A Midsummer Night's Dream

1128 Words3 Pages

Love, before we can talk about it we must define it; then we can dissect it and reference it. Love is defined in the dictionary as an intense feeling of deep affection. Throughout several of Shakespeare’s plays he speaks about love. It is a common theme throughout Shakespeare’s plays, both comedies and tragedies, and we can see that Shakespeare is infatuated with love. Shakespeare and I, though poles apart, raised in different times, places, and even of different genders have one thing in common; we both seem to be hopeless romantics. In Shakespeare’s plays love seems like a very obtainable reality, love conquers all if you believe in it and fight for it. This seems to go against societal structure in a time where marriages were arranged by parents for financial support. Shakespeare, however, wrote about couples who choose each other and love in preference to money and social status. They prove their love through crazy antics and tender loving words.

In A Midsummer Nights Dream right from the begining we see the romance and drama unfold with the characters Lysander and Hermia, both madly in love but both threatened during the pursuit of their love. Hermia is told by her father not to marry Lysander but to marry Demetrius instead a man she has no interest in. Lysander tells his paramour, “Ay me, for aught that I could ever read, Could ever hear by tale or history, the course of true love never did run smooth: But either it was different in blood” ("Complete Pelican Shakespeare " 260) Lysander tells his love that true love is never easy, and in all good love stories the lovers must battle for their love to achieve its rewards. This is common in love even today. Fathers disapprove of certain men that court their daugh...

... middle of paper ...

... skillful argumentation. Even though she knows that he is responsible for the death of her first husband, she marries Richard III none the less. Richard III displays useful qualities. He is brilliant, clever, and charismatic. Yet, he uses them for killing and evil. Richard III is far from the ideal king and strays from any kind moral conduct.

I believe that Shakespeare would have choose King Richard II as the better king, because he was naïve. Being naïve is not good quality, however, compared to the alternative of the ruthless King Richard III, whose maniacal brilliance, and sadism is extremely dangerous, it is the preferable choice. Out of the two choices, King Richard II is the wiser and less threatening choice. I believe that King Richard II, if surrounded by the right advisors, could be convinced into making the better choices for England and its people.

Open Document