versions of the original trilogy, but I never expected him to cover the Disney Plus shows, bit he proved me wrong, and by all accounts, this edition lives up to its predecessors.

https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2026/04/review-william-shakespeares-star-wars-the-mandalorian-of-nevarro-reimagines-mando-in-a-worthy-retelling-of-the-series.html

Interview with Ian Doescher about “The Mandalorian of Nevarro”

What We Know

I haven’t gotten a copy yet of the full play, so this will be less of a review and more of a prediction and a fun speculation about how Mr Doescher will handle everyone’s favorite green foster child and Beskar- clad dad.

When your main character is, quite frankly, one of the most non-theatrical Star Wars protagonists in existence, forcing that character to come out of his shell and give him that Shakespearean flair was always going to be a test. – Nate Manning, Star Wars News.net

The Mandalorian of Nevarro is a two part series that, like the other William Shakespeare’s Star Wars books, adapts the prose text of episodes 1-4 into Shakespeare’s verse. According to Wookiepedia, the series was originally titled Mandalorius, which is probably a pun on Shakespeare’s play Coriolanus

Prologue and Dramatis Personae for “The Mandalorian of Nevarro”

What We Can Guess

One thing I am very curious about is how far Doescher adapted Coriolanus for Mandolorian. As you might have read in my review for Coriolanus, one reason why the play isn’t as popular as some of Shakespeare’s other tragedies is simply that its hero is not very compelling. Coriolanus is not as articulate or wise as Hamlet, nor does his journey form a cohesive arc like Macbeth or Othello.  He seems to flit between loving Rome and hating it, between peace and war, with little agency or understanding of what is happening to him, and even less insight. He is mainly a maddeningly inscrutable man, almost as if he was wearing a mask.

With all this in mind, I can honestly understand why Doescher might choose the Roman general Caius Martius Coriolanus as a model for Jinn Jaran, (assuming that the final play does in fact do so). Like Coriolanus, Mando is a lone warrior in a fragile republic, who goes from planet to planet with nothing but his ship, and his rigid code of behavior to guide him. Therefore it makes total sense that Doescher would use Coriolanus as a model to emulate when adapting The Mandalorian.

With all due respect to Shakespeare, what makes Mando a more interesting character from Coriolanus us that he has a compelling Arc. He starts as a solitary bounty hunter to a surrogate father who finds meaning when he adopts a child. It’s like his helmet and armor are metaphors for the uncaring, uncompromising person he was. Over the course of the series, as Mando becomes a better man and a better father, he is forced to remove his armor and form real relationships.

What I Hope

I hope this adaptation uses Shakespeare’s ability to conjure images and feelings when telling Mando’s story, but only time will tell.

May the Forth Be With Thee!

Mando

Lots of Great classes are available on Outschool This Summer

With summer break approaching, why not give your kids the gift of learning Shakespeare in a low-key, no-pressure scenario? I have classes on Shakespeare’s life, Romeo and Juliet, and my celebrated Stage Combat class! Sign up now for all the fun on Outschool.com!

Shakespeare and Star Wars

Class Description: Using self-paced online activities, your child(ren) will compare the plot and characters of Star Wars to Shakespeare’s plays. We will also discuss Shakespeare’s writing by looking at “William Shakespeare’s Star Wars” by Ian Doescher.

Romeo and Juliet Murder Mystery

Course Description: A flexible schedule class that teaches kids the plot and characters of “Romeo and Juliet,” in the context of a detective story where you solve the mystery of the young lovers’ deaths.

Course Descriptions

How to Write Like Shakespeare: Learn the basics of iambic pentameter, sonnet form, and Shakespeare’s dramatic structure, and practice writing Shakespearean speeches.

Get $10 off my class “Shakespearean Stage Combat” with coupon code HTHES3IB1C10 until May 4, 2026. Get started at https://outschool.com/classes/shakespearean-stage-combat-TyjzafsK and enter the coupon code at checkout.

Crafting A Character: Portia (Wife of Brutus

Portia (Or Porcia), was the wife of Marcus Brutus. Many ancient writers emphasize her courage, beauty, and devotion to her husband and Rome. Many painters and illustrators have chosen to depict her as a model of courage and grace.

Porcia, as has been said, was a daughter of Cato, and when Brutus, who was her cousin, took her to wife, she was not a virgin; she was, however, still very young, and had by her deceased husband⁠17 a little son whose name was Bibulus. A small book containing memoirs of Brutus was written by him, and is still extant. 4 Porcia, being of an affectionate nature, fond of her husband, and full of sensible pride, did not try to question her husband about his secrets until she had put herself to the following test. 5 She took a little knife, such as barbers use to cut the finger nails, and after banishing all her attendants from her chamber, made a deep gash in her thigh, so that there was a copious flow of blood, and after a little while violent pains and chills and fever followed from the wound. 6 Seeing that Brutus was disturbed and greatly distressed, in the height of her anguish she spoke to him thus: 7 “Brutus, I am Cato’s daughter, and I was brought into thy house, not, like a mere concubine, to share thy bed and board merely, but to be a partner in thy joys, and a partner in thy troubles. 8 Thou, indeed, art faultless as a husband; but how can I show thee any grateful service if I am to share neither thy secret suffering nor the anxiety which craves a loyal confidant? 9 I know that woman’s nature is thought too weak to  p155 endure a secret; but good rearing and excellent companion­ship go far towards strengthening the character, 10 and it is my happy lot to be both the daughter of Cato and the wife of Brutus. Before this I put less confidence in these advantages, but now I know that I am superior even to pain.” 11 Thus having spoken, she showed him her wound and explained her test; whereupon Brutus, amazed, and lifting his hands to heaven, prayed that he might succeed in his undertaking and thus show himself a worthy husband of Porcia. Then he sought to restore his wife. -Plutarch, Life of Brutus

https://portiacatonis.weebly.com

She tried to conceal her distress, but a certain painting betrayed her, in spite of her noble spirit hitherto. 3 Its subject was Greek, — Andromache bidding farewell to Hector; she was taking from his arms their little son, while her eyes were fixed upon her husband. 4 When Porcia saw this, the image of her own sorrow presented by it caused her to burst into tears, and she would visit it many times a day and weep before it. 5 And when Acilius, one of the friends of Brutus, recited the verses containing Andromache’s words to Hector,

“But, Hector, thou to me art father and honoured mother

And brother; my tender husband, too, art thou,”

Brutus smiled and said: 6 “But I, certainly, have no mind to address Porcia in the words of Hector,

‘Ply loom and distaff and give orders to thy maids,’⁠23

for though her body is not strong enough to perform such heroic tasks as men do, still, in spirit she is valiant in defence of her country, just as we are.” This story is told by Porcia’s son, Bibulus.

https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/portia-and-brutus/qQH7qtdFwf6xeA?hl=en&ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.5%2C%22y%22%3A0.2668803418803419%2C%22z%22%3A8%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A2.1891025641025643%2C%22height%22%3A0.6672008547008548%7D%7D

Portia marks a turning point in Shakespeare’s Roman female characters as we we go from more ‘traditional’ female characters, to ones who exemplify masculine virtues. Instead of women being subordinates to men’s affairs and keeping out of religion, politics, and the affairs of Roman society, Portia is a character who demands respect, and to share her husband’s dangers. Some ancient sources suggested possibly Portia might have been the one who inspired Brutus to kill Caesar, (more on that later), but in any case Portia is not a character who is subordinate to men, but who demands to be treated as a Roman citizen.

Playing Portia

Shakespeare’s Fools

Happy April Fool’s Day! Today I’d like to look at the rich history of Shakespeare’s fools and clowns! Clowns are some of Shakespeare’s classic comic characters, but fools are complex characters that entertain, satirize, and even philosophize. They may dress the part, but they are no fools.

This clip from Mel Brooks’ comic masterpiece History of the World, Part I, has the writer/director perform as Comicus, a ‘stand-up philosopher’ from Ancient Rome- a philosopher who is basically a stand-up comic. As you’ll see, unlike clowns, most of Shakespeare’s fools basically fulfill this role- to satirize and make fun of people and institutions.

What Is A Fool?

Fools and clowns are based on medieval minstrels who, as this video from Monty Python’s Terry Jones shows, were itinerant entertainers who had to do a number of jobs including play music, dance, sing, compose poetry, juggle, and on occasion- START A WAR!

Fools Vs. Clowns

A fool is the renaissance version of a minstrel- an official royal entertainer who worked at royal courts. A clown is a comic part in a play. They often danced, sang, and did improv comedy. To illustrate the difference, here’s a short video about the life of Henry VIII’s favorite fool- Will Sommers

Foolish Founding Fathers

All of Shakespeare’s fools and clowns are based on ancient Italian sources-from the Roman comedies of Plautus and Terrence to the improvised comedy known as Commedia Del ‘ Arte

Short featurette documentary on the artform of “Commedia Del’ Arte” by The National Theater in London

Commedia is based on stock character types that Shakespeare adapted and fleshed out- Arlequinno became the constantly hungry Dromio, (among others), while Capitano became Falstaff and Pistol. Even Shylock has remnants of Brighella in his DNA. According to Dario Fo in his book: Manuale Minimodell’Attore, Shakespeare adapted stock characters from commedia to be his clowns, and sarcastic characters called sots, who commented on the action to become his fools (Fo, 107)

Will Kempe- Shakespeare’s First Great Clown

Despite his strength and skill as a dancer, Kempe specialized in playing oafish buffoons like Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing, Falstaff in the Henry IV plays, and Peter in Romeo and Juliet. In the Second Quarto edition of Romeo and Juliet, you can see in the stage directions “Enter Will Kempe,” right before Peter speaks:

According to Will In the World by Steven Greenblatt, Kempe and Shakespeare had a falling out in the late 1590s, which many scholars have assumed might have been due to Shakespeare’s distaste for clowns wasting time with jokes that bogged down the play:

Hamlet:
Let those that play your
clowns speak no more than is set down for them. For there
be of them will themselves laugh, to set on some
quantity of barren spectators to laugh too. Though in the
meantime, some necessary question of the play be then
to be considered. That's villainous, and shows a most pitiful
ambition in the fool that uses it. Hamlet, Act III, Scene ii.

Kempe, for his part, seemed a little big for his britches; he and his fellow clowns seemed to think that Shakespeare's scripts were just vehicles for his own jokes and songs (Reynolds, 247). He then sold his share in the Chamberlain's Men, derriding them in print as "My notable Shake-rags," and then staged a publicity stunt where he danced across England!

1600-1613: The Golden Age Of Foolery

Kempe’s replacement was Robert Armin, an accomplished writer and singer, who specialized in playing satirical Fool roles. Armin appeared in several Shakespearean plays after 1599.

Unlike Kempe, Armin’s characters are essential to the plot of the play, and his jokes support the themes and ideas of the plays themselves. As Feste in Twelfth Night, Armin makes jokes that make fun of the overly-serious Orsino and Countess Olivia:

Feste. Good madonna, why mournest thou?
Olivia. Good fool, for my brother's death.
Feste. I think his soul is in hell, madonna.
Olivia. I know his soul is in heaven, fool.
Feste. The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother's
soul being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen. Twelfth Night, Act I, Scene v.
Touchstone in “As You Like It”

Sometimes Armin’s characters are satirical mirrors of Elizabethan society; in As You Like It, Touchstone the Fool mocks the culture of dueling; implying that there are hundreds of loopholes that a gentleman may use to challenge a man to a duel, without actually fighting.

  • Touchstone I did dislike the cut of a certain
    courtier’s beard; he sent me word, if I said his beard was not
    cut well, he was in the mind it was. This is call’d the Retort
    Courteous. If I sent him word again it was not well cut, he would
    send me word he cut it to please himself. This is call’d the Quip
    Modest. If again it was not well cut, he disabled my judgment.
    This is call’d the Reply Churlish. If again it was not well cut,
    he would answer I spake not true. This is call’d the Reproof
    Valiant. If again it was not well cut, he would say I lie. This
    is call’d the Countercheck Quarrelsome. And so to the Lie
    Circumstantial and the Lie Direct.
  • Jaques (lord)And how oft did you say his beard was not well cut?
  • TouchstoneI durst go no further than the Lie Circumstantial, nor
    he durst not give me the Lie Direct; and so we measur’d swords
    and parted.

The Fool in “King Lear”

Perhaps Armin’s greatest comic creation was The Fool in King Lear; the ultimate satirist who makes fun of the king’s foolish choices. He tries to talk sense to the increasingly mad king, until he vanishes entirely, and Lear himself starts making fool-like cracks at the audience:

Lear Thou hast seen a
farmer's dog bark at a beggar?
Earl of Gloucester. Ay, sir.
Lear. And the creature run from the cur? There thou mightst behold
the great image of authority: a dog's obeyed in office.
The usurer hangs the cozener.
Through tatter'd clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furr'd gowns hide all. Plate sin with gold,
And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pygmy's straw does pierce it.
None does offend, none- I say none! Get thee glass eyes
And, like a scurvy politician, seem
To see the things thou dost not. King Lear, Act IV, Scene vi.

Through realizing his own foolishness, Lear recovers his sanity, and makes peace with his daughter, which beautifully shows the importance of fools, clowns, and satirists; to question ourselves, to sharpen our critical thinking, and to endure hardships with good humor. Therefore on this April Fools Day, I say,

“Here’s to the fools, to folly, to farce. Let them push the wealthy on the ar— APRIL FOOLS!”

References

Best, Michael. “Shakespeare’s Actors: Will Kempe” Internet Shakespeare Editions, University of Victoria, 28 Sept. 2016, ise.uvic.ca/Foyer/citing. Accessed 30 Sept. 2023.

Fo, Dario. Manuale Minimodell’Attore (English: “The Tricks Of the Trade” Translated by Joe Farrell, 1991. Accessed online at Google Books: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Tricks_of_the_Trade/akEJ9Ew9GaoC?hl=en&gbpv=1. 29 March. 2023.

For more tomfoolery

I teach a class specifically on Shakespeare’s comedies where I’ll talk a lot about the way Shakespeare writes clowns. I’ll also delve into the history of Commedia Del’Arte and how it influenced Shakespeare’s characters! For more information, visit http://www.outschool.com

Shakespearean Couples Tier List

Since it’s still the month of love, I thought I’d rank Shakespearean couples and see if the allegation is true that Shakespeare has no good married couples. Naturally, this is my opinion, but I will try to back my opinions up with quotations and moments from the plots. Let me know what you think!

S Tier- the Super Couples

My criteria for the best couples in Shakespeare are this:

  1. Trust
  2. Mutual respect and affection
  3. Devotion, or as Shakespeare puts it “Love is not love, which alters when it alteration finds.”

A Tier- the ones who Passed the Test

Couples in this tier all tried and failed at first- Orsino spent years mooning over Olivia not able to see how wonderful Viola is. Lysander drops Hermia for Helena, (but to be fair, that was Puck’s fault, not his). At the end though, all these lovers reconcile and are better people for their trials and tribulations.

B Tier- Affection, but no devotion

Couples in B-tier are passionate and willing to break rules, laws, and sometimes necks for their loves. However, as Friar Laurence says “These violent delights have violent ends.” Every couple in B-tier ultimately fails to create a lasting relationship.

C Tier- The ones hanging by a thread

All the C-couples have some very toxic traits. Claudius hates Gertrude’s son and murdered his own brother, so his relationship with his wife/ sister-in-law is ultimately doomed. Hamlet has little to no respect for Ophelia and flies into mysygenistic rage at the slightest provocation. Even Demetrius, who is magically compelled to love Helena forever, has a history of loving women, and then abandoning them. Who’s to say he won’t get hit by the arrow again, and throw Helena off?

D Tier- Actively ABusive/ A Relationship Based on lies

I truly despise Taming Of the Shrew, or as I like to call it, Stockholm Syndrome: The Play. The men in D-tier (and Phoebe in the case of As You Like It) are controlling, abusive, cruel, and pathological liars. They don’t want a partner, so much as a toy to beat around when they feel like it.

Special Mention- Cordelia and the King of France from “King Lear”

These guys might be low key the best couple in Shakespeare. The King of France marries Cordelia and comes to her defense after her father disowns her and humiliates him. Based on this, you can tell he doesn’t care about her title or her dowry (“Thy truth then be thy dower. Thou hast her France, let her be thine, for we have no such daughter.”

Not only that, France goes with Cordelia and lends her an army to recapture England for Lear! Clearly this guy loves Cordelia and is ride or die on making her happy.

Special Mention- Antony and Cleopatra

I know they are an iconic couple, but I think Antony and Cleopatra are a very toxic pair. When I first read the play, I hated Cleopatra for leading Antony on and mocking and teasing him every chance she got. Now I hate Antony for his selfishness. Cleopatra is trying to save her sons, her kingdom, and her family’s legacy and he is throwing away everything just to appease his own ego. He also shames Cleopatra for her promiscuity, which is extremely hypocritical coming from him. This couple is clearly in need of MASSIVE counseling, and I pity poor Enobarbus and Charmian for getting caught in their drama.

I hope you enjoyed this tier list. One pattern I noticed in all these plays is that every couple in Shakespeare is tested, whether through magic, deceit, long journeys, or just jealousy. Shakespeare does a good job of showing how young love is beautiful and exciting, but real love is based on respect and the will to choose your partner in spite of obstacles.

‘Frankenstein’ and Shakespeare

Benedick Cumberbatch morphing between Richard III and the Frankenstein monster.

With awards season in full swing, there has been a lot of controversy over two stories that Shakespeare had a great influence over- Hamnet, based on the novel of the same name, and Guillermo Del Toro’s adaptation of Frankenstein. Despite getting five golden globe nominations, Frankenstein went home with a hand emptier than the monster floating off on an iceberg. Meanwhile, Hamnet took the best actress and best picture award, and is poised for an Oscar nomination.

I’ll review Hamnet at a later date. What I want to do now is discuss the influence Shakespeare and other Renaissance writers had on the classic 1818 novel, and how well Del Toro hints at the story’s Renaissance roots.I would argue that, although rooted in the 10th century Romantic world, Frankenstein has many Shakespearean and Early Modern influences, notably Dr Faustus by Christopher Marlowe,  and The Tempest by Shakespeare

In 1818, a young woman named Mary Wolstonecraft, heard from her friend, a Swiss doctor, about a prominent experiment called galvanism and was faced with the terrifying prospect that man might someday be able to resurrect the dead, (a feat that had only successfully been done by God). When Mary Shelley wrote the novel Frankenstein she redefined the Faustus story and made it about Man not taking responsibility for the consequences of his actions, and also a warning to progress for its own sake without compassion without reason without wisdom. As we shall see, Shelly was a trailblazer in turning the Faustian wizard into the mad scientist.

The Morality Tale

Faustus is one of the oldest and most quintessential German stories it is a morality tale medieval in its origins it also is loosely based on a real person a real scholar named Doctor John foustis and this story was influential on forming German cultural identity and the story itself has inspired countless authors some German and some merely influenced by German culture and it’s very interesting to trace the way that it’s being used And how the the trope of the Faustian bargain has influenced Germany America and and England other Anglo sects and countries so the story of Faustus is Medieval in origin but he became extremely popular when English playwright Christopher Marlowe Shakespeare’s contemporary and rival wrote it down in his play of Dr. Faustus

What’s interesting about this interpretation is that you could easily see it as Faustus Rejects from the beginning the notion of divine grace he believes that he cannot that he is either unwilling or unable to believe that he is beloved by God and therefore he turns to satanic poworse it’s somewhat ambiguous why he does this one possible interpretation is that Faustus might actually be a that faustis like Marlow might be a possible gay man and is convinced that he is an abomination under the Lord and therefore he might as well indulge in satanic activities.

Whatever the reason the play does a great job of showing the struggle of Faustus as he is presented several times with the chance to repent, and actively refuses it every single time. 

“Tutors Not So Careful”

In Marlow’s version, Faustus studies at the University of vittenburg in Germany, whicb also boasts other notable allumni- Prince Hamlet which Shakespeare would later write in his own play Hamlet Prince of Denmark. The prince broods over whether the creature he has seen return from the dead is actually a devil, sent to destroy him.

Shelley admits that a lot of her as a source for that her sources for Shakespeare her sources for Frankenstein included Shakespeare in The Tempest. Though Doctor Frankenstein his book is not a is Swiss not German he is educated at the University of english stat in Germany where he learns organic chemistry and acquires the ambition to do with the alchemists and conjurors of faustis day failed to do namely create the elixir of life.

“Graves, at my command, Hath waked their sleepers”

One big trope in Frankenstein is the danger of man crossing over into God’s domain- that from the beginning of time there has been a knowledge that God deliberately kept from humankind. In Frankenstein, this takes the form of scientific knowledge, but in Shakespeare, it is magic. In Macbeth, the title character is tempted by witches to know his destiny and is punished severely for it. Remember that when Shakespeare wrote the play, King James presided over hundreds of witch hunts and wrote a book on how to identify witches.

In The Tempest, Shakespeare gives us a more ambiguous look at magic where the magician Prospero has the power to create storms, conjure up spirits, and like Frankenstein, raise the dead:

 I have bedimm'd
The noontide sun, call'd forth the mutinous winds,
And 'twixt the green sea and the azured vault
Set roaring war: to the dread rattling thunder2065
Have I given fire and rifted Jove's stout oak
With his own bolt; the strong-based promontory
Have I made shake and by the spurs pluck'd up
The pine and cedar: graves at my command
Have waked their sleepers, oped, and let 'em forth
By my so potent art. The Tempest, Act V, Scene i.

Even though Prospero is the protagonist and he faces no consequences for his magic, for some reason he chooses to abandon it. It’s almost as if Shakespeare was anticipating Frankenstein by having a proto mad scientist character give up his art before it is too late:

 But this rough magic
I here abjure, and, when I have required
Some heavenly music, which even now I do,
To work mine end upon their senses that
This airy charm is for, I'll break my staff,2075
Bury it certain fathoms in the earth,
And deeper than did ever plummet sound
I'll drown my book.
Prospero, Act V, Scene i.

“This thing of Darkness”

“You taught me language, and my profit in’t is I know how to curse!”

“Cursed, cursed creator! Why did I live? Why, in that instant, did I not extinguish the spark of existence which you had so wantonly bestowed? I know not; despair had not yet taken possession of me; my feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitants and have glutted myself with their shrieks and misery.

Shelly, Chapter 16

If you’ve never read the book Frankenstein, you might be surprised to learn that unlike Boris Karloff’s grunting silent monster, in the novel the Monster is actually intelligent and well-spoken. One thing I enjoyed about Guillermo Del Toro’s version is that the Monster gets time to tell his tale. As we in the audience get to know him, the notion of who is the true Monster and who is truly human becomes as murky as the subterranean lair the doctor chains his creation within. He engages in intellectual debates with his creator and demands to know why Frankenstein chose to abandon him.

My abhorrence of this fiend cannot be conceived. When I thought of him I gnashed my teeth, my eyes became inflamed, and I ardently wished to extinguish that life which I had so thoughtlessly bestowed. When I reflected on his crimes and malice, my hatred and revenge burst all bounds of moderation.

Shelly, Chapter 9