Skip to main content

Shakespeare’s Strange Conventionality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Staged Normality in Shakespeare's England

Part of the book series: Palgrave Shakespeare Studies ((PASHST))

  • 352 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores how Shakespeare’s plays facilitate engagement by exploiting the audience’s reliance on stage conventions. It proposes that like mimesis, conventions pertaining to genre, the stage’s representative capacity, or the players’ ontological status are manipulated by the dramatist to valuable ends. Plays like Richard III, Cymbeline, and 2 Henry IV introduce ghosts and ‘dead’ bodies, then generate suspense, surprise, or disorientation by undercutting the conventions relied on for the representations. Elsewhere, the non-theatrical identities of a production’s constituent parts reassert themselves to confront spectators with problems similar to those encountered by the fictional characters; or else the plays restrict their elements’ capacities to function mimetically, our resulting awareness of the ‘real’ ontologies and uses of bodies, props, or the stage then disrupting the illusion in ways that simultaneously work to enrich it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Works Cited

  • Barish, Jonas. 1991. “Soft, Here Follows Prose”: Shakespeare’s Stage Documents. In The Arts of Performance in Elizabethan and Early Stuart Drama, ed. Murray Biggs, et al. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas, F.S. 1908. Shakespeare and His Predecessors. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craik, T.W. 1979. ‘I Know When One Is Dead and When One Lives’. Annual Shakespeare Lecture 1979. In The Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. lxv. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cressy, David. 1997. Birth, Marriage and Death: Ritual, Religion and Life Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Danson, Lawrence. 2000. Shakespeare’s Dramatic Genres. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dessen, Alan C. 1975. Two Falls and a Trap. English Literary Renaissance 5: 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dessen, Alan C., and Leslie Thompson. 1999. A Dictionary of Stage Directions in English Drama, 1580–1642. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drakakis, John. 2013. Shakespeare Against Genre. Pólemos 7 (1): 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foakes, R.A. 2005. “Armed at Point Exactly”: The Ghost in Hamlet. Shakespeare Survey 58: 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa, Brett. 2012. Letting Unpleasantness Lie: Counter-Intuition and Character in The Merchant of Venice. In Shakespeare’s Sense of Character—On the Page and From the Stage, ed. Yu Jin Ko and Michael Shurgot. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa, Brett. 2013. “Is’t Real That I See?”: Staged Realism and the Paradox of Shakespeare’s Audience. Shakespeare Bulletin 31 (4): 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamboa, Brett. 2018. Shakespeare’s Double Plays: Dramatic Economy on the Early Modern Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenblatt, Stephen. 2001. Hamlet in Purgatory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackel, Heidi Brayman. 2005. Reading Material in Early Modern England: Print, Gender, and Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, Jonathan Gil, and Natasha Korda. 2002. Staged Properties in Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, Rosalind, and Peter Stallbrass. 2000. Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kott, Jan. 1964. Shakespeare Our Contemporary. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matchett, William. 1979. Some Dramatic Techniques in King Lear. In Shakespeare and the Theatrical Dimension, ed. Philip C. McGuire and David A. Samuelson. New York: AMS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Chloe. 2014. Making and Unmaking in Early Modern English Drama: Spectators, Aesthetics, and Incompletion. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocklin, Edward L. 2000. Measured Endings: How Productions from 1720 to 1929 Close Shakespeare’s Open Silences in Measure for Measure. Shakespeare Survey 53: 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Marvin. 1978. The Masks of Macbeth. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, William. 1997. King Lear, Arden Third Series, ed. R.A. Foakes. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakespeare, William. 2016. The Norton Shakespeare, 3rd ed., ed. Stephen Greenblatt, et al. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, Susan. 2005. The Early Modern Corpse and Shakespeare’s Theatre. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gamboa, B. (2019). Shakespeare’s Strange Conventionality. In: Loughnane, R., Semple, E. (eds) Staged Normality in Shakespeare's England. Palgrave Shakespeare Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00892-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics