SHAKESPEARE IN THE POSTMODERN

WORLD: A STUDY OF SELECTED

POSTMODERN PLAYS

2023
PhD THESIS
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

Mohammed Hameed Majeed MAJEED

Thesis Advisor
Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK
SHAKESPEARE IN THE POSTMODERN WORLD:
A STUDY OF SELECTED POSTMODERN PLAYS

Mohammed Hameed Majeed MAJEED

Thesis Advisor
Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK

T.C
Karabuk University
Institute of Graduate Programs
Department of English Language and Literature
Prepared as
PhD Thesis

KARABUK
October 2023
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 1

THESIS APPROVAL PAGE ....................................................................................... 2
DECLARATION .......................................................................................................... 3
FOREWORD ................................................................................................................ 4
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 5
ÖZ ................................................................................................................................. 6
ARCHIVE RECORD INFORMATION .................................................................... 7
ARŞİV KAYIT BİLGİLERİ........................................................................................ 8
SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................... 9
PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH ........................................ 9
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH ............................................................................... 9
HYPOTHESIS OF THE RESEARCH / RESEARCH PROBLEM......................... 9
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS / DIFFICULTIES ................................................... 10
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 11
2. STRENGTHENING MARGINALIZED MINOR SHAKESPEAREAN
CHARACTERS IN STOPPARD’S VERSION OF HAMLET ........................ 39
3. STRENGTHENING RACIALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY MARGINALIZED
SHAKESPEAREAN CHARACTER IN WESKER’S VERSION OF THE
MERCHANT OF VINCE ..................................................................................... 61
4. STRENGTHENING MARGINALIZED SHAKESPEAREAN FEMALE
CHARACTERS IN MACDONALD’S VERSION OF OTHELLO AND
ROMEO AND JULIET ........................................................................................ 83
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 107
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................... 113
CURRICULUM VITAE........................................................................................... 122

1
 THESIS APPROVAL PAGE

I certify that in my opinion the thesis submitted by Mohammed Hameed Majeed

MAJEED titled “SHAKESPEARE IN THE POSTMODERN WORLD: A STUDY OF
SELECTED POSTMODERN PLAYS” is fully adequate in scope and in quality as a
thesis for the degree of PhD.

Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK ..........................

Thesis Advisor, Department of English Language and Literature

This thesis is accepted by the examining committee with a unanimous vote in the
Department of English Language and Literature as a PhD thesis. October 25 2023

Examining Committee Members (Institutions) Signature

Chairman : Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK (KBU) ..........................

Member : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Harith TURKI (KBU) ..........................

Member : Prof. Dr. Sinan YILMAZ (KBU) ..........................

Member : Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Zafer AYAR (KTU) ..........................

Member : Assist. Prof. Dr. Turan Özgür GÜNGÖR (KAU) ..........................

The degree of PhD by the thesis submitted is approved by the Administrative Board of
the Institute of Graduate Programs, Karabuk University.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Zeynep ÖZCAN ..........................

Director of the Institute of Graduate Programs

2
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own work and all
information included has been obtained and expounded in accordance with the
academic rules and ethical policy specified by the institute. Besides, I declare that all
the statements, results, materials, not original to this thesis have been cited and
referenced literally.

Without being bound by a particular time, I accept all moral and legal
consequences of any detection contrary to the aforementioned statement.

Name Surname: Mohammed MAJEED

Signature :

3
 FOREWORD

I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness and render my warmest thanks to

my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK, who made this work possible. His
friendly guidance and expert advice have been invaluable throughtout all stages of the
work.

I would also wish to express my gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Harith Ismail
TURKI for suggesting the title of this dissertation and valuable feedback which have
contributed greatly to the improvement of the work and many thanks also goes to
Assist. Prof. Dr. Nayef JOMAA for proofreading.

To Asst. Prof. Peter Jonathan Starr, from Istanbul Technical University, I

express my thanks and gratitude. He helped me a lot in various ways: reading the
manuscript, giving feedback and providing notes concerning the language of the
dissertation.

In memory of Prof. Dr. Najdat Kadim Moosa, who deserves my thanks and
gratitude for igniting my ideas about the topic of the study and providing me with
helpful sources which are used in this study.

I am grateful to all of those with whom I have had the plueasure to work during
this study. Each of the members of my Dissertation Committee has provided me
extensive professional guidance and taught me a great deal about literary reseach.

Finally, nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this study than
the members of my family. I would like to thank my parents, whose prayer, love and
guidance are with me in whatever I pursue. They are the ultimate role models. Most
importantly, I wish to thank my loving and supportive wife, Nooran, and my two
wonderful sons Ezel and Emirhan who suffered a lot during the years of study. In front
of their limitless patience and sacrifice I stand mute. I only tell them the large part of
this work is theirs and they deserve it.

4
 ABSTRACT

As long as the canonical works of Shakespeare are in the mainstream, there are
and will be numerous and continuous adaptations of his plays. Such extensive history
of adaptations of Shakespeare’s plays reflects various cultures and social movements
throughout the time. Accordingly, he was often referred to as the Bard and revered in
British society as a great genius. By applying adaptation theory, this study shows that
the postmodern playwrights have reinterpreted Bard’s plays to make them suitable for
the postmodern audience by highlighting their social problems. In addition, by
adapting Shakespeare’s plays, the postmodern playwrights attempt to strengthen the
marginalized Shakespearean characters to fit into the postmodern world. Thus, the
present study analyzes adaptations of the Bard in the Western world, Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern Are Dead (1966) by Tom Stoppard, The Merchant (1976) by Arnold
Wesker, and Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) (1988) by Ann-Marie
MacDonald concerning the cultural and social context of the times in which they were
written. Accordingly, it has been stated that adaptations have a vital role in producing
concepts that are different from how crucial problems are addressed in classical works
and their ideological bases.

Keywords: Postmodernism, William Shakespeare, marginalization, Tom Stoppard,

Marie MacDonald, adaptation

5
 ÖZ

Shakespeare’in kanonik eserleri ana akımda olduğu sürece, oyunlarının sayısız

ve sürekli adaptasyon olacaktır. Shakespeare’in oyunlarının böylesine kapsamlı ve
tarihi bir şekilde adaptasyon olması, zaman içindeki çeşitli kültürleri ve sosyal
hareketleri yansıtır. Buna göre, ‘the Bard’ olarak anıldı ve İngiliz toplumunda büyük
bir dahi olarak saygı gördü. Bu çalışmadaki temel amaç, postmodern oyun
yazarlarının, marjinalize edilmiş Shakespeare karakterlerini güçlendirmek için bazı
bağlam sorunları ışığında Bard’ın oyunlarını yeniden yorumlamalarıdır. Bu nedenle,
bu çalışma Bard’ın Batı dünyasındaki adaptasiyon olan oyunları, Tom Stoppard’ın
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966), Arnold Wesker’in The Merchant
(1976) ve Ann-Marie MacDonald’nin Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)
(1988), yazıldıkları zamanların kültürel ve sosyal bağlamıyla ilgili olarak analize
etmektedir. Buna göre adaptasyon’un, klasik eserlerdeki can alıcı sorunların ele alınma
biçimlerinden ve ideolojik temellerinden farklı kavramlar üretmede hayati bir rolü
olduğu iddia edilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Postmodernizm, William Shakespeare, marjinalleştirme, Tom

Stoppard, Marie MacDonald, adaptasyon

6
 ARCHIVE RECORD INFORMATION

Title of the Thesis Shakespeare in the Postmodern World: A Study of Selected

Postmodern Plays
Author of the Thesis Mohammed Hameed Majeed MAJEED
Advisor of the Thesis Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK
Status of the Thesis Ph.D.
Date of the Thesis 10/25/2023
Field of the Thesis English Language and Literarure
Place of the Thesis UNIKA/IGP
Total Page Number 122
Keywords Postmodernism, William Shakespeare, marginalization, Tom
Stoppard, Marie MacDonald, adaptation

7
 ARŞİV KAYIT BİLGİLERİ

Tezin Adı Postmodern Dünyada Shakespeare: Seçilmiş Postmodern

Oyunlar Üzerine Bir Çalışma
Tezin Yazarı Mohammed Hameed Majeed MAJEED
Tezin Danışmanı Prof. Dr. Abdul Serdar ÖZTÜRK
Tezin Derecesi Doktora
Tezin Tarihi 10/25/2023
Tezin Alanı Ingiliz Dili ve Edebiyati
Tezin Yeri KBU/LEE
Tezin Sayfa Sayısı 122
Anahtar Kelimeler Postmodernizm, William Shakespeare, marjinalleştirme,
Tom Stoppard, Marie MacDonald, adaptasyon

8
 SUBJECT OF THE RESEARCH

The study discusses the adaptation of Shakespeare’s marginalized characters in

postmodern selected plays concerning their cultural and social period, including
existentialist, racist and feminist ideologies.

PURPOSE AND IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH

The main significance of this study is to show and demonstrate the changes that
have been made and brought about and the essential aims behind them in three post-
modern plays: Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966),
Arnold Wesker’s The Merchant (1976) and Ann-Marie MacDonald Goodnight
Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) (1988) from the post-modernist standpoint by
concentrating on the selected playwrights’ deconstruction of traditional views of the
time. To address the objectives of the study, the researcher applied Adaptation as a
Post-Modernist theory.

METHOD OF THE RESEARCH

Adaptation principles as postmodern practices are defined and illustrated with

the support of encyclopedic and archival works through a literature review. The belief
that adaptation has a major purpose in terms of constructing different ideas is
discussed as well. In addition, Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are
Dead , Arnold Wesker’s The Merchant and Ann-Marie MacDonald Goodnight
Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) are investigated by referring to the reinterpretation
through text analysis in relation to social and cultural aspects.

HYPOTHESIS OF THE RESEARCH / RESEARCH PROBLEM

The current study applied a postmodern theory as its approach. In this study,
two main hypotheses were taken into consideration. First, how the selected
postmodern playwrights deconstruct the traditional beliefs concerning Shakespeare’s
works. Second, what changes the playwrights do to address the problems of their
context and the reason(s) behind these changes.

9
 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS / DIFFICULTIES

Studying Shakespearean adaptations has developed into a substantial topic of

history throughout the decades. The examination of adaptive methods has shown that it
entirely deserves academic consideration within the theatre. Nonetheless, it is hard to
miss the shortage of knowledge and theoretical work on adaptations. Thus, this study
examined Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, Arnold Wesker’s
The Merchant and Ann-Marie MacDonald Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning
Juliet) from the viewpoint of adaptation by focusing on the deconstruction of the
canonical works and how the postmodern playwrights reintroduce Bard’s plays in the
light of some context problems to strengthen marginalized Shakespearean characters.

10
 1. INTRODUCTION

No man is an island,
entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent,
a part of the main (John Donne, 1996, para. 3).

By quoting John Donne’s most famous line, one can easily say that for
postmodern playwrights, no text is an island. Throughout the history of literature,
postmodern playwrights have proved themselves to be the cleverest borrowers when it
comes to writing plays. In the postmodern era, Shakespeare’s (the Bard) plays have
been the subject of people’s focus in drama, including scholars, directors, and
dramatists. Hence, the outcome of this focus can be observed in the renascence of
some of those plays. Nevertheless, this method of revival has not been, in all matters, a
reworking of those plays, even though this occurred frequently. Thus, in many cases,
some amendments were brought to re-form the plays to make them suitable for the
situation of the society in which the plays were presented. It is worth mentioning that
adaptation started in the Restoration and eighteenth century and since then has been
going on. The process of adaptation till the twentieth century was usually executed in
Britain. Some adaptations were accomplished in Europe and America in the 18th and
19th centuries. However, in the twentieth century, this phenomenon has been turned
into a world-wide practice. The most compelling evidence can be found in Bahum
Tate’s “audacious” adaptation of King Lear with its pleasing end; however, Tate was
the only one of the playwrights who rewrote Bard’s works. Over fifty adaptations on
stage and in print appeared around 1660 in which dramatists supplemented,
considerably cut, or rewrote original plays in significant and different ways. Moreover,
new scenes, characters, ending, and words with what the plays included had been
staged (Thomas, 1997, p. 321).

Umberto in his book points out “…books always speak of other books, and
every story tells a story that has already been told” (1984, p. 20). This implies that
literature is characterized by its repetition and interactive aspect, in which writings are
constantly impacted by one another. Adaptation refers to the act of dealing with the
same or comparable problems that were first raised by previous writings and then dealt
with in new work. When it comes to writing, one typical phenomenon among authors
is the urge to reintroduce a piece of artwork, which is to reproduce what is already an

11
existing literary work while also dealing with old subjects and problems at
another time. “Palimpsests”, as defined by Gerard Genette, are a newer and recent text
that may illuminate an older one by shining between the lines (1992, p. 40). In the
same way, adaptation is described as “rescrittura” which means just a story constructed
on previously popularized by earlier writers, in which old tales are reinterpreted in a
new narrative form (Renato, 1989, p. 13). In other words, adaptation is the literary
method of creating new pieces of artwork by relying on previously published work. By
re-evaluating and altering the problems raised by earlier texts into newer literary
writing styles via adaptation, distinct and new literary styles are produced as a
consequence of this imitative element of literary creation.

Landa Hutcheon argues that adaptation is the portrayal of a work in an intra- or

intercultural context in the same or a different context via “a twofold process” that is
both “receptive and creative” (1942, p. 20). According to the Oxford English
Dictionary, the etymology source of the term “adapt” is adapter, which literally
translates as to get it to fit or to alter to fit a new use. Stories develop and transform to
suit new eras and “different paces” (Landa, 1942, p. 50). It is pointed out by Genette,
who writes that adaptation is the portrayal of a work not just “in another media, such
as when a play is converted to a ballet”, but also “within the same medium, as when a
drama adapts another drama” (1997, p. 20). The theorist Linda Hutcheon believes that
adaptation is both a “creative” and a “receptive” practice (2014, p. 50), with readers
identifying and enjoying adaptations much more as a result of what Thomas Leitch
defines as a “constant shifting back and forth between their experience of a new story
and their memory of its progenitors” (2008, p. 74).

In fact, studying Shakespearean adaptations has developed into a substantial

topic of history throughout the decades. The examination of adaptive methods has
shown that it entirely deserves academic consideration within theatre. Nonetheless, it
is hard to miss the shortage of knowledge and theoretical work on adaptations. The
Theorists Fischlin and Fortier, who are experts in the field of adaptations, believe that
adaptation works are a “marginalised and under theorized activity” (2010, p. 5). There
seems to be little agreement on how to define adaptation. Certain critics have tried to
understand and characterize theatrical reactions to the Bard, coining new descriptive
ideas. Nevertheless, it seems as if there is no universally applicable and practical
definition. In her study, Ruby Cohn attempted to summarize the various designations

12
in her theoretical work on theatrical reactions to Shakespeare, as she claims “rewriting
of Shakespeare is known by an array of names –abridgments, emendations, distortions,
adaptations, ameliorations, additions, alterations, versions, modifications
amplifications, conversions, interpolations, augmentations, mutilations, revisions,
transformations, metamorphoses” (2015, p. 3). Similarly, Julie Sanders indicates
“mobility is an aspect of the study and terminology of adaptation” (2016, p. 20). In
propping up this claim, she cites Adrian Poole’s following list which seeks to describe
the interest of Victorian age in reintroducing the artistic past: “borrowing, stealing,
appropriating, inheriting, assimilating; being influenced, inspired, dependent, indebted,
haunted, possessed; homage, mimicry, travesty, echo, allusion, and intertextuality”
(2004, p. 2). In another study, Sanders offers additional suggestions of her own
relating this practice “we could continue the linguistic riff, adding into mix: variation,
version, interpretation, imitation, proximation, supplement, increment, improvisation,
prequel, continuation, addition, paratext, hypertext, palimpsest, graft, rewriting,
reworking, refashioning, re-vision, re-evaluation” (2016, p. 4). Consequently, the
terms presented by Ruby Cohn, Adrian Poole, and Julie Sanders indicate a similar
connection between these texts, as the significance and worth of the first text can be
found in the second and the third one similarly. In using these terms together with
adaptation, it is worth mentioning that these diverse ranges of terms are used to refer to
the adaptation theory as they all reflect their own unique interpretations of the original
material, indicating the range of possible interpretations that the author himself had.
However, Ruby Cohn rejects these terms and chooses to employ the word “offshoot”
(2015, p. 4). In addition, she identifies three “offshoot” classifications based on the
adaptive practice they use. The first one consists of dramatic reactions that alter
Shakespeare’s texts by decreasing or changing certain sentences or phrases. The
second one includes works that deviate significantly from the source text yet it
includes a significant number of cuts, adds, and modifications. The last one is
characterized by inventiveness and covers all changes as well as other transformations.
It is the playwright’s responsibility to transform the source work by introducing new
figures, events, actions and even change the narrative, or come up with a completely
different conclusion. To employ Cohn’s phrase, the plays that are minimally related to
their original works are represented by this final type of “offshoots”.

13
 Regardless of these less well-known phrases, the word “adaptation” has been
used to depict the practice of transformation, appropriation, regenerating, and all of
which have a significant impact on shaping the content (Sanders, 2016, p. 158). These
phrases are often used interchangeably, but it is vital to note the places at which they
overlap and diverge. The term adaptation is described generally as “... best understood
for the purposes of this... transposing a previous work of literature, drama, or movie
into a new setting” (Lane, 2011, p. 157). Under this respect, adaptation is a more
general term that encompasses alterations inside any form or medium. According to
Linda Hutcheon, adaptation is a comprehensive word that encompasses all forms of
textual and literary reassessment within and beyond genres:

an adaptation is an announced and extensive transposition of a particular work or works.

This ‘transcoding’ can involve a shift of medium (a poem to a film) or genre (an epic to a
novel), or a change of frame and therefore context: telling the same story from a different
point of view, for instance, can create a manifestly different interpretation. Transposition
can also mean a shift in ontology from the real to the fictional, from a historical account or
biography to a fictionalized narrative or drama (2014, p. 7).

As stated by Hutcheon, the term “adaptation” encompasses any sort of transformation,

regardless of whether it occurs across a literary style or through the same literary style.
Regarding the approach of adaptation in her statement on transcoding, adaptation
includes the rewritten texts as is fully explained in her subsequent response in the same
study: “when there is a shift in the context, remakes are almost always adaptations of
the original” (2014, p. 169).

In their study, Fischlin and Fortier describe, in their book on anthology,

adaptation as a general term that encompasses a broad variety of varied theatrical
reactions (2010, p. 11). It is, without a doubt, the most often used phrase to define
theatrical reworking today. According to Hutcheon, adaptation is an extensive,
thoughtful, and publicized revisiting of a particular artwork (2014, p. 130). Because of
the absence of a precise definition, it has become harder to identify whether a
particular work is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s play or not. Lynn Bradley argues
about the ambiguity of the word “adaptation” and attempts to define it more precisely.
She asserts that Shakespeare's adaptation is the term that is used to indicate specific
plays in which the writer’s job is to make an obvious link to the Shakespearean works.
This connection could be in aspects of the language, plot, title, problems, or figures
and it encourages the audience by asking them to make comparisons between the
adaptation works and memories of the original work. The direct lineage that can be

14
traced back to Shakespeare provides the conceptual groundwork for this definition
(2008, p. 5). For instance, Bradley accentuates the value of direct references and brings
awareness to the rewriter’s true purpose. While this explanation is somewhat
ambiguous, it does assist in narrowing the definition of the word adaptation.

The works of Shakespeare are referred to as “original versions” and “source

texts” by adaptation theorists. Nevertheless, it is essential to remember that parts of the
Bard’s plays are in reality derived from earlier works of art. The Bard also used
aspects from previous works and altered old stories to suit his own purposes. As it
comes out, none of his plays are very “original”. Nonetheless, Shakespeare has
developed into a global symbol and his plays have received international acclaim
throughout the decades. His works of adaptation are being used as the basis for new
adaptations, demonstrating how relative the concepts of originality and uniqueness for
him really are (Fortier & Fischlin, 2010, p. 5). Mark Fortier points out in a study on
adaptations that Bard’s ongoing distortion simultaneously appeals to a concept of the
source texts’ genuineness and produces a new perception of genuine identity by
utilizing the Bard as an indicator of the credibility of individuality itself (Fortier, 1996,
p. 13). As a result, adaptations of Bard’s works have become a worldwide
phenomenon.

Based merely on single or more Elizabethan works, Shakespearean adaptations

often take aspects from them. While some adapters stick closely to the source material,
others depart from it and add whole new features. Diverse adaptation techniques have
found favor among adapters. All these options are available in an adaptation, which
may either delete or add to the original play, eliminate characters, rearrange passages,
or altogether transform the narrative of the Bard’s plays. In fact, many of the adapters
go far as completely subverting Bard’s plays and reinventing the whole plot. The study
of adaptations demonstrates the postmodern adapters’ remarkable ingenuity.
Shakespearean adaptations are perhaps a very vast area of study, and as mentioned
previously, Ruby Cohn’s triple categorization is overly restrictive, since it is incapable
of defining the ambiguous postmodern dramatic reactions. Instead of classifying an
adaptation into well-defined categories, scholars should attempt to place it on a
“reception spectrum” (Hutcheon, 2014, p. 160) based on its relationship to the
source work. On one hand, adaptations remain faithful to Bard’s text, preserving the

15
narrative, language, and characters of Bard’s version. On the other hand, some
adaptations violate Bard’s canon, revise, change, and reinterpret the source text.

Due to the ever-growing adaptations of Shakespeare’s work, it is hard to

acquire a thorough understanding of the scope of adaptation and adapting techniques.
To fully appreciate the immense variety and ingenuity of theatrical adaptations, a
minority group of scholars began anthologizing them. Putting together a collection of
adaptations over the past four centuries has been a remarkable undertaking by Daniel
Fischlin and Mark Fortier. In their book, Adaptations of Shakespeare: A critical
anthology of plays from the 17th Century to the Present, they go into great detail on
various adaptations and, most significantly, offer a comprehensive list of titles for
future research and consideration. Throughout this diverse anthology, a variety of
answers to Shakespeare from different periods and other cultures can be found
(Carson, 2002, p. 100). Fischlin and Fortier’s goal was to provide a comprehensive
review and encourage scholars to investigate other little known adaptations.
Adaptations of Bard’s works have been tremendously successful in Canada for the past
four decades. Fischlin strives to keep up with the constant stream of fresh content by
collecting information about Canadian adaptations and their writers. These inventories
are particularly important for future research since they demonstrate the variety and
pervasiveness of adaptations.

Numerous efforts have been made over the previous decades to define the
precise relationship between Bard’s work and their dramatic adaptations. Numerous
scholars had examined at how adaptations affect the author and text of the original
work. Nevertheless, many of them have thought in binary terms, and as a result, they
have simplified the relationship between adaptations and their original works. The
conventional approach puts the theatrical reactions into two major categories:
adaptations are either giving respect to the Bard or uncrowning him. In the same
manner, Hutcheon differentiates between Shakespeare's adaptations that are meant to
be homages and those that are aimed at replacing canonical works of him (2014, p.
92). The theorists who embrace this view assert that many adapters want to replace and
even subvert, whereas others draw inspiration from Bard’s legacy to provide
significance for their own work (Fortier & Fischlin, 2010, p. 6). In considering this
opposition approach, several rewritings of Shakespeare express admiration for
his canonical position, while some others take a more critical stance towards him. For

16
example, a satirical adaptation of one of the Bard’s works both praises and confirms
Shakespeare since it is wholly reliant on the source text and assumes the universality
of Shakespeare without question (Bradley, 2008, p. 6). On the other hand, a play such
as Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead apparently subverts and
replaces the Bard’s Hamlet by focusing on two marginalized minor Shakespearean
characters.

This conventional binary opposition, however, no longer works since it has

failed in depicting the complicated relationship between numerous postmodern
plays with the Bard. For instance, the adaptation theorist Lynne Bradley argues for the
abolition of conventional dichotomies and proposes a new model instead. Besides,
Lynne claims that some postmodern adaptations represent a complicated double
gesture that simultaneously honors and opposes Shakespeare (2008, p. 9). Many
postmodern adaptations of Shakespeare demonstrate this new manner of engaging with
the Bard. It is necessary to abandon conventional categorization to grasp their link to
their theatrical predecessor. Intellectuals should alter the traditional model to broaden
its scope of application. The deconstructing of the deep-rooted adaptation method has
undoubtedly opened up fresh insights into the adaptations of Shakespeare.

Since they alter and subvert parts of Bard’s plays, postmodern adapters have
quite a complicated and ambivalent association with Bard. The plays of the Bard are
sometimes completely transformed and parodied as a result of the general alterations
that are made or they introduce new characters which are different from Shakespearean
ones. These adaptations depart significantly from Shakespeare’s original material and
may even suggest a criticism of the source work. While these rewriters undoubtedly
raise questions about Shakespeare’s work, they also serve to reinforce his universality
of him. Undoubtedly, it is a homage in and of itself when the playwrights refer to
Bard’s work. Also, adapters rely on Bard’s legacy to criticize him. This dual approach
of refusal and appreciation serves as the foundation for Bradley’s new adaptation
method (Bradley, 2008, p. 10). Even though postmodern adaptations criticize the
source material, the adapters recognize and appreciate their theatrical predecessor,
since they depend on his global appeal, and the reader’s knowledge of the source
text to determine the impact and distinction between the two works. Even radical
adaptations, according to Linda Hutcheon, increase the worth of literary canon (2014,

17
p. 7). Even though the adaptation is destructive, it nonetheless owes much to
Shakespeare since their idea is wholly based on the Elizabethan works.

Literary texts and works are believed to be “based on the existing structures,
laws, and customs of earlier literary texts” (Allen, 2022, p. 1). When Greek and
Roman dramas both drew inspiration for their tales from mythology and rewrote them
into new forms, it would be easily realized that the process of adaptation as a literary
approach predates both of those cultures. In the same way, most works of Roman
drama are often regarded as Greek norms. It is worth mentioning that throughout the
earliest periods of English literature, the famous traveling poem reciters who enjoyed
embellishing the Homeric myth would add their personal unique twists to the story
(Georges, 2009, p. 4). Such facts suggest that writers wanted to use earlier works to
create new works of stories and this in its turn shows that literary imitation was a
common practice at that time. Correspondingly, Aristotle proclaimed that the nature of
imitation is embedded in the man from his childhood as “mimesis has not merely been
a normal human behavior but in addition a pleasant thing…imitation is part of a
system of different factors that human beings first generate (art) and enjoy it” (as cited
in Woodruff, p. 73). Therefore, adaptation is assumed to have been prominent as it has
made reviving literary works more interesting and pleasant.

Previously, many intellectuals regarded adaptations as substandard, unoriginal,

or even treacherous imitations of classics. However, postmodern theorists such as
Linda Hutcheon has supported the beneficial worth of adaptations. She explains that
adaptation is taken off and appropriated from the original works, yet it is not inferior
(1993, p. 251). Hutcheon refutes a widespread misconception and demonstrates that
adaptations do not parasitize their ancestors. She explains that the process of
adaptation is not in any way similar to that of a vampire; it does not drain the original
text of its vitality, causing it to rot away or die, nor would it become less vibrant than
the text that is being adapted. Instead, it might preserve that text for future generations,
thereby providing it with immortality that it might not have had before (1993, p. 253).
As a process of both formation and reception, adaptations draw on older texts and
draw ideas from them to create new works. As a response to the original text and
author, adaptations serve as an aid for the playwright’s ideas.

18
 The concept of the adaptation process is very subjective in literary history.
Although there are opinions that only see adaptation as a plagiarist and mimetic
process, others see it as a means of stimulating reflection and challenge. Regarding the
controversial opinions about the process, Emig Rainer suggests that the problems of
adaptation are similar to those of postmodernism (2012, p. 19), as postmodernism is
indeed criticized for shifting far from the traditional norms related to literature. Those
who oppose the use of traditional texts in false ways have also viewed the process of
textual adaptation as questionable. Postmodern writers do not value and respect the
former works and this, in its turn, provokes the problem of postmodernism which is
marked by a lack of belief in “metanarratives and master” (Hutcheon, 1993, p. 247).
Thus, adaptation requires working with former texts to produce and create pleasure or
give new alternative ideas. The reproductions of the original literary works of art have
made some critics with moderate opinions antagonistic to such literary reproductions.
Some postmodern audiences who believe in the Post-Romantic philosophies which
consider the author as a ‘genius’ and worship ‘originality’ have responded to
“appropriation as artificially inferior creations” (Loftis, 2016, p. 50). In this sense, for
them, the adapted works are considered poor art which tries to copy their supposed
high-status texts. Adaptation reintroduces what already exists which is another
uncreative and negative aspect of adaptation. As David Cowart shows in his book
Literary Symbiosis: The Reconfigured Text in Twentieth-Century Writing, adaptation is
a “guest text”, whereby he indicates to sources text as a “host text”. In this regard, he
believes that the two texts (guest and host) are equally admirable. It seems that the new
writers face the danger of becoming viewed by audiences as missing creativity;
audiences might think that the creation of a guest text is not impressive just like
the host text. However, the new writers with their “stolentelling” are not fruitless;
they are proving to be sources of renewal (2012, p. 27). Thus, the word “Stolentelling”
is used to refer to adaptation in which Cowart supports his work by suggesting that it is
the product of literary ingenuity and performance. Also, Robert Jauss in his book
Toward an Aesthetic of Reception claims that previous texts ‘old’ could live to the
present day and continue to be popular through the help of their rewritten forms.

literary works have no inescapable aftereffects that persist independent of it and

from which a subsequent generations can never be freed. The only way a literary work
may keep having an impact is through those who came after it and once again react to

19
it — either writers who seek to reproduce, surpass, or dispute it or readers who
continue to borrow the previous text (2013, p. 22).

As a result, reproduction of the work is thought to be necessary for the

expansion of literary works as well as in retaining the former texts to be updated. It is
important to observe that in literature, critical observation is often vital for making way
for diverse viewpoints and more current ones. According to Hazard Adams and Leroy
Searle, the adaptation process provides a new and fresh feeling in reading similar and
old texts as well as makes it the job of critics easy to predict newly fresh things
regarding works of literature that have been debated repeatedly (2001, p. 236). This
viewpoint supports the process of adaptation since various definitions emerge as a
result of revisiting previous writings, and derivations enable literature to continue to be
a productive place where innovative concepts may be embraced. In addition, it enables
literature to stay fruitful and brings new thoughts and notions to the fore which can be
accepted by the readers. In literature, critical observation is constantly necessary to
create a place for new and more latest ideas to be included. New interpretations of
former works must be sought, and new variants should be highlighted via adaptation
use, rather than just reading them in line with their established and known meaning.

Every literary text, as Philip Thody believes in his book Twentieth-Century

Literature: Critical Issues and Themes, is “reproductions and reflections of dissimilar
work of others, earlier work...and how earlier images, structures or concepts can be
incorporated into new frameworks” (1996, p. 86). Besides, in the sixties and seventies,
Julia Kristeva and many other critics and theorists were advocates of adaptation and
imitation works in literature. All literary works are recognized by these critics as
imitation products. In the same way, the importance of the imitative nature of literary
production is also confirmed by Roland Barthes when he concludes that every work is
the inter-related of other work (1989, p. 60). As a matter of fact, adaptation is
obviously viewed by the critics like Kristeva and Barthes as a necessary work. Barthes
believes that the thing which delineates the quality of a work of literature is the
adapting of a source text as he says that it is rereading, modification , and adaptation of
a source text that bring it to life and create its history (1989, p. 62). Regarding
Barthes’s perspective, a practice has been seen as a standard that evaluates the
continuity and durability of an original work in various literary ages.

20
 William Burroughsis also another critic who considers adaptation as a key
factor of literary regeneration. Burroughs believes that literary texts cannot be
possessed by merely one author, but they must be utilized in a new context. He claims
to not be shy about using other authors’ work since it is among the best sources of
inspiration for writers. Thus, if someone else came up with an idea, it does not suggest
that you cannot take it and give it a fresh turn. Hence, adaptations might end up being
perfectly acceptable work (1991, p. 80). As a result, adaptation has been regarded as
expanding the narrow perceptions by presenting different and new conceptions from
earlier sources that had been formerly established meanings. In contrast, it is worth
mentioning that Sanders offers a declaration that stands against the fundamental
viewpoint that regards adaptation as an unconvinced work of metanarratives, as she
noted perhaps as with some of these more celebrity recognition of the potential of rap
or sampling to foster a new aesthetic, we need to view literary adaptation and
appropriation from this more positive vantage point, seeing it as creating new cultural
and aesthetic possibilities that stand alongside the texts which have inspired them,
enriching rather than ‘robbing’ them (2016, p. 43).

Accordingly, adaptation is often described as a creative method that assumed

that rewritten texts might show the value and significance of the original work instead
of ignoring its most important aspects.

Far from the opinions which indicate that the production of literary works is
through the transformation of the texts, many other critics who note a specific
fundamental structure through the works claim for the superiority of the classical texts.
Thus, the main reason behind the disfavor against adaptations is the possibility of
altering the fundamental convention of the source text, as it is important to the
differentiation between production and reproduction for establishing power.
Adaptations run the risk of erasing this distinction and undermining particular power
structure... “copies may take over the works that are built on and end up being seen by
some readers as the authentic works” (Mazdon, 1996, p. 51). Reproductions,
nevertheless, are usually seen as less important and beneath the productions and kept
in a minor stance that cannot endanger original works. In this regard, adaptation
appears to work and serve as a power for producing literary works by simply changing
the specified structures between writers and texts. Probably, the differences between

21
production and reproduction have worked as protection for particular works of
literature.

When the original text is treated as the superior work, while the later work of
that text is simply observed as an effort to replicate it, the rewritten work is invariably
considered to be incomparable to the first written text in terms of its literary merit.
Adaptation, nevertheless, does not acknowledge the supremacy of the prior work as
well as its author as the only definitive entities; therefore, adapted forms assume
recognition as being more important and richer as canonical forms. Giving supremacy
and recognition to canonical works is believed to have a restricting effect on the new
production of various points of view and thoughts in the later written works. In this
regard, the adapted forms of famous and well-known literary works, in the case of
ranking, operate as a barrier to literary production and ingenuity. Also, it assesses the
genuineness of very popular canonical works by revealing and breaking their
untouchable prestige. Adaptations are sometimes critical of their own ‘original’ source
texts even though they are mostly criticized for subverting the ‘original’ source texts.
In fact, adaptation is often seen as a process that mirrors the keen appreciation of the
‘original’ source texts.

Accordingly, Claude Maissonat et al. (2009) in their book state that adaptation
practice revives and pays respect to the work of the prior writers as well as allows to
observe the development of certain works during the history of literature (2009, p. 8).
Thus, in the practice of adapting, the original work and its writer are also remembered,
as well as the new work being compared to and assessed in connection to its
initial source. Therefore, in this perspective, adaptation turns into a practice that
broadens the range of potential readings without essentially omitting the original
work from which it draws its inspiration.

It is debatable that adaptation primarily seeks to modify the ‘original’ source

text whilst indirectly getting it to prominence over again. As mentioned earlier,
adaptation indeed has a binary function that existed in the delusion of filiation
(Maissonat et al., 2009, p. 11). It is worth mentioning that not every adaptation has
subversive quality, and the significance of the source text ‘original’, clarifies or
modernizes it to emphasize its importance throughout the literary ages. Hutcheon
agrees with the idea that “adaptation is the repeating action but without replication.

22
Additionally, there are obviously a wide variety of motives that might motivate the
practice of adaptation: the impulse to conceal the memories of the adapted work or cast
doubt on it is just as probable as the intention to show honor by imitating it” (2014, p.
8). In fact, Adaptation has been regarded as a paradoxical process since the rewritten
work investigates some of the aspects of the previous work and at the same time
highlights the importance of that work. Adaptation is a dividing line between previous
conventions and current ones. This distinction makes it feasible to evaluate the
changing perceptions of the same problem through the perspective of two different
historical periods. Apparently, between the past and the present, adaptation builds a
passage in the forms of literary traditions.

Alan Sinfield in his book Faultlines: Cultural materialism and the politics of
dissident reading relates an ideological role to adaptation since it might strengthen or
contradict the ideological positions of its literary predecessors. Thus, the ideological
stances of writers influence their analysis of the prior texts in this respect and choose
the mode in which they create their own edition. The process of adaptation in
accordance with Sinfield’s interpretation is:

The stories that require most attention- most assiduous and continuous reworking- are the
awkward, unresolved ones. They are what people want to write and read about. When a part
of our worldview threatens disruption by manifestly failing to cohere with the rest, then we
must reorganize and retell its story again and again, trying to get into shape – back into the
old shape if we are conservative minded, or into a new shape that we can develop and apply
if we are more adventurous. These I call ‘faultline’ stories. (Sinfield, 1992, p. 46)

The ideological perspectives of the new writers determine the nature of

adaptation as far as examining the validity of previous texts and the personal beliefs of
the older generation writers are concerned. Although there is a chance of being
criticized for plagiarism, new writers take a risk and focus on an already established
text instead of formulating a new one, and in their turn, they demonstrate their desire
to set up a dialogue with the narrative aspects. In this regard, adaptation produces an
alternative (new) version of a preceding work that goes together with the objective and
might alter (correct) its flaws. Through adaptation, as Philip Thody in his book
Twentieth-Century Literature: Critical Issues and Themes indicates, literature has
become a power for removing ambiguity and providing emancipation, and a medium
to encourage the reader in realizing maybe not the truth itself, yet a distinct work of it
that is less plausible, less impressive, and less confining (1996, p. 87). Actually,

23
adaptation provides freedom for the new writers to present a new if not better notion
and brings fresh ideas for the new works that they feel the antecedent writers fail to
notice in the ‘original’ source works. Adaptation might have a corrective role and this
is referred to by the critics Maisonnat et al. when he alludes to the fact that adaptation
might be also interpreted as a constant effort at healing gaps and violations (2009, p.
13). Thus, no work of literature is accepted as the ultimate final product following the
postmodern theory, because there can be indeed gaps that need to be changed and
shortcomings that require to be extracted from the previous literary works. In
postmodernism, there is no absolute truth but multiple realities. The postmodern
writers adapt their plays to make Shakespearean plays objective in nature. More
specifically, adaptation has been seen just like an instrumental practice that is used to
refill and replace the gaps that existed in the previous works of art.

Notably, many postmodern adaptations are so deep and multidimensional that

they may actually operate independently. As a result, these rewritten texts might be
interpreted as adaptations or as independent theatrical productions. Linda Hutcheon
clarifies that an adaptation should be effective for both the informed and uninformed
reader to stand by itself (2014, p. 121). Obviously, the audience who are aware of the
similarities and differences between the adapted play and the original one will gain
more significance from the performance; nevertheless, the audience who are unaware
of the similarities and differences between the original and the adapted play could still
enjoy the experience. These postmodern works stand on their own, even without
considering intertextual delight (Hutcheon, 2014, 122).

As a result, adaption theorists still have a significant amount of work to do. The
concept of adaptations, as well as the nature of adaptations, must be reconsidered by
theorists. A constantly growing challenge confronts them, and they must continue to
recognize and explain the different adaptive techniques that are now in use to stay
ahead of the field. Moreover, it is required to revitalize conventional adaptation
approaches to facilitate a broader application in the area of Shakespeare's reception.
Postmodern adaptations of Shakespeare’s works often include a dual attitude towards
him; they simultaneously both honor and refuse him. Several playwrights have drawn
inspirations from Shakespeare’s works throughout the centuries. The production of
anthologies and inventory of Shakespeare adaptations is particularly beneficial for
future studies since Shakespeare adaptations are a continuing practice. According to

24
the researcher’s perspective, instead of categorizing adaptations into strict taxonomies,
every adaptation should be debated and assessed on its own merits.

Thus, in terms of potential applications for Shakespeare’s literary plays

across history, it is noted that the majority of his plays have undergone modifications
and adaptations. Shakespeare is described as an exceptionally dynamic source for
textual adaptation by Thomas Cartelli, who believes that
Shakespeare’s works have been put into many different forms of adaptation (2013, p.
23). Since the nineteenth century, adaptations of his works in a variety of media, such
as new plays, films, and novels, have been created. To highlight the Bard’s influence
on the development of modern written works and emphasize the idea that his plays
have become subject to reinterpretation, it has been believed that Shakespeare is
opened to deformation and fragmentation, as his works were performed, revised,
copied, and shared throughout Europe (Burt, 2007, p. 743). Accordingly, Bard’s texts
are subjected to several adaptable forms since there is no official copy that supersedes
their versions. In fact, his works have been used by authors for a variety of reasons
throughout literary history, often in the type of cinema adaptations and other times in
literary adaptations.

Marjorie Garber in her statement says that Shakespeare is the most referenced
and quoted playwright of every period since the English Renaissance (2014, p. 3). It is
essential to examine how Bard’s status as the most well-known author of all time is
sustained, as well as why late authors seem to be so fascinated by adapting his
masterpieces. An argument for the apparent interest in his plays is that he supplied the
following generations with a variety of rich content since his plays cover a range of
different subjects, including social, political, and historical ones. This argument is
often used in connection with the idea that Shakespeare is a distinctive playwright.
Even significant writers of English literature typically ranked Shakespeare higher than
other authors in terms of literary development, as demonstrated by Benjamin Jonson
who was frequently cited, they remarked to the Bard as a playwright, but it is not
meant to be for a specific time age; rather, he is a writer for every age (1947, p. 392).
Shakespeare’s writings, according to Jonson, were more akin to the classics. His
extensive literary output helped shape future periods, and his work was similar to
classical authors.

25
 Shakespeare’s fame rose in later eras, with the romantic poet and critic Samuel
Taylor Coleridge being a particular fan. He described Shakespeare as follows: “He is
of no age, nor, I may add, of any religion or party or profession. The body and
substance of his works come out of the unfathomable depths of his own oceanic mind;
his observation and reading supplied him with the drapery of his figures” (1905, p.
301). As per Coleridge, Shakespeare never was a spokesperson for any philosophy,
religion, or historical period; rather, he was unique and timeless, and his works retain
their significance beyond the passage of time. Harold Bloom adopts a similar position,
stating that the Western canon begins with the Bard; he is the Western canon (1996, p.
75), elevating him on the basis that he surpasses almost all other Western authors in
logical clarity, rhetorical vigour, and inventiveness (Bloom, 1996, p. 46).
Harold Bloom’s statement establishes an instance for demonstrating how
Shakespeare’s general treatment of the Western canons has aided in maintaining
Bard’s exceptional position in the world of literature. Apart from such reverence for
the Bard over the centuries, his works have been criticized by famous authors or
critics, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, George Bernard Shaw, Voltaire, A. C.
Bradley, Leo Tolstoy, and lately, George Orwell (Sullivan, 2007, p. 1). All of
them criticized Shakespeare’s works in their publications, arguing mostly against the
artistic beauty of his pieces, their absence of didactic and moral purpose, and against
dogmatic veneration for Shakespeare. Orwell, for example, criticizes Shakespeare’s
well-regarded works for their inconsistencies, inconceivable plots, and overly dramatic
language (2010, p. 73). Clearly, the arguments advanced by these authors against
Bard’s plays contribute to the critique of the excessive admiration of Bard and urge the
plays to be reassessed through the lens of postmodern concerns.

It is worth noting that rather than asserting Shakespeare’s distinctiveness or the

transcendental quality of his works, it is the potential of adaptation of his writings to
different dramatic and literary forms that sustains their popularity. Alan Sinfield,
rebutting the assumption that Shakespeare had an unmatched capacity to portray
human nature, emphasizes that the nature of humans is not something fixed, and thus
Shakespeare cannot be seen as unique anymore concerning the character construction
(2000, p .183). In this respect, it is also worth recalling the bardolatry of Bernard
Shaw’s critique, as he claims that the Bard is unrivaled due to his embodying the
emotions most completely. However, these emotions have been human emotions,

26
which contributed to his brilliance (2002, p. 16). These concepts demonstrate how the
majority of unjustified presumptions regarding Shakespeare’s plays have aided in
preserving his elevated position in cultural and literary contexts. However, such views
have attracted criticism from later critics and writers who have a more unbiased
approach to Bard and his plays.

Several points need to be raised regarding the adaptation works

of Shakespeare’s plays: Why do literary writers in later ages prefer to rewrite plays
of Shakespeare more than the writings of any other writer? In addition, why are the
audience so excited about new adaptations of his works alongside the originals,
centuries after they were published? Charles Marowitz emphasizes the need for
delving into the causes of such perplexing issues rather than devising new approaches
to enhance the cultural dominance of Shakespeare as he explains that the true question
is not concerned with Shakespeare’s identity but the true question is the reason that we
permit Shakespeare’s impact to constrain our notion for what we may make of him
(1991, p. 32). Accordingly, instead of pursuing debates on unfounded assertions about
the author and his works, it is indeed vital to take into account the factors which call
for the usage of Bard’s plays in various ways.

The Bard’s adaptations are looked at conservatively since they are based on the
idea that his plays allow reinterpretation because they provide a range of subjects for
reproduction. As we find in Richard Burt’s observation, the Bard is the “Divine
playwright” for those who adore him like John Dryden (2007, p. 739). It is thought
that since Shakespeare introduced innovative themes to the literary world, later writers
did not have to create fresh ideas and maintain Bard’s fame by adopting them
repeatedly. This concept is exemplified by John Elsom’s remark stating that the
Bard left us a great set of garments and notions that we may use following our needs
and preferences (1992, p. 5). Likewise, John Elsom’s following remark demonstrates
how the depth of Bard’s works encourages many to adapt his work: “his plays offer a
sort of multi-focal perspective. You may see it as a record from history. You may see
the play in its original version, or you might regard it as a legend that survives due to
its adaptability” (1992, p. 26). By endowing Shakespeare’s plays with a set of positive
characteristics, this interpretation implies that they possess a variety of meanings when
evaluated from a variety of perspectives, ultimately leading them to be deemed
mythical.

27
 Adaptation occurs because there might be gaps left to be filled after earlier
authors have finished their work. As a result, different readings of Bard’s works show
their ambiguity and seek to explain its confusing sections. The Bard’s plays have
undergone several adaptations, all to demonstrate that his writings give various
meanings and cannot be interpreted exclusively. The Bard’s devotees, on the other
hand, see the ambiguous nature of his plays as a reflection of their mythical aspect. A
popular example of this may be found in the book titled The Letters of John Keats,
which describes Shakespeare as a genius due to his ability to elicit a range of feelings
and emotions from uncertainty to mystery (Keats & Rollins, p. 193). As opposed to
using this feature of his works to underline Shakespeare’s brilliance, it ought to be
noted as a cause for the constant adaptations of his plays. Bickley and Stevens likewise
argue “Shakespeare’s works are particularly open to deconstruction due to their
uncertainty” (2019, p. 213). Thus, the variety of readings of these writings should
never be used as evidence of their unique quality, but rather as a reflection of the many
contexts in which they are assessed. Clearly, every reader’s perception of his
plays varies according to their identity or ideology, as well as other factors like as age,
gender, and nationality.

As a filmmaker who critically considers Shakespeare’s plays in his adaptations,

Charles Marowitz argues that it is not the exceptional attribute of these plays that
makes them adaptable, but their widespread appeal. Shakespeare’s writings are so
well-known for having established audience that are acquainted with them. This
enables the rewriters to engage the audience who are already acquainted with some of
Shakespeare’s works. Accordingly, authors are capable of giving alternative versions
of well-known subjects throughout this process, thus conveying distinct arguments and
concepts (1991, p. 47). This also illustrates why authors can pick Shakespeare’s most
critical topics and use their own narrative to convey their own message about the
subject they have chosen. In this sense, it is precisely the vast fame of Shakespeare’s
works that makes them so commonly reproducible.

Adaptations of Bard’s plays have not necessarily been viewed positively as a

productive literary activity, as Lanier states that Shakespeare is often regarded as a
regulatory guideline and a mystical symbol of worth (2014, p. 30). Any effort in
adapting Bard’s plays has always been viewed as a betrayal of his artistic legacy by
conservatives. Rewritten copies of Bard’s works have occasionally been regarded as a

28
belittlement and degrading of his plays, based on the assumption that his plays are
“genuine”. Regarding the difficulty of repeating Bard’s plays, it may imply that
Bard is a referent who is possible to be taken and used essentially without his will
(Lanier, 2014, p. 31). In this light, adaptation may look like something intrinsically
immoral. Arguments are often made against the concept of including material that
originates from the canon. Consequently, these discussions happen to take place in the
broad introduction to the process of adaptation. Understood in this perspective,
Shakespeare's adaptations particularly elicit criticism for trying to call into doubt the
intrinsic integrity of the original material.

In contrast to this idea, another line of thought holds that adaptations of Bard’s
plays are what sustain his appeal and value in the postmodern day. Just like Douglas
Lanier notes that Bard’s unique position in the literature derives from a complicated
history of adaptation, in which his works had been continually reworked to respond to
the objectives, desires, and concerns of different historical eras (2007, p. 96).
Accordingly, it is not really Bard’s fame that enables his works to be adapted; rather,
the adaptation of his works that ensure his works continue to thrive in later periods.
Shakespeare is clearly rendered postmodern via adaptation since his plays cannot
usually address current problems in their initial form.

Bard himself adapted others writers’ works, and the majority of his plays were
created via the adaptation of previous historical works. His primary writing style
incorporates “adaptation, imitation, appropriation of myths, fairy tales, and folklore, as
well as an ability to reuse writings of his predecessors like Ovid, Plutarch, and
Holinshed” (Sanders, 2016, p. 47). After finding this out, it is only natural to doubt
Shakespeare’s position as the all-time greatest literary genius, since it is clear that he
was not the real source of the majority of his plays. Desmet and Sawyer argue that by
clarifying the idea of authorship, the history of Shakespeare’s adaptation challenges
the excessive admiration of him (2013, p. 5). When examining Bard’s usage of
previous writings in the construction of his own writings and subsequent
reinterpretation of his plays, his connection with the process of adaptation is deep,
since intertextual reproductions have been critical for both Shakespeare as well as
those who succeeded him. Other than adapting other works, it is thought that he
sometimes rewrote his own plays to adapt them to new uses. For example, Coleridge
recognized that Hamlet has been reworked and flipped to become Macbeth: a lovely

29
person in a corrupt system who has become a corrupt person in a good system that
must be recovered, and such treachery is now viewed from the traitor’s perspective
(Bridges, p. 128).

One of the Bard’s plays that is believed to be adapted is Romeo and Juliet.
More specifically Romeo and Juliet ‘’originated as an Italian novella from the 15th
century called ‘Romeus and Juliet’ by Arthur Brooke, which Shakespeare may have
read and adapted the story and has since become one of the most popular pieces of
literature ever written” (Lane, 2011, p. 156). Works of literature are preserved through
many various copies across history, like in this instance previous Italian novella that
was initially written in English by Brooke in 1562, subsequently by
William Shakespeare in 1597, and afterward by other artists for a variety of reasons.
To give further examples, Troilus and Cressida (1602) was one of his major plays that
talked about heroes and peace and was a retelling of the Trojan War in Troilus and
Criseyde by Geoffrey Chaucer (late 1300s and early 1400s). Another play called As
You Like It (1599) is a comic retelling of the Forest of Arden, which was taken from
Rosalynde by Thomas Lodge. In addition, it is known that The Winter’s Tale (1623) is
a rewriting of Pandosto (1588) by Robert Greene. (S. J. Lynch 2). Moreover, both
Othello (1604) and Antony and Cleopatra (1606) are based on prior prose works of
Cinthio and Plutarch, respectively (Eyre & Wright, 2001, p. 24). As is the case with
the majority of Bard’s other works, The Merchant of Venice (1605) is an adaptation of
other texts. It is believed that the fourteenth-century Ser Giovanni’s The
Simpleton (1378) offers the theme of a Christian borrowing money from a Jewish
moneylender (Marowitz, 1991, p. 130). In addition, The Ballad of Gernutus is
considered a broadsheet ballad, as a basis on which the Bard grounded his Shylock
persona (Gross, 1994, p. 7).

Regarding the development of Bard’s adaptations throughout history, Marjorie

Garber’s remark should be recalled as he points out that each era gives birth to its own
version of Shakespeare (2014, p. 4). The approach of adapting the Bard actually started
in the 1600s, while he himself was yet creating his new copies. In this period,
Beaumont, Massinger, and Fletcher were the first to adapt his plays. For example,
Beaumont and Fletcher’s Philaster (1609) has been considered a tragicomedy and
adaptation of the Bard’s Hamlet. This is because the treatment of the play of the
aspects like usurpation and legitimate progression, tyranny and right government,

30
foreign and indigenous marriage coalitions, and the play also looks strikingly similar
to Bard’s history works (Gossett, 2009, p. 285). In fact, an additional adaptation is by
Fletcher who collaborated with Massinger to produce a new comedy play titled The
Sea Voyage (1622), in which common themes are borrowed from The Tempest (1610),
which is considered to be the oldest example of this period’s practice of adapting the
Bard’s plays.

It has been suggested that the most drastic versions of adaptation were
produced in the middle of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries (Marsden,
2014, p.5). Regarding these Shakespearean adaptations, it has been suggested that such
practice is intended mainly to fit Bard’s play to the theatrical situation of the time as
well as modify his narrative, figures, and language to conform to postmodern
preferences (Spencer, 1998, p. 70). The Bard’s The Taming of the Shrew (1591) has
been adapted by John Lacy to a new comedy play titled Sauny the Scot which was first
published in 1667 and became famous because of its more amusing portrayal of Bard’s
version. This work depicts the struggle between the genders and investigates the
conventional ideologies that support a husband’s assertion of power. Lacy’s play also
highlights the conflicting nature of this struggle (Staves, 1996, p. 131). The Bard’s
remarkable play Antony and Cleopatra (1606) is also adapted by John Dryden to a new
reworked play titled The World Well Lost (1677). Dryden, likewise, was involved in
adapting Shakespeare’s works at this period. The traditional heroic play is portrayed in
this work by the abolition of the romance between Antony and Cleopatra. Fitting for
18th-century literary norms, the drama also adheres to the neoclassical concept of
temporal and spatial unities. Troilus and Cressida (1679), one more Shakespearean
adaptation by Dryden, focuses on the courageous aspect of Bard’s play. While Bard
twisted Cressida in a very misogynistic way, her character is shown more favorably in
this play, compared to Bard’s work, since he portrays her as an immoral female figure.

Other noteworthy 17th and 18th-century adaptations of Bard’s works include

Richard III by Colley Cibber (1699) and Jew of Venice by George Grenville (1701).
Regarding the major changes seen in Shakespeare's adaptation during this period, it is
clear that the goal was to render the plays more appropriate for the period’s staging
norms, such as eliminating violent scenes from his plays. George Branam, who talks
about this topic, says, “In King Lear, for example, passages that made an audience feel
excessively sad or sickened by the excessive violence (for example, Gloucester’s

31
blinding in the play) were changed because eighteenth-century audiences did not
accept them” (1990, p. 135).

Even though conservative versions of Bard’s plays were made, such as in the
works of David Garrick, who was a big fan of the Bard, the corrective element of
literary adaptations can be also seen in Restoration adapting of Garrick’s plays. The
period’s dramatists were said to view the Elizabethan approach as “less sophisticated
and regular” than their own (Spencer,1972, p.80). Consequently, adaptations of the
Bard throughout this age are seen as efforts to enhance the Bard, that is, bringing his
writings in line with postmodern cultural and critical standards and to bringing them
up to date (Felperin, 2002, p. 6).

Following the Restoration, the process of adapting the Bard declined till the
end of the 19th century. The fact that the Bard has become a cultural icon is one of the
reasons why adapting Shakespeare was not a frequently practised activity during this
time frame. According to Lanier, Shakespeare arises as a uniquely British cultural
symbol in the early eighteenth century, conjoining Britain’s developing spirit of
patriotism, social status, and canons of aesthetic appreciation (2007, p. 30). The Bard’s
writings had been evidently regarded as excellent models, and hardly any effort was
made to modify them. Despite Restoration writers who rejected the Bard for several
purposes, early 19th-century playwrights and scholars embraced the Bard as an icon of
literature (Becker, 2003, p. 363). In “An Essay on the Writings and Genius of
Shakespeare, compared with the Greek and French dramatic poets” (1769), Elizabeth
Montagu described how Bard’s works were compared well to those of Greek
playwrights (Montagu, 2015). Thus, the Bard was revered as the nation’s poet,
revealing why there were not many critical analyses of his plays at that time.

Adapting Bard’s popular work extends beyond the theatrical form since many
fiction and poetry adaptations of his works occur. For example, Adrienne Rich’s piece
of adaptation “After Dark” (1964) is a significant reworking in the manner of poetry.
In this work, she investigates the relationships between the daughter and her father in
Bard’s King Lear through the lens of her personal perceptions. Rich discusses the
influence of her father and the Bard on her poetry. Rich acknowledges that she had
to surpass her father and Shakespeare to be able to see the world through her own lens
and free herself from the grips of the traditions (Erickson, 1994, p.160). She relates her

32
father and herself to Lear and Cordelia because she believes that, as Cordelia, she has
been also oppressed by her father (Erickson, 1994, p. 163). By mean of the way that
Rich draws attention to Cordelia’s misogynistic portrayal in Bard’s work, her poem
actually has served as an instance of revisionary adaptation of the Bard.

Famous works of fiction in postmodern literature sometimes include references

to Bard’s plays, such as Iris Murdoch’s reworking of Hamlet in her novel The Black
Prince (1973). Also, one of the most famous reworks of the Bard in the fiction form is
A Thousand Acres (1991) by Jane Smiley. The book highlights the catastrophic lunacy
of patriarchal hegemony in postmodern America by adapting King
Lear’s framework to the world after the wars (Widdowson, 2006, p. 500). Smiley’s
adaptation emphasizes the idea related to the potential that Goneril and Regan may
have been sexually abused by their father Lear. Smiley implicitly attacks the
immorality in her society in this novel since it is about exploring current societal issues
in 1990s America. Another noteworthy example is Marina Warner’s Indigo (1992),
which, like other postmodern adaptations, offers a postcolonial interpretation of The
Tempest. Widdowson asserts that this book covers three centuries in the Caribbean,
touching on topics like colonization, the island of Sycorax, Ariel, and Caliban (2006,
p. 497). The four plays which are the most often adapted in general are Hamlet, King
Lear, The Tempest, and Romeo and Juliet. Richard Burt maintains that “The Tempest”
takes first place, based entirely on modern authors’ adaptation of the work to examine
racial and colonial problems, as exemplified in Warner’s Indigo (2007, p. 409).
Clearly, both novels are reworkings by female writers which demonstrate their critical
attitude to Bard’s sexist and imperialist ideas. Angela Carter’s Wise Children (1991)
and Margaret Atwood’s Cat’s Eye (1988) are other notable Shakespearean adaptations.
Nonetheless, unlike the preceding instances, these two writers’ attitudes to the Bard
may not be subversive, since both novels do not explicitly address a specific play of
the Bard. Instead, they combine many figures and plays of Bard into one single work.

Besides literary adaptations, Bard’s works have been transformed into movies,
cartoons, kids’ books, and television shows. Woody Allen’s A Midsummer Night’s Sex
Comedy produced by Orion pictures company is one of the most notable adaptations of
the Bard’s plays. Other famous Shakespeare film adaptations include Othello (1965)
by Stuart Burge, Hamlet (1990) by Franco Zeffirelli, The Taming of the Shrew (1967)
by Franco Zeffirelli, The Merchant of Venice (2004) by Michael Radford, Romeo and

33
Juliet (1996) by Baz Luhrmann and Macbeth (1983) by Jack Gold which stands out for
putting a heavy emphasis on brutality and harshness (Bickley & Stevens, 2019, p.
200). Beside these instances, a Netflix film version, The King (2019), is a noteworthy
adaption of the Bard’s Henry V and Henry IV. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s plays have
been adapted for British TV as a series titled BBC Television Shakespeare, which was
produced by Cedric Messina and was first broadcast in 1978. It consisted of thirty-
seven episodes throughout seven series. These episode reworkings are the BBC’s
postmodern adaptations of the Bard (Bickley & Stevens, 2019, p. 50). In addition,
there is a parody version of the Bard named BBC Retold, which places four of Bard’s
plays in a postmodern setting.

It has been argued that due to the dynamic structure of literary works, “a
literary text is not an entity that stands alone and presents an identical aspect to every
audience in each time” (Jauss, 2013, p.9). Thus, literary works must not be seen as
static and unchangeable objects, but rather as assets that allow for numerous
perspectives, thus eventually giving rise to different adaptations. As a result,
adaptations of Shakespeare demonstrate that his plays cannot be valid at all periods
and must be adjusted to evolving social and historical circumstances. This perspective
is fundamentally opposed to the widespread assumption that “his works are globally
relevant and appealing to people of all eras” (Hawkes, 2013, p. 245). His works might
be made to resonate more with the needs of later eras via recreational activities.
Shakespearean adaptations show how his works should be modernized to understand
the altering preferences, personas, and traits of various eras and reading groups.
According to Lukas Erne, “the work that is being modified is likewise considered not
to be a fixed entity, characterized by its original structure, that is accessible once and
for all, yet a process that develops through time” (2010, p. 225). Therefore, adaptation
challenges the accepted notion of the permanence of classical works by providing
different versions that address the main challenges from various historical ages.

In reference to the role of adaptation to re-establish the relevance of prior work,

John Drakakis asserts that the Bard cannot be hardly considered our contemporary
unless subversion is used (2002, p. 25). His assertion implies that Bard’s plays are out
of date and that reworking his works is a means of updating him and ensuring his
works’ continued relevance. Concerning the heritage of canonical literary works,
Antonin Artaud points out that the best works from the past are great for the past but

34
not for the present. We have the freedom to tell what is being told, as well as what is
still not told, in a manner that does not relate to us, in a manner that is clear and
straightforward, consistent with current emotional states, and universally
comprehensible (2004, p. 74). As a result, Shakespearean adaptation occurs as a result
of the need to adapt them for usage in various historical ages. This also reveals why
Shakespeare's adaptations have developed in such a varied manner throughout time.
Every period’s perception of his works varies according to the changing
circumstances. As a result, his works are treated differently in various periods. For
example, while contemporary adaptations primarily involve the ideological and
social context of Bard’s works to react to the vital problems of these periods,
Restoration adaptations reveal the political and theatrical framework of the period,
such as the increased focus on women’s roles in response to the presence of female
actors. As a result, it has also illustrated the reason why Bard’s histories and tragedies
become widespread among the adaptors over time, whereas his romances, like The
Tempest, have been adapted more often before the 20th century (Burt, 2007, p. 738).

According to Alan Sinfield, the philosophies that Shakespearean plays are

traditionally acknowledged to create are reactionary (regarding class, race,
and gender), and oppositional reconstitutions may challenge those beliefs (1988,
p.140). When seen through the lens of postmodern literary theories, radical adaptations
demonstrate obvious criticism of the original work. Sanders illustrates the impact of
such enhancements on adapting Shakespeare by stating “many Shakespearean
adaptations are driven not just by the need to assign motive, but furthermore by social
conviction. The theoretical concerns of the modern period figure in most of the
rewritings of Shakespeare adaptations” (2016, p. 57). Shakespeare has been
condemned for being biased in his representation of ethnic and racial identity
categories in his works. As a result, in certain confrontational postmodern adaptations
of his works, underrepresented minorities are given more importance.

This approach implies that Shakespeare ignored the issues of marginalized

cultural groups that should be addressed in later versions. In this way, adapting the
works of Shakespeare involves a functional activity aimed at criticizing and rectifying
the original text’s representational problems. This enables formerly marginalized
figures to be reproduced in literary works, and such a practice is referred to by Alan
Sinfield as “making space” (1988, p. 130). Sinfield claims that there is no place for

35
marginalized groups in Shakespeare’s plays. To question the notions in Bard’s plays
and discover their own issues, these groups must rebuild their own editions. This is
only conceivable if such marginalized groups achieve a separate social status. For
example, as views about race and gender identities have evolved throughout time, their
depiction in literature has altered accordingly. Due to the increased liberty granted to
minorities and women in modern time by postcolonial theory and feminists, their
concerns can be expressed via literary recreations. Marsden asserts that “changes in
female social roles correlate to adjustments in literary depiction, especially in drama”
(1992, p. 44). These changes need a reinterpretation of Shakespeare’s plays in
response to postmodern social and historical settings. For example, women’s status in
postmodern society is not the same as before in Shakespeare’s day, and racial
problems have gained prominence in global politics, thereby necessitating a re-
evaluation of previous works’ handling of minority ethnic groups.

Shakespeare, as an adapter of different sources, also utilised several previous

works to convey a message about his present setting. As Charles Marowitz points out,
Shakespeare should have witnessed passion plays when he was young in Stratford, and
even those biblical tensions should have crept into the elder writer’s play when he
chose to show a struggle between Jewish and Christian morals (1991, p. 30).
Marowitz, using Bard’s work The Merchant of Venice, has questioned if the structure
of the confrontation between two theological foes in this play was influenced by the
passion works. Regarding Bard’s curiosity in the historical and social matters of his
era, it has been asserted that the period between the 1590 and 1690 centuries is unique
and that the Bard is profoundly engaged in it since his plays and poems illustrate his
engagement with the major incidents and concepts of his time (Bickley & Stevens,
2019, p. 19). Due to Bard’s interest in the happenings of his time, his adaptations of
previous works are often believed to be about the time that he lived in. As David
Thacker begins by speculating on what the Bard was expressing in his own time when
he wrote about the Romans.? (quoted in Smith, 1995, p. 35). Even in works that are
replete with depictions of the pagan settings and old traditions, and even if the
historical eras and settings of his play are largely different from his own, it is claimed
that the Bard himself was writing about his realm (Smith, 1995, p. 24). Although
Shakespeare was apparently dealing with problems about alternative locations and
times, he was sometimes questioning, problematizing, and historicizing the events and

36
issues of his time. Among Bard’s plays, Richard II is a noteworthy example of this
approach, since it is considered to represent a critique of Queen Elizabeth’s rule.
Clearly, adaptation is recognized as a useful instrument for criticizing, reinforcing, or
transforming the beliefs or occurrences of a specific period. This view holds proper for
both Bard’s adaptation of previous texts and postmodern writers’ adaptations of his
own plays.

The present study examined three Shakespearean adaptations, namely

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966) by Tom Stoppard, The Merchant
(1976) by Arnold Wesker, and Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) (1988)
by Ann-Marie MacDonald, in relation to their ideological matters. The plays that are
examined in the present study respond the Bard while also addressing the real vital
problems that are relevant to their own contexts. As a result, a particular focus is
placed on the ideological reactions that these plays have to the Bard. His works
are utilized to sustain the social and literary aspects of the present status, as they are
utilized particularly in popular productions to support the upkeep of concepts including
existence and discrimination against race and women. In the examination of these texts
in distinct chapters, each rewriting is analyzed in terms of its variations from
Shakespeare’s original texts, as well as with a reference to the numerous theoretical
use of adaptation noticed in their production. In this respect, each work is examined
in light of a specific critical issue. More specifically, Chapter one introduces the theory
of adaptation as a postmodern process. Furthermore, the development of the adaptation
of the Bard and its purposes are addressed. It is determined, therefore, that Bard’s
plays are evaluated within the context of these concepts, and their social elements are
criticized via reinterpretations. Chapter two analyses Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Are Dead from an existentialist reworking written to respond to the problems of Bard’s
marginalized minor characters (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) in Hamlet. The
absurdist atmosphere of the war years is carried over into the post-war context of
Stoppard’s play. It was a time when a common man was seeking for purpose in life
since he is left devastated by the aftermath of the war. Stoppard aims to illustrate that
the fundamental qualities of life are the same for everyone, including famous people
and ordinary people. After all, everyone’s life has equal worth, regardless of their
position or class. It is proposed that Stoppard’s play focuses on restoring the dignity of
these characters (Ros and Guil). In chapter three, The Merchant is racially and

37
religiously examined in response to Bard’s The Merchant of Venice from an anti-
Semitic point of view. Arnold Wesker attempts to strengthen the character of Shylock
in his adaptation who is racially marginalized in Shakespeare’s work. Chapter four
discusses Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) as a reaction to the
marginalized female characters in Bard’s Othello and Romeo and Juliet in light of the
feminist ideology. Anne Marie MacDonald significantly rewrites Shakespeare’s
original text to address postmodern female problems. By presenting
Constance’s metamorphosis into a strong individual, the work emphasizes the
necessity for females to achieve psychological power through the process of spiritual
healing and self-development. To sum up, as seen in the examined works, Bard’s plays
thrive in a way that ensures the key problems of succeeding eras.

38
 2. STRENGTHENING MARGINALIZED MINOR
SHAKESPEAREAN CHARACTERS IN STOPPARD’S
VERSION OF HAMLET

Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is a theatrical

adaptation of the Bard’s Hamlet. This play, which premiered in 1966, is a significant
turning point in Stoppard’s dramatic career since it enabled him to gain his first
notoriety as a playwright. Even though Stoppard gets the idea of the plot of his play
from the Bard, he nonetheless manages to include postmodern elements that make the
play similar to other postmodern works. While some critics attempted to demonstrate
the play’s debt to Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, others have associated it with
other contemporary works such as The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S Eliot’s
(Esslin, 1968, p. 12). However, the presence of two characters are resembling
Beckett’s tramps Vladimir and Estragon, the play’s prominent absurdist milieu, the
fragmented language employed in the play, and the sense of hopelessness with which
the play concludes brings it closer to Beckett’s work rather than any other work.
Stoppard’s proclamation that he is “an enormous admirer of Beckett” is not any less
important within this context (quoted in Hayman, 1982, p. 7).

Stoppard’s work was initially performed in a period devastated by the Second

World War’s aftermath. It was a period when ordinary people were searching for
meaning and purpose in life, having been left battered and hopeless by the war. All
ethics and principles had been destroyed in the vicious conflict, and the majority of
people were fighting to live meaningful life amid this hopeless scenario. Stoppard
witnessed the Nazi's occupation of Czechoslovakia and after a while fled to Singapore.
The family then transferred to Australia before the Japanese took over Singapore. As a
physician, Stoppard’s father stayed in Singapore as a volunteer in the British army,
believing that he would be required for Singapore’s defense. Although it is generally
believed that his father perished on board a ship attacked by the Japanese troops, in his
work, Stoppard describes how his father died as a war prisoner in Japanese custody.
His parents were Jewish and came from Jewish heritages. Hence, after their flee, he
discovered that his grandparents died in the Auschwitz camp a along his mother’s
sister. Thus, his play is set after world war II and follows the same absurdist spirit as
that of war years. Stoppard’s goal is to portray the grotesque of existentialism from the

39
perspective of an ordinary, common, and everyman in postmodern society in a
favorable light. More specifically, Stoppard’s play focuses on restoring the credibility,
dignity, and emotions of these marginalized Shakespearean minor characters
(Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) in a society damaged by social prejudice.

As a matter of fact, what Stoppard is doing in his play is presenting the tragedy
of Hamlet in a grotesque form. He does this by transferring the focus of his play away
from the protagonist Hamlet toward two of the characters who were originally
marginalized as minor characters in Bard’s version. At this point in Stoppard’s
adaptation, the characters Ros and Guil are brought to the foreground and elevated to
the role of the play’s protagonists. This method of foregrounding, according to Nada
Zeineddine, has “the effect of breaking the magnetic hold of Hamlet over the audience,
and democratizing thus rendering it that of ‘common man’ rather that the privileged
prince” (2012, p. 150). The play depicts the sad and tragic story that occurs in the lives
of two courtiers who come to represent the ordinary, common, and everyman. The
story of their lives, on the other hand, is built in such a way as to demonstrate the
meaninglessness, absurdity, and pointlessness of life. For the playwright to accomplish
this goal, he relegates Hamlet’s case to a secondary role and places more emphasis on
Ros and Guil, as they are referred to in Stoppard’s adaptation of the play.

Stoppard’s adaptation focuses on the actions of two apparently minor

characters - Ros and Guil from Hamlet. Nonetheless, Stoppard emphasizes Ros and
Guil in his play, while diminishing the positions of conventional strong characters such
as Hamlet. He sought significance and legitimacy for ordinary people and their lives
via the transformation of minor figures into main figures. Taking this into account, he
employs existentialism as a means of restoring ordinary people’s grandeur and
attractiveness. Stoppard’s adaptation takes its title from the last line of the
Ambassador’s speech in Hamlet which he uttered “The sight is dismal / And our
affairs from England come too late/ The ears are senseless that should give us hearing,
/ To tell him his commandment is fulfill’d, / That Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are
dead…” (Act 5, scene 2, 368-371). Shakespeare’s Hamlet has two minor characters
named Ros and Guil. These individuals are close friends with Hamlet, the prince of
England, who is on a journey for vengeance. In Denmark, Hamlet’s father was killed
by his uncle Claudius while Hamlet was undergoing intellectual instruction. Following
the news of his father’s death, Hamlet travels back to England and discovers that his

40
uncle has ascended to the throne. On top of that, the ghost of his father appears to him
and demands that he gets vengeance on Claudius for his father’s death.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead takes place during the Victorian age
when theatre was at its peak in terms of its popularity and splendor. Minor characters
were treated with less significance back then, both in terms of their labor and their
dignity. These figures were mostly restricted to the function of page boy or simple
joker, who would do ridiculously idiotic antics to amuse and delight the audience.
However, Stoppard was able to effectively restore the positions of these characters and
transform them into big and strong people, who are capable of bringing delight and
amusement to the audience as the situation demanded. During the two world wars, the
notion of so-called aristocratic (high class) and common or ordinary men (low class)
have been changed, and the relevance of figures such as Ros and Guild came to the
head to soothe the tension between them.

In addition to being known for his creative use of ironic political and language
metaphors, Stoppard is also linked with the theatre of the absurd, and such a movement
criticizes and mourns the absurdity of the man’s situation and the meaninglessness of
existence. By focusing on the subtle and humorous daily conversation within a
broader historical context, he merged the English culture of the “comedy of manners”
(a work that lampoons the aristocratic) with postmodern societal issues. He received
his education in both India and England and started out as a journalist and then as a
writer for television and radio before becoming well-known as a result of the
performance of his play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead 1966, which brought
him worldwide fame. Stoppard’s play, initially produced as a satirical reflection on
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, centers on the painfully existential yet trivial babblings of two
marginalized minor characters in Hamlet.

Aside from being criticized for his lack of character development, Stoppard’s
plays, such as Hapgood (1984), The Real Thing (1982), Every Good Boy Deserves
Favor (1977), Travesties (1974), Jumpers (1972), The Real Inspector and Hound
(1968), were fueled by ingenious linguistic shows and narrative inversions. In addition,
he has adapted many foreign-language works and has written several radio scripts as
well as the screenplay, including the movie version of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
Are Dead (1990), for which he also served as a director (Kelly, 2006, p. 15). He earned

41
an Academy Prize for the best inventive screenplay for Shakespeare in Love (1998). In
his later works, Stoppard maintained his concern for language and intellectual notions.
Indian Ink (1995) discusses Ophelia’s character in the context of disputes about the
value of art between Americans and Indians. Arcadia (1993) examines the
consequences of contemporary actions using modern ideas of randomness and
complexity. The play The Invention of Love (1997) is a work that depicts the poet A.
E. Housman’s life, with a particular emphasis on his private inner life (Kelly, 2006, p.
16). The play is presented from Housman’s perspective, focusing on his final
memories, and includes numerous classical allusions. The Coast of Utopia is a trilogy
of plays that premiered in 2002. The three plays, namely “Salvage”, “Shipwreck”, and
“Voyage” are about intellectual arguments that took place in pre-revolutionary Russia
in the mid-19th century. Rock ‘n’ Roll is a play that had its world debut in 2006 at the
Royal Court Theatre in London. The action of the play takes place across many
decades, extending from the late 1960s to 1990, and finishes with a performance by
The Rolling Stones in Prague in the same year. Two points of view are presented: those
of anti-Communists in Czechoslovakia, Prague, and Marxists in Cambridge, Britain
(Kelly, 2006, p. 18). Stoppard, who received the distinction of knighthood in 1997,
seems to be profoundly fascinated by metaphysical level that goes beyond just
aesthetic [Link] logical, symmetrical, and implosive qualities that characterize
him are apparent. Harry Blamires writes in his work that Stoppard’s plays “at their
most brilliant, are well plotted, rational trips that systematically find their ends and
their beginning” (Blamires, 2020, p. 620).

Ros and Guild, who are two minor Shakespearean characters in Hamlet, are
brought into the forefront. The plot, however, takes a different path. Stoppard
transforms the borrowed figures into his own individual creations, thereby resulting in
a dramatically different impression. He alters the minor characters Ros and Guil of
Shakespeare into the major leading characters in his version. Stoppard makes an effort
to track down and determine the identities of these unimportant individuals. According
to Ronald Strang, “this is Stoppard’s version of Shakespeare’s play, a reduction to
absurdity of everything noble and weighty in Hamlet” (1992, p. 242). Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are portrayed as traitors in the Bard’s Hamlet and are given the
punishment that is rightfully theirs in the play, whereas Stoppard does not consider
them to be traitors. According to Stoppard, he has a great deal of sympathy for them:

42
 As far as their involvement in Shakespeare’s text is concerned, they are told very little
about what is going on; and much of what they are told, is not true, so I see them much
more clearly as a couple of bewildered innocents rather than a couple of henchmen
(Brassell, 1987, p. 38).

Innocence and confusion are the two main pillars whereby the characters of
Ros and Guil are built because the challenges they experience and the outcomes of
their stories are not the direct consequence of actions they have taken on their own
behalf. They are not responsible for what occurs to them, nor do they have the power
or will to alter the outcome of their situation in any way.

When it comes to the treatment of the main characters by Shakespeare,

Stoppard takes a critical approach to the work. Apart from that, Stoppard demonstrates
existential philosophy, merging it with his intellectual ability, and provides a critical
review of Shakespeare’s apathetic treatment of Ros and Guil and their problems to
some degree. While surrounded by confusion and chaos, the two bewildered
friends pursue a clear identity for themselves and attempt to comprehend the
significance of events that are happening around them at breakneck speed. However,
they are eventually dispatched. Stoppard ruminates on severe and important issues, yet
he does it in a light and humorous manner, as was suited for the period. In this regard,
Gabriele Scott Robinson states “among Stoppard’s principal means of generating both
the uncertainty and the laughter is the intermingling of the logical with the absurd:
fantastic incidents are made to appear logical, while ordinary and apparently rational
occurrences are presented as if they were absurd and inexplicable” (1977, p. 37). He
highlights Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead’s central technical element. The
subject matter is presented in two distinct events, on-stage scenes, which are driven by
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, and the off-stage scenes, which include Stoppard’s creative and
analytical work.

Since the publication of Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

and Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, many critics have pointed out the resemblance
between the two works. In fact, Stoppard himself has made a point of highlighting how
much of Beckett’s impact comes from his books as well as Godot.

It’s only too obvious that there’s a sort of Godotesque element in Rosencrantz.
I’m an enormous admirer of Beckett, but if I have to look at my stuff objectively, I’d
say that the Beckett novels show as much as the plays .... There’s an element of
coincidence in what’s usually called influence. One’s appetites and predilections are

43
obviously not unique. They overlap with those countless other people, one of whom-
praise be God- is Samuel Beckett (Hayman, 1977, p. 7).

In terms of character portrayal, there is a lot of similarities. Little men, who

lack both knowledge and authority, are shown in both plays as they struggle to
comprehend a world filled with ambiguity. For instance, Rosencrantz is more like
Estragon (also known as Gogo) who represents the body while Guildenstern is more
like Vladimir (also known as Didi) who represents the head. Didi is in agony as he
waits for Godot, and he confides in Gogo that he senses things that his pal does not
notice or understand. At the opening of the play, Guildenstern exhibits significant
tension and anxiety. He also does the majority of the deep thinking and appears to be
more intellectually aware than Rosencrantz. Gogo is preoccupied with his feet, sleep,
and food; he is a poet and has visions, but he is completely oblivious to Godot’s
presence.

Both Estragon and Rosencrantz have extremely weak memory. Vladimir and
Guildenstern believe that they must wait for Godot or wait for the king to come to
them. Estragon is having difficulties comprehending how to reply to Pozzo and Lucky,
and simultaneously Rosencrantz is having far more problems comprehending how to
play at interrogating Hamlet. Guild’s scene in which he acts as Ros’s nursemaid
reminds of Didi’s confronting and singing to Gogo. Similarly, Rosencrantz’s appeal to
Guildenstern, “Don’t leave me!” (Ros & Guil, p. 76) after the player treads on his
hand, appears to be a reiteration of Gogo’s cries, “Stay with me!” (Waiting for Godot,
p. 39) after he has been beaten. Didi might grow frustrated by Gogo’s indecision and
“whining”, whilst Guild can become progressively enraged by Ros’s lack of awareness
and action, eventually knocking him to the ground. Stoppard departs from
Shakespeare’s Hamlet, where Ros and Guild are almost similar to adopt the major
patterns of Waiting for Godot’s portrayal of the characters. Stoppard’s Ros and Guild,
nevertheless, face a dilemma and reflect an event that is fundamentally distinct from
Beckett’s two tramps. Whilst Beckett’s protagonists spend an endless waiting,
Stoppard’s experience quick and unexplainable transformation. The fact that Godot
appears in Tom Stoppard’s play is one of the most significant differences.

If Stoppard was keenly aware of his reliance on Beckett and wanted his reader
to recognize it, he was also offering ideas, actions, and a dramatic event that was

44
clearly distinct from Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. Although Vladimir and Estragon’s
complaints “nothing to be done”, a significant amount occurs in Stoppard’s work in a
short period of time. Time passes too slowly for Didi and Gogo, however, Ros and
Guil rarely mention it, believing that time is an illusion “Never a moment’s peace!”
(Ros & Guil, p. 13). They do use activities to kill time and refuse to face their personal
plight; nonetheless, they simultaneously are imprisoned in the rapidly moving and
action-packed of Hamlet’s story and are getting deeply concerned with their
imprisonment. Guil and Ros are concerned primarily with freedom of choice, and they
are astounded that the one who picked them to travel to England considered them so
significant. In summary, Beckett’s work is about the indecision and despair felt by
Vladimir and Estragon while they are stuck in a never-ending cycle of time, whereas
Stoppard’s work is about the indecision and despair experienced by Ros and
Guil while they are seeking to comprehend the origin of events that they eventually
recognize are leading them to their doom.

Therefore, the case in the play of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is
both similar to and unlike the case in Waiting for Godot. Many critics seek to draw
parallels between these two plays in terms of their themes and cases. Michael
Alexander expresses his perspective on Stoppard as a Becket disciple in the following
statement:

The effect of Beckett can be clearly apparent in Tom Stoppard’s work ... The characters are
imprisoned and isolated; they have nothing to do other than philosophizing; they have
known little about themselves than the reader does; speech, actions, and ideas all appear to
be irrelevant (Alexander, 2000, p.450).

As seen in this passage, Michael sees in Stoppard several absurdist qualities,

such as characters’ alienation, lack of understanding about their backgrounds, and
meaningless behaviors.

Robinson, in a similar manner, classifies Stoppard’s work as an absurdist work

which is characterized by the characters’ portrayal of a fragmented unchanging world,
as well as their use of dispersed dialogue and action (1977, p. 14). Robinson’s
inclusion of Stoppard’s work into the absurdist cannon is suitable in and of itself,
since the absurdist world is alienated, has no definite time and place, and does not
involve action in the normal way. Martin Esslin holds a similar point of view and
believes that Beckett had an impact on Stoppard. He argues that Rosencrantz and

45
Guildenstern Are Dead utilizes essential features from Waiting for Godot under the
insignificant development of the character’s personality (1987, p. 434).

The common men are born to admire and be impressed by the boldness of what
is called high-status men. Guil and Ros, the commoners’ representatives, take
enjoyment in the ordinary act of fingernails growing after death. Ros while cutting his
fingernails indicates “Another curious scientific phenomenon is the fact that the
fingernails grow after death, as does the beard” (Ros & Guil, p. 17). Although it is a
normal occurrence, it pleases Guil and Ros, which is Stoppard's manner of educating
the reader about their ignorance.

Stoppard’s work encourages to reexamine the value of common people, who

were relegated to the role of page boy, clown, or chamber servant whose sole purpose
was to please their lords during the Victorian and Elizabethan eras. Their presence was
barely noticed in the dramas. They hardly enjoy a starring position, and when they do,
it is usually because of the favors of the main figures. Their activities were bizarre,
foolish, and amusing, with no attempt at civilized behaviour, as demonstrated by
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Ros and Guil, two courtiers, flip a coin at the beginning of the play. Guil is
holding a nearly full bag, while Ros is carrying a nearly empty bag. The explanation
for this is that they are placing a bet on the outcome of a coin flip, such as Guil – Head
and Ros – Tail. As the game continues, Guil proclaims “head” and places the coin
back in the bag after each round is completed. 76 times, a similar act of seemingly
unimportant coin flip is performed, and each time Ros proclaims ‘tail’ and loses as the
game continues. However, it appears that he is unaffected by the loss. Thus, all the
coins that Guil tosses come up heads which is something that cannot be explained
according to the rules of probability ratio. He explains “The law of averages, if I have
got this right, means that if sex monkeys were thrown up in the air for long enough
they would land on their tails about as often as they would land on their […]” (Ros &
Guil, 13). This situation which is governed by sheer chance makes the audience realize
that he is “in that pale region of Theatre of Absurd where knockabout and arid
philosophical speculation mix or alternate while the awaited never comes” (Taylor,
2013, p. 320). The process of waiting, as in Beckett’s play, is the central issue that the
playwright uses to demonstrate the absurdity and aimlessness of life. Nevertheless, this

46
is not the only issue given to the audience in Stoppard’s play for there are additional
connected cases of considerable importance to the postmodern spectator. Mona Al-
Alwan identifies three plot strands or rather three scenarios in the play; the plot of Ros
and Guil, the plot of Hamlet, and the plot of the players. She refers to the structure of
the play, which is intentionally constructed as an absurd drama and states “the threads
of plot are brilliantly intermingled and interwoven in an absurd universe” (Al-Alwan,
2000, p. 85)

The absurdity of existence is also represented in all of the characters who are
engaged in the three plots, but it is crystallized specifically well in the case of Ros and
Guil, who constitute the core concern of the play. The two characters, Ros and Guil,
seem to be modeled by Beckett’s Vladimir and Estragon, with whom they share a
variety of common qualities. Their conversation, for example, conveys the
ridiculousness and absurdity that pervades the whole of the play. The majority of their
speeches are fragmented and give the impression of having no sense; they are made up
of sentences that give the impression of uncertainty, anxiety, and dread. They include
repeated words, fragmented and incomplete remarks, as well as meaningless speeches;
still, they often turn to philosophical speculation, particularly when attempting to
examine their existence in such a confusing situation. Guil, on the other hand, is the
more intellectual and philosophical one of the two characters. The two conversations
below are examples of their communication style:

Guil: Too late for what?

Ros: How do I know? We haven't got there yet.
Guil: Then what are we doing here, I ask myself.
Ros: You might well ask.
Guil: We better get on.
Ros: You might well think.
Guil: Without much conviction; we better get on.
Ros (actively): Right! (Pause.) On where?
…….
Ros: (eagerly): I knew all along it was a band.
Guil: (tiredly): He knew all along it was a band.
Ros: Here they come!
Guil: (at the last moment before they enter - wistfully): I'm sorry it wasn't the unicorn. It
would have been nice to have unicorns. Guil: Are you happy?
…….
Guil: Are you happy?
Ros: what?
Guil: Content? At ease?
Ros: I suppose so.
Guil: what are you going to do now?
Ros: I don’t know. What do you want to do?
Guil: I have no desires. None. (Ros & Guil, pp.11- 12)

47
 Like Beckett’s tramps, these two characters exhibit the futility that links them
to the nonsensical world of the Absurd. They are uncertain about almost everything,
including their identity, past, and plans for the future. They have found themselves in
a condition that they did not choose. They are consequently clueless as to the reason
why they are in this condition. The only thing that they are sure of, according to their
beliefs, is that they were sent for, and at this point, all they can do is to wait to find out
what happens next. This dilemma is reminiscent of Albert Camus’s lines when he
wrote in The myth of Sisyphus

A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other
hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and light, man feels like an alien, a
stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or
the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his
setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity (Bloom, 2011, p. 117)

In 1942, Camus accomplishes his most well-known book, which is titled The
Myth of Sisyphus. The book raises the question of how should one face the absurd? In
Camus’s work, the word absurd involves a conflict between people’s attempts to find
meaning in this absolutely meaningless world. When someone knows that life has no
meaning and without any point, they feel obliged to pursue the meaning in it (Camus,
2016, p. 35). According to Albert Camus, there are seven different ways that one might
react to Absurdism. The first and most obvious risk is that one may end up killing
yourself. The second option is to make an effort to disregard it by focusing on the
positive aspects of his/ her life, such as the pleasures of good food, companionship,
and drink. The third option is to simply reject Absurdism. For example, one may
become religious and asserts that there is a meaning in life since it is driven by God.
One might also conform to the existentialist view and assert that even if a person is not
very interested in practicing organized religion, they are still the ones who, ultimately,
are responsible for determining the significance of their life. The fourth option to
address Absurdism is to have an artistic mission and by pretending of living a life that
is full of meaning within the framework of the work. The fifth option is to pursue a
career of becoming an artist, such as a painter, who produces artwork that has a
meaning as a substitute for his everyday life. Number six is to be a political figure
who derives his/her purpose and meaning in life from things related to power and
governance. Camus takes each of these options into consideration and substantially

48
denies them. Acceptance, however, is not just the seventh and last strategy but also the
one that he really advocates when trying to deal with absurdity. In another way,
accepting life is meaningless yet feeling obliged to find meaning in it anyway.
However, this acceptance is not gloomy and depressing, as one does not simply reject
it, divert it, and continue to live life even though they are fully aware of its aimlessness
(Bowker, 2016, p. 94). Sisyphus in Greek mythology has been condemned to spend
forever pushing a rock up a hill every day, only to see it rolling all the way down the
hill every evening. According to Camus, the only way for Sisyphus to find true
happiness is to acknowledge the aimlessness of his work, thus making the decision to
do so, and then he smiles as he makes all the way down the mountain each night
(Quoted in Sagi, 2002, p. 87). On the other hand, the very same number seven
response of Albert Camus’s philosophy can be applied to Ros and Guil. The third
act has taken place in the sea. A letter that Ros and Guil are bringing with them, which
requests Hamlet’s execution by the hand of King (Hamlet’s uncle), is discovered
throughout their sea trip by the two courtiers. However, they do not do anything to the
letter to spare his life. They accept the fact that he will die at some point in the future.
As a result, they believe that there is no need to be concerned about his death. It is
accepted that Hamlet’s death was a natural occurrence. However, they subsequently
discover that the content of the letter has been changed with the lines that commands
their execution. Even though they are well aware of their dilemma, they do not dare to
alter the content of the letter to save their own lives. Thus, Ros and Guil already know
that their destiny is death, yet they do not dare to escape; they accepted their situation
like a Sisyphus and enjoy it because they know the pointlessness of their escape as Ros
says “We’ve got nothing to go on, we’re out on our own”, “what are going to say”
(Ros & Guil, p. 53). They have a free will to escape death, yet they willingly choose to
accept their death. It is worth noting that one of the characters in Waiting for Godot
eventually accepts Absurdism and comes to terms with the absurdity of the situation.
This character is expected to endure a tremendous burden, yet even when he
is provided with comfort and solace, he continues to voluntarily return to that burden
and takes it back up again. It is Lucky the character from Waiting for Godot, who is
referred to as the slave. It is possible to interpret Lucky as Albert Camus’s example
of the absurdist hero; someone who is aware that their life is worthless and terrible, yet

49
continues to live it. In addition, when Lucky eventually talks to Pozzo, Estragon, and
Vladimir, they and other readers cannot comprehend a word he says.

Gassner and Quinn in their book The reader’s encyclopedia of world drama
state that the essential voice in Stoppard’s play is the concept of a French symbolist
poet who aimed to fill the gap between music and language (2002, p. 129). Stoppard
communicates directly to our senses and emotions by using pauses, rhythm,
suggestion, imagery, and ultimately the sound of silence itself. As a consequence, his
idea is often felt but not fully comprehended. Accordingly, one may argue that
Stoppard’s work is meant to be felt rather than comprehended. The misery of life is a
world in which people have no option but to adjust to ridiculous small things since the
experience of living must be felt within instead of comprehended outwardly.

Consequently, more than half percent of Stoppard’s adaptation version is

viewed as a series of questions, cliches, and pointless repetitions. M. H. Abrams and
Harpham remark about the playwright’s work that is “lucid but the dialogue is eddying
and pointless and often funny, and pratfalls and other modes of slapstick are used to
project the alienation and tragic anguish of human existence” (2015, p. 2). Abrams and
Harpham argue in this passage that the unproductive and meaningless language used in
the play creates and intensifies the absurd emotion that the readers feel. Through the
course of his work, readers are made to feel alienated and powerless. Similarly, Neil
Sammells believes that Stoppard’s work is possibly the best example of a play that
repeats an outdated idea in an incongruous context, “in which the eternal triangle and
hackneyed rhetoric of domestic melodrama are relived by three characters immersed in
urns, blinded and thrust into sporadic speech by a probing, unnameable light” (1988, p.
7). Sammell’s opinion suggests that Stoppard uses obsolete methods in inappropriate
settings, thus demolishing the language’s inherent communicability. Therefore,
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead ridicules or rather destroys all of our beliefs
of meaning by utilizing language against itself to avoid concealing their profound
weakness.

The essential point of Stoppard’s contradiction is that he presents low or minor

characters as main figures. He lauds the idea of language and demonstrates via
language that a man must be responsible and proactive enough to assume
responsibility for himself. One’s existence has a significant impact on the decisions

50
that he/she makes. Throughout his play, he demonstrates the importance of taking
responsibility and acting on it. Stoppard’s idea on the necessity of action is clarified by
Ronald Hayman as follows: “By placing modern speaking style into Ros and
Guil’s mouths and placing side by side humorous prose scenes with Shakespearean
tragedy, Stoppard helps make modern cliches look weak and dimwitted, in contrast to
Hamlet’s bravery and language” (1982, p. 26). Furthermore, Stoppard’s text frequently
generates humor by immediately shifting from the heavenly to the secular. It also
serves a dual purpose first by introducing the major idea of the play, which is that life
is full of horrible agony, and second, it sets a tone of cynical comedy, which is
observed throughout the play. For instance,

Ros: Or just as mad.

Guil: Or just as mad.
Ros: And he does both.
Guil: So there you are.
Ros: Stark raving sane.
(Pause.)….
Guil: Ah. (To ROS.) Why?
Ros: Exactly.
Guil: Exactly what?
Ros: Exactly why.
Guil: Exactly why what?
Ros: What?
Guil: Why?
Ros: Why what, exactly?
Guil: Why is he mad?!
Ros: I don't know! (Ros & Guil, p. 125)

In this instance, the discourse has a comical tone, which is the result of Ros’s
perspective. He utilizes expressions such as, ‘mad’ and ‘so there you are’ to indicate
that individuals are scattered and fatigued. This is a cynical comedy intended to keep
people active in this pointless and lifeless world.

It is not often that Stoppard’s work contains elements from the Bible. Rather
than criticizing or condemning any religious authority, his goal is to convey the notion
that human beings should decide what they become. He does not comment on the
subject of God or morality. It is accurate in the case of ordinary people since they lack
both religion and ethics. On the other hand, he uses a tone that is light-hearted and
comedic while presenting his viewpoint. Margret Litvin writes in his review of
Stoppard’s work that the whole work consists of intellectual scenes interrupted by
moments of seriousness (2011, p. 39).

51
 In Ros and Guil’s world, even the most serious events, including births and
deaths, are treated with the same level of casualness as any other day. They go about
their routine as though nothing else could possibly disturb them. As they proceed to
sacrifice their lives for others, as in war, which is started by someone else and fought
for the advantage of another party, it is excellently illustrated in the following speech
how these figures express life and death, and how they are identical to the foolish little
activities Guil and Ros undertake:

Guil: Were you addressing me?

Ros: Is there anyone else?
Guil: Who?
Ros: How would I know?
Guil: Why do you ask?
Ros: Are you serious?
Guil: Was that rhetoric?
Ros: No.
Guil: Statement! Two-all. Game point.
Ros: What’s the matter with you today?
Guil: When?
Ros: What?
Guil: Are you deaf?
Ros: Am I dead?
Guil: Yes or no?
Ros: Is there a choice?
Guil: Is there a God? (Ros & Guil, p. 30)

Here, terms such as dead, deaf, choice, serious, who, when, what, and
addressing me and God convey absurdity. In other words, these figures and their
existence are constrained to these minor activities; therefore, politicians and other
people of the upper class may use and discard them at the same time.

While Ros and Guil are kept waiting, they attempt to pass their time by
engaging in a variety of activities, such as throwing coins, attempting to come up with
ideas using philosophical jargon, or participating in a game in which they ask and
answer questions that are completely unrelated to the situation. However, this seeming
activity does not conceal their unavoidable feeling of weariness and uneasiness. In
fact, a sad feeling of hopelessness has left them immobilized and unable to act. When
people are in this state, they get the impression that they are not only disoriented but
that they are also a kind of unidentifiable “creatures”. They seem to be “intensely
aware of their lack of identity” (Alwan, 2000, p. 183). They are unidentifiable, so
everyone gets them confused: Hamlet, the king, the queen, and occasionally even they
themselves forget who they are. Stoppard illustrates for us in this sense the agonizing

52
condition that men find themselves in when confronted with the absurdity of life. They
are lifeless men who are incapable of realizing themselves, forgetful of their origins
and the position into which they have been irrationally plunged. A mental condition
like this drives a person to hopelessness, and finally leading them to commit suicide.
Within the context of the Theater of the Absurd, death is often presented as a substitute
for life or as a solution to the last choice to the dilemma of life. In Stoppard’s
adaptation, the idea of death is quite prevalent throughout not just this particular
episode of Ros and Guil, but also the other two episodes that are connected with this
one. It seems as though Stoppard is trying to convey his opinion by saying “life is
absurd, everywhere, whether on the road with two alienated courtiers, or in the court
amidst society, or in the world of make-believe, the world of the play” (Alwan, 2000, p
185).

Ros and Guil only stay together because they are terrified of being abandoned
in this confusing universe and do not want to risk losing each other. The deaths of the
other characters in Hamlet, such as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are acted out by the
play’s performers on many occasions during the play. This serves as a type of
foreshadowing for the audience. While this does address wider metaphorical problems,
such as how death is the absence of our existence and how death is a fact in daily life,
it does not solve the question of how death comes about. The failure of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern to understand this scene’s foreshadowing is what makes it such a
fascinating part of the play. Because the absurdity and pointlessness of their lives have
had such a profound effect on them, they have entirely lost their sense of selfhood. As
a result, they are unable to identify that it is in fact their own characters who are being
represented by players on stage in front of them.

Stoppard connects the three parts of the plot by making the scene of Ros and
Guil the primary focus of the play by assuming that the reader is acquainted
with Bard’s Hamlet. As a result, Hamlet’s story is presented within the events of the
play by strategically integrating scenes into the action of the play in which Hamlet,
Ophelia, the King, and the Queen are all presented. Nonetheless, the actors who are
simply minor characters in the source play and participate solely in acting “the Mouse-
trap within the main events of the play, are given here a wider role in the events”
(Scott, 1989, p. 14). It is during Hamlet’s visit to Ophelia in his madman state that he
makes his first appearance in the scene. The grotesque aspect is apparent in the

53
portrayal of the scene as a pantomime depicting a madman approaching a young lady.
As it depicts a phase in Hamlet’s character development in the original play, the scene
loses its glamour. It is expected to serve as a reminder to the audience of the Bard’s
original work. Consequently, it is included within the scenes of an absurd scenario that
centers on Ros and Guil. Hamlet’s presence in such an abrupt way gives the
impression that he is a relatively minor character in the absurd world of Ros and Guil.
The appearances of Claudius, Gertrude, and Polonius within the plot of Stoppard’s
play are also reminiscent of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in other ways. Nevertheless, the
scene in which these characters are involved is adapted directly from Shakespeare’s
Hamlet.

It is important to note that when Ros and Guil interact with the King or Queen,
they also speak the identical words that are existed in the Bard’s work. These taken
scenes serve as connections between the source work and Stoppard’s work. Act II
begins with Stoppard’s instruction to the audience to return to Shakespeare’s Act II,
Scene II. This method of taking lines or scenes from Shakespeare persists in the play’s
second and third acts. Stoppard wants his audience to have Shakespeare’s play in mind
while watching Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (Scott, 1989, p. 16).

Stoppard’s intention in his adaptation of the work is unquestionably different

from the Bard’s. Nevertheless, as a context in which Ros and Guil’s event is meant to
be occurring, Stoppard keeps the structure of the plot but does not keep the contents of
the main plot. Consequently, the tragic story of Hamlet is simplified to the point of
pantomime to emphasize the misery and tragedy of the two courtiers. Therefore,
Stoppard is not only shifting the emphasis of the play, but also “altering the
Shakespearean tragic genre” (Scott, 1989, p. 20), by emphasizing the comic quality of
the actions of Ros and Guil from the very first moment of the work through all of the
subsequent events. The idea of death, nonetheless, continues to lurk there as the
inevitable conclusion to all of this absurdity. The concept of death is the prevalent
motive of many of the actions in Stoppard’s play, just like in Hamlet. The two plays
make use of this motif in a variety of different ways. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, it is
employed in a tragic context, but in Stoppard’s play, it takes on other new dimensions.

Stoppard focuses primarily on the deaths of Ros and Guil, which nearly causes
him to ignore the deaths of other characters, such as Hamlet, Claudius, and Gertrude.

54
As in Hamlet, here, these two protagonists are forced to an end that is not of their own
will. Stoppard’s depiction of them as innocent individuals trapped in a predicament
situation that is not of their own choice reveals fatalism and hopelessness of human
existence. Even though they are certain of their innocence, the protagonists, ironically,
surrender to the notion of their inevitable death. Ros and Guil are now completely
aware that they are powerless in a world where their destiny is predetermined and that
the only way out is to submit to the one end that is imaginable, which is death. There is
no other way out but for them is to accept death as their only option.

Guil : A man standing in his saddle in the half-lit half-alive

dawn banged on the shutters and called two names. He was
just a hat and a cloak levitating in the Grey plume of his own
breath, but when be called we came. That much is certain-we came.
Ros: Well I can tell you I’m sick to death of it . I don’t care one
way or another, so why don’t you make up your mind?
Guil : We can’t afford anything quite so arbitrary. nor did we come
all this way for a christening. All that-preceded us. But we are
comparatively fortunate; we might have been left to sift the whole
field of human nomenclature, like two blind men looting a bazaar
for their own portraits … At least we are presented with alternatives
Ros: Well as from now-
Guil :-But not choice.
Ros: You made me look ridiculous in there.
Guil : I looked just as ridiculous as you did.
Ros (an anguished cry): Consistency is all I ask!
Guil (low, wry, rhetoric): Give us this day our daily mask.
Ros (a ding fall) : I want to go home (moves ). Which way did we come in? I've lost my
sense of direction.
Giul: the only beginning is birth and the only end is death-if you can't count on that, what
can you count on ? (Ros & Guil, p. 29-30)

Ros and Guil are unable to comprehend any idea clearly due to the chaotic
world in which they are situated. They not only have lost their sense of direction, but
they have lost their sense of nearly everything else as well. Consequently, their
perception is diminished. Everything seems murky and gloomy to them. They are
conscious of the fact that they are moving in the direction of a deadlock, which is
represented by England, the country to which they are sent; nonetheless, the actuality
of that end is not clear or evident to them. John M. Perlette claims “England is a dead
end--end of their function, their mission, their journey, their lives-in more than one
sense. Yet their destination ultimately makes no sense; it can be neither imagined nor
explained” (1985, p. 665). No wonder why Ros questions whether “death could
possibly be a boat” (Ros & Guil, p. 108)? Death, although it is inconceivable, it
becomes the primary preoccupation of these two characters.

55
 If death is considered an unimaginable concept for Ros and Guil, it is also an
unreal fictitious occurrence for the Player. It is possible to act it out in a play. This
fictional method of death is the only one that the Player is familiar with. Ros explains
to Guil that the reality of death ruins the image that was created by fiction, and he tells
the story of how he once presented a real act of hanging in one of his plays, which
resulted in the failure of the play. In fact, Guil cannot regard the kind of death
described by the player to be the sole sort of death that may be accepted by others.
Meanwhile, Guil himself is unable to conceive it as something true, and can only see it
as something unreal and without existence. “These positions”, as John M. Perlette
suggests, “are actually complementary, opposite sides of the same coin, each in its way
a recognition of the fact that we have no direct access to the reality of death” (1985, p.
667). This demonstrates that the concept of death continues to be the primary focus of
the play right up until the very end. When Ros and Guil mysteriously disappear, this
causes the audience to feel a sense of absurdity due to the fact that their deaths are not
the result of a chain of logically consistent causes and effects.

It seems that Stoppard is drawing inspiration for his new play from both
Hamlet and Waiting for Godot, as Ruby Cohn has considered “a witty commentary
rather than a theatrical exploration into either great work” (2015, p. 413). One may,
however, consider Stoppard’s play to be more than a simple remark on the topic. It is
an insight into the human situation in general, embodied by the two protagonists who
gain deeper significance throughout the play. Despite the fact that the play takes place
in the same historical context as the original play, it is characterized by a universality
that makes it a representation of the state of oppressed human beings everywhere and
whenever they exist. The irreparable disparity between life and death affects man in an
absurd universe in which man’s existence is seen as random and pointless. In this
condition, man is seen as a hopeless lost, and powerless being who has no will to enter
or exit in the world. If Ros and Guil had been given the option to choose their own
fate, neither of them would have embraced death. Except, like everyone else, they are
denied this option, leaving them with no alternative but to accept what is determined
for them (Zeineddine, 2012, p. 155.).

The spirit of apathy to the future emerges as a direct result of this demoralizing
attitude of submission. This helplessness becomes predominant throughout their
journey to their deaths. When Ros and Guil are in the middle of the ocean, they find

56
out that the royal letter they are carrying to the king of England has been changed and
replaced with another letter that orders their immediate execution. They are aware that
they are coming closer and closer to the end. They are aware of the inevitability of
death approaching fast to them, and despite the opportunities, they have to avoid it.
They provide no indication that they are attempting to rescue themselves in any way.
They submit without resistance, and regardless of the opportunities, they have to flee
the situation.

Guil( quietly) : Where we went wrong was getting on a boat. We can move, of
course, change direction, rattle about, but our movement is contained within a larger
one that carries us along as inexorably as the wind and current...

Ros: They had it in for us. Didn’t they? Right from the beginning. Who’d have thought that
we were so important?
Cuil: But why? Was it all for this? Who are We that so much should converge on our little
deaths? (In anguish to the Player). Who are We?
Player: you are Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That’s enough.
Guil: No-it is not enough. To be told so little to -such an end-and still, finally, to be denied
an explanation...
Player: In our experience , most things end in death.
Guil (fear, vengeance, scorn): Your experience?-Actors!... And no blood runs cold
anywhere… (Ros & Guil, p. 93)

This situation of absurdity can be seen not only in the story of Ros and Guil, or
the story of the players but also in the story of Hamlet, which is deeply embedded
in the play in such a way that it serves as a background to the new play. This is
because the story of Hamlet is interwoven into the fabric of the play. Even though it
concludes with Hamlet’s death, the plot of Hamlet is not a tragedy anymore but rather
a grotesque image that has been stripped of its beauty and magnificence. In the last
scene of the play, Stoppard again depends on the audience’s familiarity with the
original Hamlet to provide a summary duplication of Shakespeare’s final scene. Due to
the lack of information on Hamlet’s death in Stoppard’s play, death is made to seem as
insignificant as those of Ros and Guil. Hamlet’s death appears to reflect absurdity
since it is a grotesque of actual death. The players’ lives are meaningless and pointless
and are therefore equal to death, and Ros and Guil’s lives and deaths on the other hand
are considered the ultimate loss, or a chaos, as Guil describes in his last statement in
the play “Guil : Our names shouted in a certain dawn… a message... a summons...
there must have been a moment, at the beginning ,where we could have said-no. But
somehow we missed it” (Ros & Guil, p. 95).

57
 The characters Ros and Guil in Stoppard’s play are forced to fulfill a certain
requirement. They are acutely aware of the absurdity of the condition and may at times
engage in conversations with a philosophical tenor about the laws of probability and
causation in an attempt to find some kind of explanation and meaning for their life
situations (Cohn, 2015, p. 415). Notwithstanding, the ultimate reality is that their
attempt is doomed to be unsuccessful since “their proofs are cerebral speculations
divorced from the reality of the situation in which they find themselves” (Scott, 1989,
p. 17). Due to the chaotic and absurd situation they are surrounded by, their condition
is forced upon them, and they cannot alter it. Therefore, they believe that speculating is
the only alternative to taking action.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet has been rewritten by Stoppard in such a manner that the
resulting play is distinct from the one that Shakespeare wrote. It seems that the reason
why Stoppard has chosen this play is connected to the fact that he has seen the
characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as being innocent victims of the royal plot.
As a result, the emphasis of the play is shifted away from the central story of Hamlet to
these minor characters, thus making them the protagonists and major characters of his
play. Stoppard employs Beckett’s techniques in his work, despite the fact that the story
of the Bard’s Hamlet serves as the basis for the structure of his play. This is because
the primary objective of the play is to shed light on the absurdity of the situation in
which these two characters are placed. Stoppard magnifies the spirit of absurdity to the
point that it overshadows everything else that happens in the play. As a result,
Stoppard’s play becomes an interpretation of Hamlet in which the absurdity of the
whole situation established by Shakespeare is reflected in the play.

In terms of character development, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

and Hamlet have a lot in common and similarities. Ros and Guil have invented games
in order to take their minds off the absurdity of their situation. Similar to
Shakespeare’s characters, Stoppard’s characters are also confused. They also have no
idea where they came from. They become pawns in the game played by time and
circumstances that seem to be beyond their power. Their manner of speech, gestures,
and actions are very similar to those of Beckett’s tramps. They flip coins as a way to
pass the time, and the most intriguing part about it is that they always land on the same
spot (tail), despite the fact that they are aware that the chance of landing on the tail is
quite low. They play king and make decrees to escape the boredom of inaction, which

58
is comparable to the events that Beckett’s tramps engage in throughout the play, such
as playing in shoes and hats and performing endless fall on one’s buttocks.

By moving the focus to minor characters, Stoppard creates a grotesque picture

of Hamlet, and by developing the tragic story of the innocent Ros and Guil, he seems
to be reinforcing the picture of Hamlet as a self-centered person. The details of
Hamlet’s character development are ignored since his picture is formed via brief
episodes in which he is depicted pantomimically. As a postmodern interpretation of the
play, Stoppard’s play offers a theatrical image that may be appreciated for its insight
into issues pertaining to the existence of man in the world. The popularity of the play
at its period in the 1960s might be seen as proof that it successfully reflects the
predominant feeling of the time. In this regard, Michael Scott observes:

Stoppard’s play can only appear as on extravaganza enjoyed by audiences who may be
content with its flippancy concerning the play’s metaphysics but are happy not to be
provoked into considering those issues in Shakespearean template which cry out in the
1980s to be heard (1989, p. 27).

Scott thinks that audiences in the 1970s and 1980s are not able to accept
Stoppard’s treatment of Hamlet. This is partial because the political situation has
changed, thus creating new types of audiences, and partially because he sees
Stoppard’s work as an ‘extravaganza’ that does not do justice to Shakespeare’s
masterpiece. Partially, this is true, but from a humanitarian standpoint, Stoppard’s
play, even though it focuses on minor characters from Shakespeare, can be seen as a
reflection of how the playwright feels about a very important question: how valuable is
a human being in this world?

Stoppard’s renewal of the Bard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as main figures

has not only altered the significance of these figures but also elevated the spirit of
ordinary people’s lives via these common individuals. In fact, Stoppard is positive
about human existence inasmuch as it involves giving up control to others in both life
and death since, in his opinion, it is what it is to really live. Stoppard emphasizes that
the existence of Ros and Guil is equally worthy and valuable to all individuals,
regardless of class or rank. The upper class might have been the subject of power and
privilege, but even the most ordinary of individuals have rights and dignity that, in
many situations, is more significant than that of the well-known and high class.

59
 To suggest that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead may be used as a
replacement for Hamlet ignores the reality of the situation, whereby the original play
will continue to serve as a source of speculation for playwrights both now and in the
future. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that for each ear, there is a Hamlet for its
own. Stoppard’s Hamlet was from the 1960s, and it successfully reflected the
atmosphere of the time. The Hamlet of the twenty-first century will undoubtedly be
different, but neither the original nor Stoppard’s can be eliminated.

60
 3. STRENGTHENING RACIALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY
MARGINALIZED SHAKESPEAREAN CHARACTER IN
WESKER’S VERSION OF THE MERCHANT OF VINCE

In the postmodern era, racial and religious problems are emphasized in Arnold
Wesker’s adaptation of The Merchant of Venice. The play explores racially and
religiously marginalized Shakespearean character (Shylock) through a society
damaged by politics of racial and religious aspects. There is a significant dispute about
whether the Bard was a bigot because of his literature. Therefore, Shylock’s role as a
Jewish protagonist in Arnold’s adaptation becomes the main focus on restoring the
honour and emotions of this marginalized character. In this regard, while a few critics
have identified some increased anti-Semitism in Bard’s plays, a few writers such as
Wesker have spoken about the clear evidence of an increase in anti-Semitism in Bard’s
plays. As a result, a few adaptations of the work arose, either with a sympathetic
portrayal of the Jewish identity or with an alternate history of the Venetian Jew. Being
from a Jewish background, Wesker in The Merchant (1976) expresses his critique of
the Bard and represents his society’s issues about racial and religious issues. Thus,
Wesker makes the decision to adapt Bard’s version from a new viewpoint. His goal is
to reinterpret The Merchant of Venice in the context of postmodern problems and
concepts to highlight how man is trapped.

Perhaps, Wesker’s Jewish heritage had a strong influence on his interpretation

of Bard’s version. Born in 1932, Arnold Wesker’s father was Jewish and his mother
was Hungarian. As a youngster, he grew up in the Jewish East End, a working-class
neighborhood in London. He saw racist and antisemitic assaults of the Jewish
people in his hometown throughout his youth. As he was growing up, he was certain
that he had gained common knowledge of his community’s suffering, as he reports his
experience of antisemitism as a youngster. As a youngster, “I did not encounter any
antisemitism. However, they still have a lingering feeling of persecution because of
their history. My belief is that one receives a feeling of identity from it” (qtd. in
Hayman, 1979, p. 5). Although Wesker never encountered antisemitic acts, he
nonetheless had strong ties to his Jewish background and often took notice of the
discrimination against Jews. One of the antisemitic incidents that occurred while
Wesker was a youngster was the 1936 clash between the Blackshirts (the fascist

61
organization led by Oswald Mosley) and the immigrants (who included a lot of Jews)
on Cable Street in London. Having seen such racial prejudice targeted towards his
race, Wesker has become an active member of Jewish “anti-antisemitism”
organization. Thus, he joined the Zionist organization group Habonim when he was
only fourteen years old. It may be shown that Wesker’s personal priorities included
resolving his country’s problem with “anti-Semitism”. Regarding the matter of racial
violence against minorities, he frequently spoke about his anxieties during speeches
and then used his works to express his opinions.

Besides his adaptation of the Bard, the overall attitude Wesker takes to “anti-
Semitism” is also evident in his other works. Furthermore, the way in which Wesker
views Bard’s The Merchant of Venice lends credence to the notion that adaptation is
very often produced in connection to the author’s ideological or personal antecedents.
“Shylock’s forgiveness is not like mine”, as Wesker argues, since, he is filled with
resentment. Because the drama is committed to the murderous hatred of the Jewish
people (Wesker, 1977, p. 2), it is obvious that Wesker’s frustration at how the Bard
portrayed his people throughout the character of Shylock drove him to reinterpret the
play and alter any anti-Semitic sentiments the Bard might have otherwise instilled. In
addition, Wesker has drawn parallels between “anti-Semitism” and contemporary
issues to contextualize his play, which he views as more significant than mere
historical issues. Thus, he takes on the challenge of revisiting Bard’s play by providing
new interpretations, and in doing so, he can influence society’s unfavorable attitudes
against Jews. On this point, Wesker’s adaptation of the Bard’s work has been equally
unique.

Wesker confirmed in one of his meetings that he felt unhappy with anti-Semitic
staging of The Merchant of Venice, wherein Laurence Olivier played Shylock as a
stereotypically bad Jew. Wesker felt particularly opposed to the scenario whereby the
Jew is shown as adamant about chopping the piece of flesh. After reading it, Wesker
thought it was awful, and he thinks that it is not a good idea to continue using this
depiction of the Jews, who are shown as greedy characters. Therefore, in his
interpretation, Wesker alters the figure of Shylock, by casting him as a more
compassionate and sympathetic person to re-associate the Jewish race with a better
portrayal. In his adaptation, Wesker believed that Shakespeare’s rendition of the play
has perpetuated prejudice and anti-Semitic attitudes; therefore, Wesker aims to remove

62
that bad image from its roots. His respect for this work extended to the directorial
aspect, and he was disappointed that he could not get as many producers as he wished
to take part (Wesker, 1999, p. 34). Since Wesker was having difficulty staging his
work Shylock in England, he published his book The Birth of Shylock 1999 to describe
his motivations and problems to better understand what he went through when he first
came up with the play. It appears that he felt a strong need to speak out more about
“anti-Semitism” by highlighting the ideas found in Bard’s works. The vast majority of
Jewish authors are chastised for failing to accurately portray “antisemitism” as a social
issue in their writing. According to Kerbel Sorrel’s definition,

...when a Jew writes about Jewishness he or she is perceived to be self-serving....or

hysterical. When a non-Jew writes about Jewishness, on the other hand, they are
ambitiously demonstrating their “range” to the world. All this, needless to say, has nothing
to do with Jewishness and everything to do with the Britishness of the wider culture (2010,
p. 11).

Oppositely, as a Jewish playwright writing about issues that are relevant to the
Jewish community, Wesker emphasizes his awareness of antisemitism as a social
issue. In his key works and his answer to The Merchant of Venice, some say Wesker’s
ideological stance and Jewish heritage have come into play.

It is necessary to keep in mind that Wesker does not explicitly state of being
opposed to the Bard’s The Merchant of Venice ; instead, he wants to question the play
rather than the Bard himself. Wesker expresses his dissatisfaction with the anti-Semitic
performances of the work that continues to be staged in the modern era in uncertain
terms. The Bard really was not prejudiced towards Jews; as Wesker claims, his
attitudes were a reflection of his time. His mind is nonetheless well-gifted (Wesker,
1999, p. 16). However, Wesker considers that the Bard would have been appalled by
the damage his plays caused to the reputation of the oppressed race “Jew”, which he
believes the Bard considered worthless. Wesker also discusses Bard’s excellence by
referring to him as the “Genius” (Wesker, 1999, p. 7). In this regard, his views are
differentiated from other authors who adapted Shakespeare’s plays, because, unlike his
contemporaries, he does not directly attack the Bard or his original text; rather, he
engages with the interpretations and consequences of the text on succeeding
ideologies. Perhaps, he developed this mentality due to anxiety over his worry that
attempting to rework The Merchant of Venice was “madness” because he was
reinterpreting Bard’s work (Wesker, 1999, p. 6). Wesker believes that the difficulties

63
of creating an alternate image of Shylock are worthwhile, despite being clear about the
effort required. Wesker knows that it is impossible to subvert the Bard; therefore, he
notices the difficulties of adapting his work, and because of this, he remains silent
about his critique.

The Bard’s version has a group of characters with unchanged objectives,

whereas Wesker has instead given them altered objectives. The characters from
Wesker’s play are easily recognizable due to their appearances in the original text, but
their attributes are wildly different from the characters in the original source, as are
their relationships with one another. Similarly, because the play utilizes the same
characters, although, with somewhat altered characteristics, it drastically changes the
story framework. In addition, because it emphasizes a different perspective, that of a
Jew; therefore, it shifts away from the original purpose of the original source. Thus,
Wesker’s play may be considered a reoriented story. Initial readings of the original text
are altered as a result of adaptation, which brings the issues of the formerly overlooked
character to the forefront.

Scholars disagree over whether The Merchant of Venice is anti-Semitic. The

contemporary relevance of Bard’s version, in Marjorie Garber’s opinion, is seen in
many controversies that continue to arouse in the modern period (2014, p. 302). Martin
Yaffe has seen Bard’s work as an appreciation and respect for Jewish people, but it is
against the character of Shylock (Holderness, 2016, p. 68). However, Holderness
simply has not thought that the city of Venice in Bard’s work was “a location in which
‘oppressed minority’ was obligated to survive in a state of harsh
repression (Holderness, 2016, p. 87). The intricacy of Shylock’s interpretation, along
with other aspects of The Merchant of Venice, causes several problems. The debate
around Shylock is one of the most significant factors in The Merchant of Venice’s
confusing representation. In Shakespearean literary and cultural criticism, Susannah
Heschel notes that the Bard’s Shylock has a very essential role in the work. As a
polysemous character, he emerges as the key character in The Merchant of Venice
because of his marginalized, tragic, ludicrous, frightening, and incomprehensible
nature. In addition, he represents both the Jewish and Christian faith by appearing like
a Jew while simultaneously reflecting the “Jew” that the Christian mind has projected
(2006, p. 420). Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, as explained in this statement,
accounts for why most of the play’s criticism concentrates on him. This marginalized

64
character in Bard’s play has elicited controversy among critics over its depiction of the
Jewish character. One view considers him as a compassionate representation of the
Jewish people, whereas others perceives him as strengthening the previously existing
hostility towards Jews. Critics and literary scholars believe that this character’s
vagueness, as well as the uncertainty in Bard’s text about the character’s motives,
influences how others have dealt with him in diverse adaptations of the work, which is
of a special interest in Shakespearean criticism. Because there are several various
interpretations and rewritten versions of Bard’s work due to uncertainty, Arnold
Wesker’s play was written to be clearer about Bard’s portrayal of racism.

The Merchant of Venice involves extensive debates on Shylock’s character,

thus Wesker cantered his adaptation mainly on strengthening this racially and
religiously marginalized Shakespearean character. The writers who adapt the Bard
often give the “voices” in their work to the marginalized characters like Rosencrantz,
Guildenstern, Shylock, and Desdemona, who have been victimized, completely
misinterpreted, or are simply missing (Burt, 2007, p. 700). The changes and
emphasis on the characters who are minors or have been marginalized in Bard’s Plays
are highlighted in the postmodern adaptation of his plays. The use of this approach is
highlighted, even more so, when it is noted that the postmodern
playwright has renamed his play The Merchant of Shylock numerous times after it had
been penned, is a clear indication that he intended to focus his adaptation on Shylock’s
part rather than Antonio’s (Drakakis, 2014, p. 1). However, in comparison to the
edition created by Shakespeare, this study finds that the Bard emphasizes mainly the
role of Antonio’s character.

The character alterations that are particular to character development in

Wesker’s work show that the primary purpose for his reinterpreting of Shylock is to
change the commonly accepted and unforgettable image of a Jew created by the Bard
(Bloom, 2005, p. 8). Since Shakespeare’s Shylock has left a permanent impact and
strong effect on literary readings, Wesker’s adaptation is rather a demanding one. It
has been suggested that Shylock’s character in the postmodern playwright’s play is a
reaction against the manner in which Shakespeare portrayed the character, which has
currently been regarded as the greatest scourge wherein “the Jews have labored”
(Landa, 1942, p. 5). Consequently, Shylock’s portrayal has come to be regarded as a
figure which represents the Jews, and thus Shylock’s portrayal has come under

65
criticism since it attributes negative attributes to Jews in particular. In this regard,
Wesker believes that re-examining Shylock’s character entails changing the racial
stereotypes of Jews that have persisted throughout history. Wesker believes in his book
The Birth of Shylock that being labeled as the Bard’s Shylock is like being criticized
for being like a Jew since it means you are wicked (1999, p. 359). Shylock in Bard’s
work is also known for referencing to the entire Jewish race in a negative sense
(Endelman, 2002, p. 76). Wesker’s comments in the play reflect his critical view of the
Bard since the Jewish character Shylock was given certain attributes by the playwright,
which have been picked up by Shakespearean scholars and have remained throughout
history. In Shakespeare’s play, the character Shylock possesses qualities that mirror
anti-Semitic attitudes against Jewish people in the middle ages and Renaissance era.

There are several interpretations of how Bard’s plays have influenced the
promotion of various ideologies in postmodern society. One specific example is The
Merchant of Venice, which is used to promote racist and anti-Semitic views according
to certain Shakespearean scholars. Many stereotypes that existed in the middle ages
and early modern era regarding the Jewish race are mirrored in Bard’s play by negative
qualities ascribed to the character. Because of the text’s connection between ideology
and history, Bloom, who has virtually never missed a step in venerating the Bard, calls
his play a weakness in Bard’s literary legacy (1991, p. 7). This means that Wesker
wants to change the widespread unfavorable stereotypes about Jews through his
depiction of a positive Jewish character. Wesker depicts Shylock as a pleasant,
respected figure who is liked by his companion Antonio.

Shylock in Bard’s play is typically represented as a cruel character, but in

Antonio’s statement, “…but since he stands obdurate /And that no lawful means can
carry me / Out of his envy’s reach, I do oppose / My patience to his fury, and am
arm’d / To suffer, with a quietness of spirit, / The very tyranny and rage of his” (The
Merchant of Venice 4.1.7-13), he presents him as a victim of the law. In terms of his
angry disposition, Shylock’s wrath seemed to flow ceaselessly and inevitably, which
serves to portray him as nearly in a state of cannibalism. In Bard’s play, one of the
most distinctive traits of Shylock is his unwavering determination to get his money
back. However, regardless of Portia and the Duke’s best efforts to stop him, Shylock
remains steadfastly focusing on re-entering the court stage in order to obtain his piece
of flesh: “…The slaves are ours: so do I answer you: / The pound of flesh, which I

66
demand of him, / Is dearly bought; ‘tis mine and I will have it. / If you deny me, fie
upon your law!/ There is no force in the decrees of Venice. / I stand for judgment”
(The Merchant of Venice 4.1.97-103). In the work, the marginalized character of
Shylock is introduced as a cruel, obstinate character who ends up forfeiting everything.
In these regards, the play takes an allied position with regard to the Christian, who is
shown as being unflinchingly antagonistic against Shylock.

On the other hand, Antonio symbolizes the Christian qualities of patience and
tolerance when he meets up with Shylock’s inexplicable malice. The contrasts between
the Christian and the Jew are also alluded to in the acts in which their money and
finances are featured. The Merchant of Venice in Act 2, Scene 5, shows how, in
addition to his vicious side, Shylock is indeed depicted as a pitiful character who
aspires for wealth. In contrast, Antonio is shown as a man of honor. Although Antonio
lends money to Bassanio, Bassanio ends up in financial difficulty when he owes
Antonio more money than he possesses. Antonio is shown here as someone who
sacrifices himself for others. In contrast, Shylock’s borrowing is viewed as proof of his
unethical personality; it is in fact his moral failure. Shylock is thought to represent the
theological strife between Judaism and Christianity in Bard’s play. While Christianity
is regarded as a religion of sorrow and toleration, Judaism is marked by hostility and
evilness. The statement attributed to Shylock in The Merchant of Venice: “Jailer, look
to him: tell not me of mercy; / This is the fool that lent out money gratis: / Jailer, look
to him” (3.3.1-3) appears to reject pity, which is a distinctly Christian quality. To show
an ideological stance in Shakespeare’s play, a comparative examination of these two
characters is suggested.

The usage of the epithet ‘Jew’ to refer to Shylock instead of his actual name in
The Merchant of Venice is a clear discrimination against him in favor of the Christian
characters. Since the epithet ‘the Jew’ was used in the play fifty-eight times, whereas
‘Shylock’ was used merely seventeen times, The Merchant of Venice has come under
criticism as an anti-Semitic work. In the court scene, in which the Duke indicates to
Shylock as “Jew” (4.1.14) whereas calls Antonio directly with his name “Antonio”
(4.1.1) is another instance of discrimination against Shylock in Bard’s work
(Holderness, 2016, p. 71). It is obvious that Duke has prejudice towards Shylock
racially and religiously when he talks to Antonio privately and indicates to Shylock as
“I am sorry for thee: thou art come to answer / A stony adversary, an inhuman wretch /

67
Uncapable of pity, void and empty / From any dram of mercy” (4.1 3-6). Another way
to look at it is that critics are upset over the play’s unfair treatment of its two main
characters. Antonio is addressed by his name, whereas Shylock is addressed as the
Jew. Derek Cohen emphasizes how this method ultimately results in racial
discrimination:

Calling the play’s villain by a name which generalizes him while at the same
time ostensibly defining his essence is, in a sense, to depersonalize him. As in our own
daily life, where terms like bourgeois, communist and fascist conveniently efface the
humanness and individuality of those to whom they are applied, the constant reference
to Shylock’s ‘thingness’ succeeds in depriving him of his humanity while it
simultaneously justifies the hostility of his enemies. The word Jew has for centuries
conjured up associations of foreignness in the minds of non-Jews. (1988, p. 106)

It seems that these examples help clarify why Bard treats Shylock as a minor
character despite his central role in the play. A favorable reinterpreting of Shylock is
needed, according to Wesker, because of his submission to Venice’s purportedly
higher Christian figures and authority.

When it relates to the Jews in Bard’s play, regardless of how violent or naively
they are depicted, one thing that comes over clearly is that the Jew is greedy vicious,
cruel, cold-blooded, and lacking sympathy. This is what Wesker found repugnant
about Bard’s depiction of the Jews (Wesker, 1977, p. 5). Shylock is the major
character in the play, but a minor character named Tubal is also included in the idea
that the Jews are treated particularly poorly in The Merchant of Venice. This character
appears to be much more despised by Christians than Shylock, when Solanio calls him
a man “Here comes another of the tribe: a third cannot be / match’d, unless the devil
himself turn Jew” (The Merchant of Venice 3.1. pp. 77-78). The Merchant of Venice’s
depiction of another anti-Semitic Jew strengthens the case for calling Bard’s play a
prejudiced text. It would appear that Shylock’s evilness requires the insertion of
another anti-Semitic person. It is important to look at the changes made by
Arnold’s adaptation in light of the historical study, yet his philosophical position
should be also considered when constructing his play. Arnold, while teaching at the
University, recommended his friends from a school there to help him establish his play
because he believed that anti-Semitism in Bard’s play would be uncovered throughout

68
the study of history and social condition of early modern “La Dominante” Venice
(Leeming, 1983, p. 19). In the course of his study, it was the friends’ hard work that
made his research possible, because they gave him facts and useful information like
how important the bond between Jews and non-Jews was to Renaissance Venetian law.
This is a significant deviation for Arnold Wesker from Bard’s work, and the strongest
argument in defence of his claim that Bard’s play was anti-Semitic. History
demonstrates, therefore, in Bard’s The Merchant of Vince, that Shylock’s persistence
on the bond only exposes his individual evilness, and the bond scheme had essentially
been a requirement of the rule in the state. When it comes to negotiating with Jewish
people in Venice, it is obliged by law to get a bond. Wesker uses this fact in his
adaptation to challenging this element of the Bard’s The Merchant of Vince. Arnold
Wesker, therefore, criticizes the notion that Bard’s The Merchant of Vince is grounded
on historical facts. According to the findings of a recent study, Shakespeare appears to
have been influenced by the politics or beliefs of his time, and as a result,
Shakespeare’s portrayal of Shylock and Antonio as opposite characters has been
viewed as a personal form and does not depict the true historical background (Wesker,
1999, p. 8).

As a result of this previous knowledge of the background of the Jewish

society in Venice, Wesker deliberately has altered the part and the idea in Bard’s The
Merchant of Vince which talks about cutting a piece of flesh from the character
Antonio. Considering the fact that the Bard’s play primarily deals with the subject and
issues of the bond from its beginning until the end, Wesker alters and transforms this
scene in order to strengthen and re-establish Shylock’s reputation as a kind Jew. As a
result, Arnold Wesker creates a new conversation between Shylock and Antonio in
order to illustrate that Shylock has not created the bond problems and thus he rejects to
sign the agreement with Antonio.

Antonio: I have a great favour to ask you.

Shylock: at last! A favour! Antonio of Shylock!
Antonio: To borrow three thousand ducats.
Shylock: Not four? five? Ten?
Antonio: I’m not making jocks, Shylock.
Shylock: And why do you think I make jokes?
Antonio: For three months?
Shylock: Your city borrows forever, why not three months for you?
Antonio: You know my position?
Shylock: I know your position…
Antonio: You’re a good man, old man.
Shylock: Old man – forever! Good – not always. I’m a friend.

69
 Antonio: what do you want as a guarantee in the contract?
Shylock: in the what?
Antonio: in the contract…
Shylock: a contract? Between friends?...
Antonio: The law demands it.
Shylock: then we’ll ignore the law.
Antonio: The law demands: no dealing may be made with Jews unless covered by a legal
bond.
Shylock: That law was made for enemies, not friends. (The Merchant, p. 22-23)

Though this discussion demonstrates that Arnold Wesker’s Shylock is not the
one who devises the piece of flesh scheme in his adaptation of The Merchant of
Venice, the event has been revised in line with history and facts exposed by Lois
Bueler the friend of the playwright Wesker, who discovered that legislation of Venice
“required that no civilian engage with a Jew without a contract. Contracts between
nobles were prohibited Because the Jew was not a nobles” (Wesker, 1999, p. 18).
Venetian legislation was biased at the time since the Jews were clearly distrusted.
According to Arnold Wesker, Shylock should accept the contract offered by Antonio if
they require some types of legal agreement.

Arnold Wesker depicts Bard’s “piece of flesh concept” as a satirical attack on

the state, revealing the ridiculous bonding story of the play. In Arnold Wesker’s
adaptation, Antonio, rather than Shylock, is the one who brings the piece of flesh bond
idea, and it is meant to mock the system of Venetian legal irrational procedures.
Antonio and especially Shylock believe that signing a contract is pointless and would
scorn it if forced to sign one:

Antonio: you must not, cannot, bend the law.

Shylock: (angry, with the law). You can have three thousand ducats but there
will be no bond, for no collateral, and for no time limit whatsoever.

….
Shylock: A nonsense bond.
Antonio: A nonsense bond?
Shylock: A lovely, loving nonsense bond. To mock the law.
Antonio: To mock?
Shylock: Barbaric laws? Barbaric bonds! Three thousands ducats a pound your flesh.
Antonio: My flesh?
Shylock: You’re like an idiot child suddenly.(Mocking) A nonsense bond? My flesh? Yes,
if I am not repaid by you, upon the day, the hour, I’ll have a pound of your flesh,
Antonio…. Your heart, dearheart, and I’d take that, too, if I could, I’m so fond of it.
Antonio: Barbaric laws, barbaric bonds. (The Merchant, p. 24-25)

70
 Instead of a monstrous relationship, Wesker’s alteration of the “piece of
flesh” concept shows that the two friends are bound together by a strong friendship.
This moment also illustrates that, in contrast to Shakespeare’s portrayal, it is Antonio
who offers the idea of signing a contract to preserve Shylock from the consequences of
the rule, as he explains in the dialogue: “I understand. And it brings me closer to you
than ever. But the deeper I feel our friendship the more compelled to press my point,
and protect you. You are a Jew, Shylock…your life, the lives of your people depend
upon contract and your respect for the law. The law, Shylock, the law! For you and
your people” (The Merchant, p. 24). Accordingly, this speech shows that Wesker tries
to show the prejudge of the Venation community throughout Antonio’s explanation.
Wesker’s work concentrates on Antonio’s defensive position to protect Shylock from
the state’s rule, which is already antagonistic to his ethnicity, to emphasize the concept
of a Jew and a Christian may truly get fellows regarding antagonistic situation. As
soon as Shylock refuses Antonio’s proposal, Antonio persists to keep Shylock out of
trouble since conceptually, if they failed to create a contract, Shylock is the one who
would be punished for violating the rule. Wesker exposes another flaw in the Venetian
judicial system by bringing this issue to light in the play.

Shylock and Antonio’s desire to preserve one another from the

rule demonstrates that they do have a strong bond of reciprocal respect and admiration
between them. When Antonio comes up with the “peace of flesh” concept to keep
Shylock out of trouble with the authorities, Shylock backs him up against the
authorities. While Shakespeare’s Shylock eagerly hopes of having the opportunity to
seek vengeance on Antonio when he fails to make good on his obligation, Wesker’s
Shylock by far has been upset when it becomes clear that he must put into effect what
the contract stipulates. As a rejection of Shakespeare’s portrayal of Shylock as a
money-loving Jew, Wesker presents another Shylock character who attempts to either
acquire the money to save Antonio or discover a method to liberate him from the
contract’s control. When it comes to the law, Shylock’s helpfulness does not go
unnoticed, as the regulations clearly state that a Jew who seeks to hurt a Christian
would be harshly punished. Accordingly, Shylock and Antonio’s effort to make fun of
the legislation has completely and utterly failed. There is no longer any chance for
personal rights in the face of the system. This only serves to confirm Wesker’s belief
that the rule is too harsh to allow for a harmonious union of Jews and non-Jews.

71
Consequently, the following exchange between Shylock and Antonio demonstrates
their sense of frustration:

Antonio: I cannot raise the money now.

Shylock: I know
Antonio: Nor can you lend it me again.
Shylock: The Ghetto’s drained, I know.
Antonio: your yellow hat belongs to both of us. We would be sentenced to death.
…
Shylock: They’ll let us drop the bond.
Antonio: we cannot, we must not.
Shylock: you understand?
Antonio: I Understand.
…
Shylock: just promise me silence in the trail.
Antonio: Will me make no explanations? The court must understand.
Shylock: understanding is beyond them! I protect my people and my people’s
contract…just promise me silence at the trail. (The Merchant, p. 62)

According to the legislation, Antonio’s refusal of repaying his obligation and

Shylock’s attempt to murder a Venetian must be both penalized. In addition, this
passage represents a significant shift in Arnold Wesker’s adaptation in that it illustrates
how powerless Shylock feels in the presence of the unjust courtroom, even though he
is honest and simply tries to support and aid Antonio.

Wesker’s depiction of a strong relationship between Antonio and Shylock is

not distant from the real historical background, given the knowledge that “but there
were numerous examples of amicable interaction between Christians and Jews in
Venice during Renaissance, and no mob attack on Jews ever occurred there. Jews were
separately taxed, however, and their right to reside in Vince was limited to a stipulated
period” (Lane, 2005, p. 302). As it turns out, the portrayal of Shylock and Antonio as
good friends is a reaction to Shakespeare’s main subject of hostility between race
(race) and religion. According to the original source, animosity between Christians and
Jews in Venice already existed. Wesker, on the other hand, asserts the person’s
authority above the government’s laws. Thus, he places the concept of friendship in a
social context that segregates individuals along with racial and religious lines.

Due to Bard’s emphasis on race and religious matters, a lot of the blame is
placed on the character Shylock instead of the Christian characters in the play. The
anti-Semitism of the Christians is overshadowed in The Merchant of Venice by
Shylock’s being disliked by them. Shylock is depicted as a savage despite the
Christians’ friendship with him. To give an example, after Shylock refuses Antonio’s

72
dine invitation, he is viewed as hateful: “Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation
which / your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into. / I will buy with you, sell
with you, talk with you, walk with you, / and so following, but I will not eat with you,
/ drink with you, nor pray with you. / What news on the Rialto? Who is he comes
here?” (The Merchant of Venice 1.3.33-39). To make matters worse, Shylock says his
dislike of Antonio stems in part from the man’s religious beliefs: “How like a fawning
publican he looks! / I hate him for he is a Christian, / But more for that in low
simplicity / he lends out money gratis and brings down / the rate of usance here with us
in Venice” (The Merchant of Venice 1.3.41-45). Therefore, Shylock’s animosity for
Antonio is based on nothing more than blind hatred. Moreover, Bard’s portrayal of
Shylock as the first figure to express his anti-Christian sentiments gives grounds
for his penalty and the other characters’ unpleasant treatment of him. Thus, such facets
of Bard’s work heighten Wesker’s critical stance. As a result, Arnold Wesker’s
alteration and strengthening of Shylock portrays him as a Jew who loves exchanging
his drink and expertise with Antonio, in contrast to the Bard’s hostile Shylock who
rejects Antonio’s proposal. Antonio’s frequent presence in Shylock’s place
indicates how hospitable he really is.

Even though there are rigorous regulations of the law restricting pleasant
contact between Antonio and Shylock in Wesker’s adaptation, they still tolerate each
other’s religious beliefs and do not let their disagreements ruin their friendship. When
Antonio hosts Shylock for dinner and informs other Christians “Yes, take a message to
my assistant, Graziano Sanudo. Tell him I won’t be in today, but to arrange for dinner
on Wednesday. I’m hosting my friend, so no pork. Join us, Bassanio, I keep a good
wine cellar” (The Merchant, p. 22), it shows that he tolerates Shylock’s faith. Antonio,
in the same way, shows his admiration for Shylock when he says: “You are religious
man… I love you more and more, Shylock. You have a sanity I could not live without
now. I’m spoiled, chosen also” (The Merchant, p. 5-6). Additionally, it is a
contradiction to the character Antonio in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, who uses
anti-Semitic rhetoric. According to Wesker, these changes demonstrate the potential of
unity between Jews and Christians mostly through trust, tolerance, and
communication.

Even though Wesker reverses Bard’s depiction of hostility between Shylock

and Antonio, he nevertheless shows the Jew’s subjugation via the portrayal of other

73
characters who have the same hatred against Shylock. Even though Bassanio has not
seen a Jew, he is shown as an anti-Semitic character, which shows Arnold’s sarcastic
attitude to the development of biases towards Jews without a rational basis. This is
demonstrated by Antonio and Bassanio in the scene when discussing issues related to
Shylock:

Bassanio: Is this a Jew?

Antonio: I think you haven’t seen one before?
Bassanio: spoke of… thought, but—
Antonio: Shylock is my sepecial friend.
Bassanio: then, sir, he must be a special man. (The Merchant, p. 18)

Similarly, Wesker’s Shylock is often humiliated by Lorenzo, who says things

like “(with evangelist fervor)They are not humbled even unto this day, neither have
they feared, nor walked in my law, nor in my statues, that I have set before you and
before your fathers” (The Merchant, p. 40). Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that
Antonio and the other characters do not share the same values, as shown by his quick
reaction to Lorenzo’s racist comment: “rudeness is not permitted in my place” (The
Merchant, p. 40). In Shakespeare’s work, the strong connection between Antonio and
Christian figures has been changed by Wesker’s play. in contrast to Bard’s The
Merchant of Venice, Bassanio and Antonio were close friends to each other, whereas
in Arnold Wesker’s adaptation, it seems that Antonio does not have an intimate
relationship with Bassanio and he is almost forgotten by Antonio when he says: “…
And I’d forgotten him also. Poor young Bassanio. Probably a very young nobleman. I
even think he must be a young patrician. His father was born in Venice, if I remember,
of patrician stock, if I remember” (The Merchant, p. 7). Such instances show that
Wesker portrays Antonio as being friendlier to Shylock than other naive Christian
characters. Thus, this case reinforces the notion that all Christian characters’ behavior
is not similar toward Jews. These examples prove that Wesker’s adaptation features
Antonio as a good example of how to treat Jews with respect.

In contrast, Wesker presents Shylock as a multifaceted and extremely

educated character, with his favorite privilege not being rich bastard as in the Bard’s
play but enormous book collector, in an attempt to reinterpret the conventional notion
of a wealthy and stingy Jew. The moment depicting Jessica’s escape is among the most
significant changes in Wesker’s play. Jessica is duped by Lorenzo in the same way she

74
was in The Merchant of Venice and finds love with him. Considering this, since the
central alteration revolves around Shylock’s figure, his reaction when he learns of her
daughter’s absence is significantly different in Wesker’s edition: “Oh, Jessica. And
where are you now? What wretched, alien philosophy has taken up your mind? …
Which of the world’s fervourists has lighted your sweet nature with its ephemeralties?
Oh, vulnerable youth. You must be lonely. So lost and lonely, so amazed and lost and
lonely. Oh daughter, daughter, daughter” (The Merchant, p. 59). The identical moment
from Bard’s play is used to illustrate Shylock’s greediness when he asserts:

The curse never fell upon our nation till now; I never felt it till now: two thousand ducats in
that; and other precious, precious jewels. I would my daughter were dead at my foot, and
the jewels in her ear! would she were hears’d at my foot, and the ducats in her coffin! No
news of them? Why, so: and I know not what’s spent in the search: why, thou loss upon
loss! (The Merchant of Venice 3.1.84-92).

To convey the impression that Wesker’s Shylock appreciates his child much more than
his property, Wesker transforms this section of the scene in order to challenge subtly
the stereotype of Jews as stingy people.

As a result of Wesker’s adaptation, Shylock’s library which is full of books has

taken the place of his commodities as the top priority. It is clear that at moments
Wesker is doing all he can to strengthen and paint a favorable picture of Shylock, even
if it means portraying Antonio as a stupid fool compared to the character OF Shylock.
When Antonio sees Shylock’s personal library, for example, his remarks show this
concept: “So many books!... A lawyer, a doctor, a diplomat, a teacher--- anything but a
merchant. I’m so a shamed” (The Merchant, p. 4). While Bard’s work depicted Jewish
people only as usurers, Wesker portrays them as an intelligent race, which is
something that is completely absent from Bard’s work. To make sure of Antonio’s
claim that he understands nothing about anything except commerce, Wesker places
him in a weaker state. As a result, Wesker identifies a different prejudiced
interpretation of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, placing the blame entirely on
the character of Shylock for his unethical trade whilst depicting Antonio more
favorably.

There is also a significant alteration in Wesker’s work that relates to the

narrative features of Bard’s play, and that is the popular speech of Bard’s Shylock “I
am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions: bodily

75
proportions. dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt
with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?” (The Merchant
of Venice 3.1. 58-64). Regardless of the reality that this specific passage is often used
to support Bard’s compassionate portrayal of Jewish people, Wesker has entirely
rejected the humanizing interpretation of this sort. He believes that this is the only time
in Bard’s work that the character of Shylock is sympathized and viewed as a human
being (Luk, 2018, p. 188). Before then, he is solely known as a cruel, wicked man who
did terrible things. Because it does not alter the characters or the reader’s views on
Shylock, Wesker has rewritten this section with theatrical instead of personal interest
in mind. After all, according to Wesker, Bard has not presented this well-known
passage because he is deeply worried about Shylock and wants to present a statement
about this issue. Wesker’s viewpoint is that this statement displays Bard’s care for
theatrical intuition in order to avoid “making the opposing too dark, that would also
diminish believability and effect” (Wesker, 1977, p. 2). Consequently, to keep the
statement in doubt while also suggesting a potential use for these remarks and in order
to degrade Shylock’s humanity, Wesker in his work lets Lorenzo say the lines that
have already been said in the courtroom stage: “No, no, No! I will not have it.
(Outraged but controlled) I do not want apologies for my humanity. Plead for me no
special pleas” (The Merchant, p. 67-77). Wesker’s statement regarding Shylock’s
speech is confirmed by his own words. There are many ways to express oneself
creatively, and Wesker’s criticism of this particular section of the work comes through
the way Shylock responds. Consequently, Shylock’s comments, as quoted previously,
are indeed very identical to Wesker’s critique of the act, which he has described in his
statement that a particular begging from Jews is not what they desire or expect as long
as they are just like the rest of us. “No one – not even Shakespeare – has the authority
to confer on them humanity as a generous favor” ( Wesker, 1999, para 4). Trying to
humanize the character is, in Wesker’s perspective, a prejudiced behavior itself.
Therefore, his adaptation shows his racial and religious goal which is to change the
stereotypes about Jewish people that have been developed. A good indication of this
method is the way that he confronts one of Shakespeare’s most iconic sentences by
placing it in a different context rather than the original one.

76
 As a matter of fact, there are several scenes in Bard’s play where Shylock is
depicted as a villain deserving penalty. Jessica’s abandonment is perhaps a further
instance, that is considered an appropriate penalty because Shylock is an overbearing
parent and a Jew who stands against Christianity. Because Shylock is shown as a Jew
who forbids Jessica from having a relationship with Christian men, Jessica feels that
marrying Lorenzo and converting to the Christian religion might set her free from her
father’s restriction and allow her to forget about her troubled previous life:

Jessica: I am sorry thou wilt leave my father so:

Our house is hell, and thou, a merry devil,
Didst rob it of some taste of tediousness.
But fare thee well, there is a ducat for thee:
And, Launcelot, soon at supper shalt thou see
Lorenzo, who is thy new master’s guest:
Give him this letter; do it secretly;
And so farewell: I would not have my father
See me in talk with thee. (The Merchant of Venice 2.3.1-9)
….
I shall be saved by my husband; he hath made
me a Christian. (The Merchant of Venice 3.5.19-20)

When Jessica eventually runs away to marry Lorenzo, Wesker criticizes Bard’s
use of this notion by refusing to convert Jessica to Christianity. In Wesker’s work,
when anti-Semite individuals make negative remarks against Jessica’s faith or her
father, she refuses to let them speak disrespectfully against them: “Yes, I’m also angry.
You misrepresent the bond. Whatever else my father’s flaw you know the bond had
mockery not malice in it” (The Merchant, p. 66). Also, when Lorenzo tries to get
Jessica to change her religion by spreading rumors about Jewish religion as being a
declining faith, she fights back with fury and does not accept this kind of act: “With
controlled fury, Sometimes I think the sadness in my eyes comes from the knowledge
that we draw from men their desperate hates” (The Merchant, p. 68). Jessica has been
portrayed as an even more intelligent female character who is less willing to fall a
victim to Lorenzo’s machinations, and the problematic topic of Jessica’s dialogue in
Shakespeare’s work is therefore altered.

To understand Shakespeare’s plays from a postmodern viewpoint, one must

reconsider the historical concepts he presents or ignores in his plays. Wesker discusses
plenty of crimes committed against the Jewish race during the historical period in
which The Merchant of Venice takes place. In doing so, he also refers to the historical
past of long strong violence against anti-Semitism. Wesker’s Shylock discusses the

77
1553 fire that destroyed the Torah and other Jewish manuscripts: “And all hidden for
ten years. Do you know what that means for a collector? Ten years? Ha! The scheme
of things!... The day of the burning of the books (Talmud and Hebrew literature)… to
this day, the Talmud is forbidden” (The Merchant, p. 3). Some historical evidence
suggests that in the 16th century in Venice, some Hebrew literature like the Talmud
was destroyed because they regarded them to be cruel and offensive against the
Christian faith (McQuitty, 2000, p. 112). Because Bard’s work does not deal with
historical concerns like anti-Semitism or racism, Wesker’s reference to these in the
play demonstrates Bard’s unawareness once again.

Similarly, the Jewish writer Usque, a new figure in Wesker’s adaptation,

presents to Shylock information related to Jews race oppression that took place
somewhere in the European countries. He describes the institution of interrogation
court in “Portuguese”, like those in “Coimbra”, “Lamego” “Guard” and “Lisbon”
where Jewish people were forced to convert and others were burned alive. The
following conversion between Usque and Rebecca demonstrates the catastrophic
incidents that happened to Jewish people :

Usque: Fifty people burnt at the stake.

Rebecca: Old women, young men, relatives, friends.
Usque: Marian Fernandes, a cousin from Lisbon.
Rebecca: Maria Diez, my old aunt from Guarda.
Usque: Sebastian Rodrigo Pinto, a friend from Lamego.
Rebecca: Diego Della Rogna, his wife Isabelle Nones, their
four daughters and two sons.
Usque: An entire family burnt.
Rebeeca: facing each other. (The Merchant, p. 12-13)

These figures that provide information regarding the development of anti-

Semitism have been inserted in the playwright's adaptation to imply the impression
that religious persecution might not have been a fictitious feature in Bard’s play but a
serious concern at the period. Wesker puts these notions with each other in his play to
draw attention to Shakespeare’s obliviousness to such concerns of the day, and more
significantly, to raise the consciousness of anti-Semitism by engaging in a debate of
historical world events.

The Merchant uses instances to highlight how anti-Semitism has been repeated
throughout history. On the other hand, in Wesker’s work Shylock, the protagonist, also
discusses the ongoing persecution of the Jewish people through the historical past:

78
“From Rouen, they fled to London, and from London, they fled to York, and from
York, no one escaped the slaughter that followed” (The Merchant, p. 4). The history of
killing Jewish people in England and France, as was mentioned by Wesker’s Shylock,
offers insights into the persecution that his people endured simultaneously during and
before the historical period in which the play is situated. Wesker in his adaptation
seeks to educate the audience about Jewish people’s historical background.

Wesker’s interpretation of The Merchant of Venice’s central notions is an

instance of the concept that adaptation sometimes challenges and questions the manner
of the original work that had been explained previously. In addition, the playwright
has re-contextualized the key notions to reflect on the present problems of religions
and race. According to Wesker, it is important to look at Shakespeare’s portrayal of
Shylock in the context of the time and ideology in which it was written rather than
arguing over whether it had been a sympathetic portrayal: “The idea of emphasizing
that the play was originally presented as a sympathetic perception is irrelevant when
the play is presented in the current time. We do not live in those days anymore”
(Wesker, 1977, p. 2). Clearly, the playwright’s perspective is inspired through the
previous historical past of Jewish people, particularly Shoah “Holocaust”, and
Wesker feels that it would be important to address such controversial problems while
understanding Bard’s portrayal of the character of Shylock. According to Wesker,
instead of debating various readings of the text when it was initially created, current
contextual information should be used to evaluate the play and the characters.

It has also been noticed that the interpretation of Bard’s play is influenced by
incidents in the near history: “As a result of our knowledge of the Holocaust, we have
an entirely different way of reading this text” (Kennedy, 2002, p. 200). In particular,
the play has become increasingly controversial as a consequence of the Holocaust’s
long-lasting history, which has produced several literary ideological adaptations.
Wesker’s The Merchant, which has been notably influenced by this historical incident,
is a good example of Wesker’s efforts to change the controversial elements of Bard’s
work, believing that it is his obligation to rectify the notions implicitly offered by the
play in a new context. Wesker acknowledges that the disaster of the Holocaust had an
impact on his reading of the play: “I revere Shakespeare . . . But nothing will make me
admire it [The Merchant of Venice], nor has anyone persuaded me that the holocaust
[sic] is irrelevant to my responses” (Wesker, 1977, p. 5). In relation to the Holocaust,

79
Wesker has written in his diaries that the announcement that more than five
million Jewish people were murdered in extermination camps made him much more
determined to rewrite the play (Wesker, 1999, p. 7). Consequently, Wesker’s
adaptation of the work must be viewed as a reaction to the Holocaust and anti-
Semitism as a much more widespread issue in his current world.

Garber claims that Bard’s plays are often analyzed in light of anti-Semitism
instead of another notion or ideology despite the term’s historical incongruity (2014, p.
296). Hermann draws parallels between Bard’s handling of Shylock and present anti-
Semitism, claiming that without the invention of Shylock, medieval biases and
antagonism against Jewish people might not be poignant today (1947, p. 114). Using
this example, it is clear that the history and ideology of the time in which a piece of art
is resurrected determines the interpretations and the meanings that may be attached to
it. Accordingly, Wesker’s response to Bard’s work with a certain ideological
standpoint displays significant considerations about his own social and political
environment. Because anti-Semitism, along with other types of discrimination and
racism, is still an issue in Britain like in other parts of the world, it was an issue at the
time of Wesker’s adaptation of Bard’s work. Wesker’s work awakens specific
knowledge and awareness about this societal issue. Shakespearean adaptations have a
history of changing people’s views about serious issues, and Wesker’s adaptation is no
exception. He makes a good point about the significance of antisemitism in today’s
world and calls for concrete steps to be taken to eliminate it.

Throughout his career, Wesker was interested in his role in society and feels
that the writer has a duty to help shape the public’s perception of specific issues
(Weintraub, 1982, p. 549). When it comes to the content of his work, he takes
inspiration from real-world concerns and strives to raise awareness for the
improvement of these vital issues via suitable changes. In this regard, Theater alters its
coordinates not only to get survive or to be the same across time, but also to alter
its surroundings. It may be said that theater constantly adapts both to the outside world
and to its own characteristics. Theater creators and scholars debate the various ways
that theater goes back to, rewrites, and repeats its goal and intention (Laera, 2014, p.
2). As a Jewish writer, Wesker seeks to dispel stereotypes about the Jews and brings
to light the problems they face through his works like The Merchant. Moreover, he
emphasizes the importance of equal acceptance between various ethnicities, viewing

80
antisemitism as a kind of discrimination and bigotry in post-modern British society.
Based on the claim that “... a continuous negotiation of existing social, cultural, and
economic hierarchies that can be reaffirmed but also challenged by the new ways in
which adaptations are circulated and appropriated” (Pascal & Hassler, 2015, p. 1),
Wesker’s adaptation deconstructs the storyline, characters, and the depiction of the
Bard’s The Merchant of Venice to call into question the ideologies found in anti-
Semitism. The Merchant offers an interpretation of race and religious problems by
relying on the original text’s major character.

Since the human-being is influenced by the current issues of the society, it thus
makes sense for Wesker to advocate peace. He seeks a peaceful milieu that is free from
war, racial and religious prejudice, violence, and hardship. Thus, Wesker’s version
shows a profound humanistic perspective and this is evident through the words
expressed by Antonio:

Justice? For the people of Venice? The people? When political powers rest firmly in the
hands of two hundred families?. . . Do we condemn the Jew for doing what our system has
required him to do? Then if we do, let’s swear, upon the cross, that among us we know of
no Christian, no patrician, no duke, bishop or merchant who, in his secret chambers, does
not lend at interest, for that is what usury is, Swear it! On the cross! No one, we know no
one (Pause.) Who’s silent now? (Pause.) You will inflame the people’s grievances in order
to achieve power, Lorenzo, but once there you’ll sing such different songs I think. (The
Merchant, p. 75)

Wesker thinks that the creation of humanistic values is essential, and people
should benefit from ideas like education, particularly people who are from the working
class or otherwise underprivileged. He produced this work to demonstrate that Bard’s
The Merchant of Venice misrepresents Jews. Wesker believes that Bard’s portrayal of
the Jews was unfair because he was unfamiliar at that period with life in Venice
(Hayman, 1979, p. 95). He is conscious that he produced The Merchant in the light of
the Bard, yet he shows respect, praise, and appreciation for Bard’s greatness and is
pleased to work in his light (Wesker, 1977, p. xiv). The Bard’s plays, according to Jon
Kott, go beyond the limitations of the era in which they were created. The
theatergoers in the postmodern period are exposed to issues that are pertinent to
their own time while viewing the play of the Bard on stage (1990, p 5). Wesker
attempts to reinterpret Bard’s thoughts once again employing his own life experiences
and perspective on the world. Thus, he emphasizes how impossible it is to bring about
global peace as long as there is religious and racial prejudice.

81
 However, to claim that Wesker’s play is a substitution for Bard’s The Merchant
of Vince overlooks the truth since the original text remains a source of speculation for
dramatists at present and in the future. It is important to say that Wesker’s The
Merchant was that of 1976 and succeeded in reflecting the mood of the time.
Definitely, the adapted play of Shakespeare will be different in the 21st century, but it
can delete neither the original one nor Wesker’s.

82
 4. STRENGTHENING MARGINALIZED SHAKESPEAREAN
FEMALE CHARACTERS IN MACDONALD’S VERSION OF
OTHELLO AND ROMEO AND JULIET

In the postmodern era, misogyny and feminism problems are tackled in Anne
Marie MacDonald’s adaptation of Othello and Romeo and Juliet. In contrast to the
opposing beliefs, the work investigates women’s hatred and feminism. This is the
premise on which MacDonald bases her analysis. As a result of her works, there is
much debate on whether the Bard was prejudiced. For instance, Othello can tell us a
lot about our present postmodern society. The work makes connections to views about
misogyny, male bonding, and discrimination, among other things. The Bard tells his
story via the use of these universal and everlasting defects in human nature, as well as
the use of words and reality. The character of Iago exploits these elements of mankind
to persuade Othello against his beloved Desdemona and good friend Cassio over the
course of the play. Throughout the play, Othello exposes the struggles of both people
in Britain in the early 16th century and people in the rest of the world in the 20th
century against misogyny and racism. Furthermore, in terms of the relationship
between sex and violence, the male and female characters’ relationship in Romeo and
Juliet is rife with sexism. More specifically, the play’s obsessive advocacy of marriage
leads to the racist attitude towards women as weak and sexual objects; this is a
postmodern problem. Women in the Elizabethan age were expected to submit to the
authority of their male peers and hardly ever dared to speak out for what they believed
in. When it comes to stepping up for what she believes in, Juliet is a role model. Juliet
had to overcome numerous challenges before Romeo and Juliet took their own lives so
that destiny could no longer play a part in their relationship. It was deemed rebellious
behavior for a woman to ignore her parents’ orders (Djordjevic, 2003, p. 90). Another
truth was that women were considered as things, with males wielding greater authority.
In addition, women sought assistance from other males because of their perceived
inferiority in comparison to their male counterparts. Thus, most of MacDonald’s
works address the cultural, social, and gender variety of people; she seeks to question
dominant ideologies and societal norms and offers voice to marginalized characters.

For ages, the Bard has amazed and fascinated the audience everywhere.
Nevertheless, the patriarchal concepts portrayed in his works and his proclivity for

83
portraying women in his plays as powerless, inferior, and innocent victims have
attracted the attention of several postmodern writers seeking to alter his stories by
introducing postmodern perspectives (Djordjevic, 2003, p. 95). Ann-Marie
MacDonald, a Canadian feminist dramatist, in her work Goodnight Desdemona (Good
Morning Juliet), basically rewrites the original source of Shakespeare’s work to shed
light and address the postmodern female problems. Her narrative depicts the struggles
and accomplishments of a single protagonist, Constance Ledbelly, and includes
instances of her liberation after severe personal problems. By illustrating her
protagonist’s transformations into strong individuals, the play conveys the necessity of
women developing psychological strength and emphasizes the vital role of assistance
in emotional healing and personal growth.

MacDonald’s adaptation of Shakespeare does change some actions in the

source text, and she tries to give voice to the “women” in Shakespeare’s tragedy plays
to the same story but from another completely different view through a female
character. Indeed, the Canadian playwright’s Good night Desdemona (Good morning
Juliet) (1990) has been transformed into a new postmodern framework that tackles the
issues of women from different societies and cultures instead of the original text. For a
feminist writer, Anne Mary MacDonald, “writing back” adaptation is an important
factor of women’s resistance to the patriarchal society. This group has its own set of
regulations that restrict what women may and cannot do. Resistance to persecution and
inequality is an essential need for feminists. In this regard, feminist writers think that
women’s identity is produced by their patriarchal society; Simone de Beauvoir
believes “a woman is not born a woman”; rather, she gets it via portrayals of women in
a patriarchal culture (2015, p. 60). Consequently, French feminists headed by Helene
Cixous think that women must rewrite history via what they refer to as feminist
writings (qtd. in Penrod, 2007, p. 40). According to this, the Bard’s Othello and Romeo
and Juliet, are plays for feminist groups that depict women from a patriarchal
standpoint, whereas plays like MacDonald’s postmodern play are rewritten to
represent Bard’s women from a feminist point of view, thereby strengthening their
position against their patriarchal male counterparts.

The work of the Bard is probably well-familiar to MacDonald, who is known as

an intellectual artist. It is true that she takes the risk of reinterpreting two of Bard’s
most well-known tragedy plays, Othello and Juliet and Romeo, but it does not suggest

84
that she is not appreciating Bard’s dramatic skills. The Canadian playwright makes no
attempt to undermine Shakespeare’s credibility. Instead, she claims in her interview
with Melanie Lockhart:

And in terms of Shakespeare, it’s really the centre of the canon. When I went to the
National Theatre School, and through high school, there was this idea that there’s no greater
writer than Shakespeare. But I didn’t come to love Shakespeare until I started to screw
around with Shakespeare. Then I developed a love of Shakespeare. I approached it simply
as raw material that I thought was probably kind of boring and this was going to be fun. I
think [Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)] ended up as a tribute to Shakespeare.
It’s a testimonial. Because it was done in the spirit of ransacking– and that’s what
Shakespeare did. And I think the greatest thing you can do for an author is to make free
with hem, ultimately, or they won’t survive. If they’re going to survive, they have to survive
all kinds of things (Lockhart & MacDonald, 2005, p. 143).

MacDonald’s version embodies two aspects toward Shakespeare. As a

playwright of the twentieth century, MacDonald conveys an understanding of her
gratitude to him as well as her differences from him. In her connection with
Shakespeare, she expresses a desire to honor him while also writing in opposition to
the views he is seen to represent. Furthermore, it is necessary to emphasize that any
adaptation, regardless of whether it seeks to replicate or subvert, is fully dependent
upon Bard and his works because there is no way to be conceivable without the pre-
existing presence and reputation of Bard’s work. Consequently, it must be admitted
that the Canadian author Ann-Marie MacDonald, is the same as any other writer, who
reinforces Shakespeare’s cultural authority and canonical primacy.

Since Ann Marie MacDonald is a feminist author, many of her works reflect
her ideas and thoughts concerning women’s issues. By looking into the complex
connection between people and national identity, Ann-Marie Macdonald reveals
women’s survival experiences through narratives that were previously hidden behind
the comfy pages of patriarchal history. Fall on Your Knees, a fiction by a Canadian
author, is inspired by a study of early North American colonization. The work
addresses the relationships between humans and nature, especially via the development
of identity as it is confined by a patriarchal society. A common thread running through
her work is the assault of social preconceptions, particularly those presented to the
reader in relation to nation and gender. This theme is central to her exploration of what
lies in the gap between binary oppositions. Macdonald’s works present contradictory
concepts of nation and gender as potential sources of dramatic action and inspire
readers to examine prevailing societal narratives, especially family backgrounds. They

85
second fiction of her, The Way the Crow Flies, has a closer similarity to Fall on Your
Knees in terms of its examination of nation and gender. For those who believe that Fall
on Your Knees is a warning tale, alerting the audience about the risk of a single notion
of society, in this case, The Way the Crow Flies shows the inability of tolerating
multiplicity. Each of the works offers vivid depictions of landscapes as well as
educational comments, implying that land exploitation is similar to woman’s
oppression (Wasserman, 2013, p.10). Indeed, the sufferings that have been concealed
under the patriarchal grip are revealed by Macdonald. In Canada, Macdonald’s work
ranges from cinema to television acting. She was born in 1959, in West Germany, and
she has won honors for her work as an actor in films, a novelist, a television actress,
and a dramatist. She graduated from Canadian Theatre School and her cinema works
contained (1987) Mermaids Singing, (1999) Better Than Chocolate, and (1987) Love
Song (Wasserman, 2013, p.11).

Macdonald’s theatrical work, which has received international acclaim,

demonstrates a similar ambition in challenging society’s limiting ideas of women.
Both The Arab’s Mouth and Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) have been
published by her. In 1995, she was selected for a Dora Award, and in 1990 she
received the Chalmers Canadian Play Award, Canadian Authors Association Award,
and Governor General’s Award; all of which were given to her. Goodnight Desdemona
(Good Morning Juliet) has been performed on stage in Canada and throughout the
globe more than fifty times. Through the viewpoint of an underdog heroine, both plays
examine the lives of female characters in a world whereby they have little authority
(Fischlin, 2002, p. 321). Even though none of the main characters defie traditional
gender roles, they are supported by strong female role models who give them the
confidence to follow their own paths without fear of social repercussions.

Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is a complicated adaptation of

Bard’s two works that are “most ambiguous and least Aristotelian” Othello and Romeo
and Juliet (Fischlin, 2002, p. 329). The play was first staged by Night wood Theatre in
1988 at Toronto’s Annex Theatre, “a small company devoted to women’s theatre”
(Porter, 1995, 365). In 1990, MacDonald’s adaptation version of the play toured the
country and earned the Canadian Governor general’s Award for Drama. Banuta
Rubess writes in the preface to the “Coach House Plays” edition that “For myself, the
greatest pleasure of the piece is its scope…in terms of content, in terms of theatricality,

86
and ultimately, in terms of the place it gives women” (“Introduction”, 1998, p. ix).
MacDonald’s work seeks to reproduce situations from Shakespeare’s plays, including
direct quotations in some events and is written in a font distinct from that used by
Shakespeare. Thus, to put MacDonald’s play in perspective, it is vital to know the
summary of the play.

Macdonald’s play tells the story of a mousy Shakespeare scholar who is

magically transported to the world of Shakespeare’s plays and must discover her true
identity to return home. Constance Ledbelly, who is an Assistant Professor at Queens
University working on her doctorate dissertation, attempts to break the arcane code of
an Elizabethan manuscript; Constance believes that the documents include secret
Shakespearean source materials which would prove that Othello and Romeo and Juliet
had been primarily comedies lacking only a wise fool.

The play opens with a dumb show in three parts: Othello smothers Desdemona,
Juliet awakens to find Romeo’s corpse and kills herself, and Constance throws away
her manuscript. Act I scene 1of the play happens in Constance Ledbelly’s office which
starts with a brief prologue. She describes her theories to the audience by giving
examples, the Othello/ lago handkerchief scene in Act iii. Scene iii, and the death of
Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet in Act III. When professor Claude Night (with whom she is
secretly in love and for whom she has been ghostwriting) tells her that he will be going
to Oxford with a graduate student and that she can go to Saskatchewan, Constance
decides to quit. As she prepares to get rid of the old manuscript, as revealed in the
prologue, Constance has dragged magically into the realms of Bard’s tragedies Othello
and Romeo and Juliet, where she has to figure out her real identity and the actual
author of the play (MacDonald, p. 21). Dissatisfied standing idly to see innocent
people get hurt, Constance intervenes in the action of the plays, preventing the
tragedies from occurring. Thus, she uncovers Iago’s plot to Othello in the second act
and reveals Romeo and Juliet’s wedding in the third act. As a stranger in Bard’s world,
she does not always know how to act properly and gets swept into the action of the
plays. Along the way, she discovers that she has some surprising characteristics of
both Desdemona and Juliet within her.

MacDonald’s “reinterpretations a few of Shakespeare’s well-known figures”

(Porter, 1995, p. 369) employs a new structure in which an assistant professor,

87
Constance Ledbelly, joins the events of Othello and Romeo and Juliet, hence radically
altering the context of the plays. It is shown in Act one of Goodnight Desdemona
(Good Morning Juliet) that Constance has been studying for her doctoral dissertation.
She reads loudly as she notes, attempting to convey her theory about the two plays’
missing Fool:

Constance: Or would our Fool defuse the tragedies by

assuming centre stage as comic hero? Indeed, in Othello
and Romeo and Juliet the fool is conspicuous by his very
absence, for these two tragedies turn on flimsy mistakes—
a lost hanky, a delayed wedding announcement—mistakes
too easily concocted and corrected by a Wise Fool. I will
go further: are these mistakes, in fact, the footprints of a
missing Fool? a Wise Fool whom Shakespeare
eliminated from two earlier comedies by an unknown
author?!' Non obstanter; although a Fool might stem the
blundering of Othello and Romeo, the question remains,
would he prove a match…(MacDonald, p. 21)

Her argument, on the other hand, is based on the deciphering of an old text,
which, as she claims, would establish that the Bard has utilized comedies as inspiration
for his tragedies—that by excluding the role of the Wise Fool, Shakespeare “made” the
tragic plays. Constance Leadbelly played and took the role of the “Wise Fool”, who is
capable of “defusing disasters by claiming the center stage as comic figure”
(MacDonald, p. 22). By transforming Bard’s tragedy into a comedy, MacDonald in her
work creates a place for positive female action via the character of Constance.

Constance has stressed out as she works on her dissertation because her work is
interrupted all the time. Eventually, Professor Claude Night has shown up to pick up
an article he requested Constance to write as a ghostwriter. Constance seems to have
dedicated most of her emotional and professional efforts to Night in seemingly one-
sided love. He mocks her concepts and her attempts to do her own Doctoral studies.
Constance is taken aback when Night presents her a diamond, fools her into thinking
she is about to be proposed to, and then reveals his engagement to a younger student.
Night continues to say that he has been promoted to a professor and has accepted a
position in Oxford in order to be closer to his Rhodes student fiance. Following
Night’s departure, the scene instructions remark that this is “the nadir of her passage
on this earth” for Constance (MacDonald, p. 26). In a moment of desperation, she
contacts the Dean’s office and asks for her resignation. Constance’s plans for the rest
of the day have been put on hold because of her bad day. She takes advantage of the

88
opportunity to clear her desk, disposing personal belongings in the bin. Eventually, she
prepares to throw away the intriguing antique manuscript, however, a sudden pause
enables her to interpret the writing on the cover, which had previously been
incomprehensible:

Constance: (reads the inscription aloud)

You who possess the eyes to see
this strange and wondrous alchemy,
where words transform to vision’ry,
where one plus two makes one, not three;
open this book if you agree
to be illusion’s refugee,
and of return no guarantee —
unless you find your true identity.
And discover who the Author be. (MacDonald, p. 27-28)

Three pages of the manuscript fall into the rubbish bin when she lifts the cover
of the document. When Constance leans in to collect them, she is transported into a
strange time/space rift that looks to be the setting of Shakespeare’s play Othello. Just
as Iago is ready to persuade Othello that Desdemona is unfaithful, Constance appears
in their presence and interrupts their plans for the evening. Constance uncovers Iago’s
intention to discredit Desdemona by revealing to Othello the handkerchief he has
concealed behind his back. Othello is overcome with gratitude, while Iago swears
vengeance in private. Desdemona and Constance have become good friends as a result
of a number of plot developments, but Iago has poisoned Desdemona’s mind by
instilling suspicions about Constance. Desdemona becomes outraged and attempts to
murder Constance. As Desdemona has found Constance and is willing to stab her
when Constance spots a piece of paper and grabs it only to discover that she is capable
of reading what it says:

Constance: It certainly looks like the real McCoy.

(Constance plucks the foolscap off the sword)
It is page one! I must be getting warm.
(reads) ‘Thou’rt cold, …
there find a third to make a trinity,
where two plus one adds up to one not three.'
Hm. How strange.
(Warp effects. Constance starts to be pulled off. Desdemona grabs
her by the skirt. When the warp effects are over, all that remains of
Constance is her skirt which is speared onto Desdemona’s sword). (MacDonald, p. 51 -52)

As Act III begins, Constance is transformed into the street brawl that occurs in
Romeo and Juliet. She finds herself in Verona, watching Tybalt’s and Mercutio’s duel

89
which results in both men being killed and Romeo being labeled “fortune’s fool”.
Constance interrupts the battle just as Romeo was ready to interfere tragically, as she is
now wearing tights or long jeans that were under her skirt. Because they believe
Constance is a boy, she introduces herself as Constantine from Cyprus and clarifies
that she “couldn’t let them kill each other for, / young Juliet and Romeo have wed”
(MacDonald, p. 53) making Romeo and Tybalt become cousins as a result of their
marriage. Constance, just like she did when she was originally twisted into Othello,
prevents Romeo and Juliet from being a tragedy by interceding and averting a stupid
error.

The comedy in this section of the play is mostly due to the fact that both
Romeo and Juliet are interested in wooing Constantine. The couples rapidly become
disinterested in their marital life “after only one night”. They growl at each other and
quarrel only over a pet turtle, and they are usually unpleasant as a result of this.
Constantine is a pleasant change for both of them. When Romeo enters the Capulet
family masked party (now in celebration of Juliet’s wedding), he explicitly pursues
“the Greek youth” Constantine, provoking the ire of Tybalt, who accuses Romeo of
being a “Hellenic deviant” for interfering. Constantine is introduced to Juliet, who
arrives looking a little untidy after a brief encounter with a servant. Instead of being
upset with Romeo, Juliet falls passionately in love with Constantine. When Constance
and Juliet dance together, Romeo gets the impression that Constantine prefers women.
He departs to put on Juliet’s clothes when Juliet is told that Constantine prefers man’s
company, she decides to disguise herself as Romeo in an attempt to appease her. While
Constance is relaxing on her balcony after the party, Juliet comes and begins reciting
Romeo’s words from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. She ultimately makes it up to
Constance’s bedroom and tries to woo Constantine, who is later shown to be a
woman character.

Constance’s disruption action in Othello and Romeo and Juliet aid to prove her
idea about the impact an absent character would have had in comedic source works for
Shakespeare’s tragedies, but the presence of a Wise Fool who stops every plot’s major
blunders turns out to be Constance herself. The concepts of the original and
autonomous writer (Shakespeare) are questioned, and, as Fortier states, “Ann-Marie
MacDonald proposes something more creative than the text written by Shakespeare,
something that Shakespeare, along with the rest of us, was serving and altering” (2002,

90
p. 341). Constance’s venture is defined by MacDonald as digging into her
subconscious to uncover the bravery and enthusiasm that she lacked in her life.
Constance should be able to attain her task with more determination as a result of these
characteristics, as well as develop her own (academic) writing voice. However, as an
unintentional playwright, Constance has rewritten Shakespeare and reinvented herself
as a futuristic feminist writer. Martha Rozett poses the following question in response
to Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet): “Will scholars like Constance have
to go one—or more—steps further and redefine comedy and tragedy altogether to
make sense of the new possible roles available for Shakespeare’s women? These,
surely, are questions for the [future] for teachers, scholars, and would-be revisers of
Shakespeare’s plays” (1996, p. 166). Although Constance is warped back into her
Queen’s University classroom, Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet)
has left Constance’s future in a state of uncertainty. Constance joins Othello and
Romeo and Juliet as the absent Fool, purportedly to retrieve pre-tragic storylines, and
succeeded in shattering the narrative convention of confining female figures via death
or marriage by composing herself into the adventure.

The Bard’s literary legacy continues to captivate people’s imagination

decade after decade, demonstrating that people from many various periods and places
of the globe find his works relevant, fascinating, and significant. For instance, the
postmodern Canadian playwright Ann-Marie MacDonald demonstrates such levels of
enthusiasm and appreciation. Her response to Shakespeare’s effect on her has been to
write adaptations of his plays, rather than just accepting his cultural viewpoint in its
entirety. When MacDonald was asked about her attitude toward Shakespeare and his
works, the postmodern playwright expresses her appreciation and admiration for him.
Although it contains humor and critical commentary, MacDonald’s comedy version
serves as a kind of homage to Shakespeare (Yachnin, 2005, p. 52). MacDonald
expressed her gratitude for Shakespeare’s skills while speaking about him. As she
explains, she would not ever make fun of anything that she had such strong feelings. It
is only possible for it to be something that intrigues her for some reasons, and if there
is a profound attraction to it, then it must be something that fascinates her (Rudakoff &
Much, p. 136). Consequently, despite reinterpreting and subverting some of his ideas,
she still holds him in high regard, appreciating his contributions to literature
throughout the world. Even though MacDonald revises Bard’s plays, she does not

91
utilize Bard’s plays as the only source of inspiration for her adaptations (McKinnon,
2013, p. 218). As the title implies, MacDonald’s version is mostly based on Bard’s
Othello and Romeo and Juliet, and she also draws and quotes from Sonnet 116, Hamlet
and Macbeth for inspiration (Porter, 1995, p. 373). More importantly, the playwright
makes great use of the psychological analysis of Carl Gustav Jung to strengthen the
woman by transforming her (Constance) into an independent woman of her own self.

As a feminist, MacDonald often criticizes Bard’s patriarchal beliefs. By

responding to him via postmodern adaptations, she appears to be responding to the
mistreatment of women in his works, which encompasses unfair accusations, disregard
for their preferences, and the husband’s supposed right to murder his wife for alleged
adultery (Wasserman, 2013, p. 193). As a result, in contrast to his penchant to
demolish his tragic protagonists' women, MacDonald depicts her central characters’
paths toward recovery, growth, and completeness after profound emotional traumas.
Her approach as a consequence is to use Bard’s tragic plays to represent various stages
of strengthening women who contribute to the positive transformations in the lives of
their respective characters.

Despite the fact that Shakespeare was patriarchal in that his works generally
supported his culture’s patriarchal viewpoint, Shakespeare has produced complex
compositions that allow for a variety of interpretations to be developed. Linda Burnett,
for instance, states “In terms of women, Shakespeare may possibly do a poor job
depicting Gertrude and Ophelia’s ‘ways of seeing.’ When these ladies do come on
stage, though, they are intriguing characters who are so ‘really’ written” (2002, p. 7).
As a result, in her efforts to defy the Bard, MacDonald aims to disassociate her plays
from him in order to achieve her own objectives while still acknowledging him and
expressing her thoughts via his works and personae. As it has been remarked,
MacDonald’s version is “radical adaptations of Shakespearean source materials”
(Fischlin, 2002, p 321). Additionally, James McKinnon notes notable distinctions
between Bard’s dramatic works and this of the Canadian playwrights: “To differentiate
themselves from Shakespeare, these works [postmodern works]
have used new narratives, postmodern settings, and new heroines” (2013, p. 220).
Accordingly, they clearly explore the issues and circumstances that Shakespeare’s
plays show or provide for imagination. Emphasizing postmodern writers’
responsibility to the Renaissance composer of multi-level, complicated plays, Burnett

92
asserts that MacDonald offers new perspectives and ideas for examining the Bard.
According to Burnett, “While MacDonald uses Shakespeare to further her
counterbalancing purpose, her plays imply that her main complaint with Shakespeare
is with conventional interpretations that only allow for a patriarchal perspective of the
playwright”(2002, p. 7). When it comes to Desdemona and Juliet, MacDonald’s work
accentuates their characteristics that are addressed in Bard’s works (particularly
Desdemona’s concern for the horrific tales and Juliet’s inclination of experiencing
intensive love), yet they have been frequently overlooked by some critics. Therefore,
MacDonald’s adaptation version seems to reintroduce the intricacy that initially
existed in the Bard’s manuscripts (Scott, 2006, p. 32).

Despite the fact that Bard’s manuscripts are rich in detail and convey a variety
of ideas, they are obviously patriarchal, thus provoking and prompting the feminist
dramatist MacDonald to tackle the issue of strengthening women in her adaptations of
the classic plays. As a result, the patriarchal nature of Bard’s theatrical stories may be
understood and partially acknowledged by the fact that his plays had been moderately
reflections of the patriarchal society of the British Renaissance (Porter, 1995, p. 362).
As a result of the patriarchal society in which he produced and lived, the Bard was not
particularly considerate of women while writing his works. Examining this subject,
Laurin Porter remarks “In the comedies, Shakespeare seems if not a feminist then at
least a man who takes the woman’s part. Often the women in the comedies are more
brilliant than the men, more aware of themselves and their world, saner, livelier, more
gay” (1995, p. 363). In addition, Porter claims that the Canadian dramatist Ann-Marie
MacDonald in her work of adaptation “is keenly aware of the difference between
Bard’s humorous and tragic protagonists” (1995, p. 364). MacDonald undoubtedly
recognizes this distinction in Bard’s portrayals of women. Constance Ledbelly, the
heroine of MacDonald’s play, is preparing a doctoral thesis and is dissatisfied with
Juliet and Desdemona’s unavoidable death, and she attempts to demonstrate in her
dissertation that the Bard’s plays Othello and Romeo and Juliet were once comedies
and that the Bard tragically has altered them into tragedies. Since Macdonald’s writing
changes the destinies of Desdemona and Juliet and transforms them into comedy
characters, it is reasonable to assume that MacDonald is reacting against the
mistreatment of female protagonists in Shakespeare’s tragic plays. Further, Mark
Fortier claims that the tragedy of Shakespeare depicts women as helpless, pathetic and

93
vulnerable (Fortier, 1989, p. 47). As a result, MacDonald discovered that
Shakespeare’s tragedy lacks really tragic women of will and courage, and she tackles
this problem by creating a story of strengthening women.

A serious personal crisis catalyzes strengthening women in MacDonald’s

adaptation. While the play does not begin with a description of the characters’
traumatic experiences, it is notable for the fact that it begins with a discussion about
magic before depicting the protagonists’ crises. Thus, it emphasizes the protagonists’
desire for strengthening women while calling attention to the ancient, unofficial
methods of acquiring specific information and special new aptitudes that have been
passed down the generations.

Obviously, the concept of magic and how it affects people’s lives have been
inspired by the Bard; therefore, it is not surprising to see it in the adaptations. The
positive and at the same time the negative sides of drugs in fact are shown in Bard’s
tragedy plays Othello and Romeo and Juliet. For instance, according to Brabantio’s
compliment to the Duke of Venice, Othello is accused of witchcraft by Desdemona’s
father, Brabantio: “Ay, to me/ She is abus’d, stol’n from me, and corrupted/ By spells
and medicines bought of mountebanks/ For nature so preposterously to err,/ Being not
deficient, blind, or lame of sense,/ Sans witchcraft could not” (Othello I. 3. 60-64). It
seems that, as this speech indicates, the distinction between medicine and alchemy was
somewhat blurred throughout the Renaissance in England. However, at the beginning
of the play, Othello has denied any magical effect on Desdemona but subsequently
claims to have given his wife a handkerchief with extraordinary supernatural abilities.
He angrily tells Desdemona that an Egyptian was a charmer (seer) “That’s a fault. That
handkerchief\ Did an Egyptian to my mother give\ She was a charmer, and could
almost read\ The thoughts of people” (Othello III. 4. pp. 55-58), has given it to his
mother. Othello (the Moor) proclaims fiercely: “She told her, while she kept it\
‘Twould make her amiable and subdue my father\ Entirely to her love, but if she lost
it\ Or made gift of it, my father’s eye\ Should hold her loathed and his spirits should
hunt\ After new fancies.” (III. 4. 58-63). As a result, according to the story, a woman’s
fate might be affected either positively or negatively by the handkerchief despite the
fact that it was embroidered with pure intentions and seemed to safeguard the joy of
the Moor’s (Othello) mother. Nonetheless, the loss of the handkerchief results
negatively on Desdemona and leads to her death. Similar to the handkerchief, the elixir

94
Friar Laurence gives to Juliet in Romeo and Juliet: “Take thou this vial, being then in
bed\ And this distilling liquor drink thou off\ When presently through all thy veins
shall run\ A cold and drowsy humor, for no pulse\ Shall keep his native progress, but
surcease” (IV. 1. 93-97) is meant to aid the marriage, but unfortunately his plot results
in their demise.

Ann-Marie MacDonald’s play is a reaction to Shakespeare’s romantic tragedy

plays Othello and Romeo and Juliet, which she uses to convey her story of women
strengthening. Like the Bard, MacDonald is also fascinated by magic, utilizing this
subject to summon up the mystical transformation of assistant professor Constance.
MacDonald’s comedy play has begun with a dumb show that contains three scenes at
the same time, which show three different things. Among the shows are scenes from
Othello’s murder of Desdemona; Juliet’s committing suicide by self-inflicted stabbing;
and Constance Ledbelly in her workplace taking up a manuscript from her table and
tossing it into a waste container. The play creates a parallel between all these three
events by displaying them all simultaneously. This parallel conveys the sorrows that
women go through and their powerlessness and helplessness in changing their
situation. (Wilson & Much, 1992, p. 4). Consequently, because of magical intervention
in MacDonald’s narrative, these three female figures prevent certain destinies depicted
by MacDonald. The Chorus then goes on to describe the meaning of alchemy in the
prologue in the most astoundingly confused way:

What’s alchemy? The hoax of charlatans?

Or mystic quest for stuff of life itself:
eternal search for the Philosopher’s Stone,
where mingling and unmingling opposites,
transforms base metal into precious gold.
Hence, scientific metaphor of self:
…..
Swift Mercury, that changing element,
…Here is the key to her Philosopher’s Stone-
The psychic alter that will alter fate.
But she has not the eyes to see it…yet. [indicates manuscript] (MacDonald, pp. 13-14)

The main character (Constance) aims to utilize this ancient, presently

unintelligible manuscript, named “the Gustav Manuscript”, to show that the original
texts were actually comedies and have been written by an anonymous dramatist, which
the Bard changed them into tragic plays through removing a Fool (Dvorak, 1994, p.
79). The playwright MacDonald, nevertheless, argues that the Bard delivered his

95
original text “to his old fellow, the alchemist Gustav, to enfold in an cryptic code”
(MacDonald, p. 18). As is clear, an allusion to Carl Gustav Jung 1 is indicated in the
title of the document (Whitted & Yachnin, 2002, p. 253). Further, the storyline defines
Constance in the individuation process as Hilary Knight argues that she has to
individuate herself. In other words, for Constance in order to find her real and true
‘self’, she must abandon her persona (which is the constructed version of herself that
she exhibits to the public) and should also go and dive deep into the depths of her
unconscious mind (2004, para. 2). Knight emphasizes that Constance in order to
accomplish this goal, she needs bringing together many elements or archetypes 2 that
reside inside her unconscious mind. According to Carl Jung’s psychological theory,
these archetypes are the “core, original aspects of the self” (qtd. in Adamski, 2011, p.
564) that are found inside the unconscious mind of a man. Thus, Jung argued that
based on culture and race, these archetypes might be utilized to get an understanding
of what motivates human attitude and personality. Carl Jung took his archetypes from
a variety of references, such as literature and mythology. Consequently, many
archetypes contain figures such as the Magician, the Wise Fool, or the Trickster.
Therefore, Constance has to manage with three of these archetypes as she searches for
finding herself in her unconscious mind. Due to the fact that she has spent a
significant amount of time working on her dissertation about Shakespeare’s Othello
and Romeo and Juliet, her unconscious organizes itself within the context of both of
these works.

The Animus and the Anima are the first two archetypes. These archetypes in
Carl Jung’s psychological theory relate to the ideas of feminine and masculine
parts inside ourselves; the Animus is associated with our masculine attributes,
whereas the Anima is linked with our Feminine (Adamski, 2011, p. 565). Constance’s
Anima and Animus are represented by Julite and Desdemona. Juliet, as knight argues,
represents Constance’s willingness to take emotional risks and “remaining open to the
prospect of embracing love again”(2004, para. 3). On the other hand, Desdemona

1
A Swiss psychologist and psychiatrist, was most prominent around the beginning of the 20th century.
His contributions to analytical psychology, individuation, continue to be fundamental works in the fields
of psychology and psychiatry.
2
According to carl Jung’s psychological theory archetypes is a primitive intellect imagery
that inherits from the old predecessors and considered to be preserved in the unconscious mind.

96
represents Constance’s own internal female warrior, and she may encourage her to
become more self-assured and advocate for herself. Thus, for Constance to develop
into a complete individual, she must fundamentally strike a balance between the two
archetypes.

The Shadow self, the third archetype, presents a persistent challenge. It should
be defeated on its own, and Constance should repair the harm that has been done to her
Animus and Anima. Hilary Knight provides a concise explanation of the Shadow
archetype by stating “ [...] The Shadow self is the antithesis of our conscious mind...
and it is representative of the traits and intentions that we abhor in ourselves and
struggle against” (2004, para. 5). In the same way, Connie Zweig and Jeremiah
Abrams in their book Meeting the Shadow: The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of
Human Nature say that Carl Jung define “the shadow self” as the repository of
repressed impulses, feelings, and desires that exist outside of our conscious sensibility
(1991. P. 240). The extreme behaviors of Constance’s Anima and Animus (Juliet and
Desdemona) are manifestations of the traits and intentions that Constance hates most
about herself. Desdemona is bold and courageous, yet Iago corrupts her to attack
Constance, mirroring the corruption of Constance at the hands of Claude Night.
Constance, in Act I scene II, gives professor Claude Night an article that he requested
her to write for him, as she states “I wish my destruction of Doctor Hallowfern’s work
has satisfied you” (MacDonald, p. 24). Constance’s misguided wish to do harm to
other people is reflected in Desdemona’s decision to attack Constance. In the
meantime, Constance’s Anima reveals that she has the desire to inflict pain on herself
in the name of love. Constance must prevent Juliet from using dagger to stab
herself while she is in her unconscious state of mind and when she spends long
amounts of time with Juliet. Constance nearly agrees with Juliet’s idea of
poisoning each other. Juliet’s willingness to die for the sake of love is evident from the
moment she and Constance first met, whereby she says “tomorrow will they find one
corpse entwined/ when, having loved each other perfectly/ our deaths proclaim one
night, eternity…. When love goes to its grave before we do, / then find another love
for whom to die” (MacDonald, p. 78). The fact that Juliet’s wish to die for the sake of
love is representative of the idea that Constance wishes the same thing in relation
to Night. After he has left her alone and gone to Oxford with another lady,

97
Constance is totally devastated and begins a soliloquy in which she describes a plan
about how she desires to end her life.

The most important thing does not lie in Constance’s ability to vanquish her
Shadow, but in her ability to identify it and balance the two aspects. Constance should
realize that her Animus may offer her immense character strength, allowing her to be
more forceful and stand for her own. Thus, Desdemona assists her in seeing that
Claude Night exploited and robbed her to satisfy his demands. Constance’s Anima, on
the other hand, may educate her that she is attractive and that she has to embrace
greater chances passionately to fulfill and recognize her full capability as an
individual. Juliet enables Constance to understand the legitimacy of her emotions for
Claude Night, embrace them, and put an end to their unsuccessful relationship so that
she would go on and pursue greater chances. Thus, MacDonald explains in her work
Constance’s psychological a magical transition into a powerful female character.
However, this transformation has been presented in a way that conceals the indications
and stages of Constance Ledbelly’s psychological transition from viewers or readers
who are unfamiliar with Carl Jung’s psychological theory. As a consequence of
depending upon Carl Jung’s interpretation, the playwright’s portrayal of alchemy has
been built around postmodern ideas of the hidden workings of psychology and so
varies considerably from Shakespeare’s depictions of Renaissance magic.

Even though MacDonald’s adaption begins with a description of alchemy, the

true reason for Constance’s transformation is not magic, but rather a severe personal
problem that she is experiencing. MacDonald’s adaptation does not depict the downfall
of its protagonist at the conclusion of the play in contrast to Bard’s plays in which the
married couple (Desdemona and Juliet) died at the end. Instead of that, MacDonald’s
play revolves around the protagonist’s grief as a result of her failed romantic
relationships with men. In Act I, scene I, MacDonald in her play illustrates the worst of
Constance Ledbelly’s condition. Professor Claude Night, the man she has adored for
more than a decade, discloses his dual treachery to Constance in this important scene.
Constance then confronted both his betrayal firstly in the shape of his new girlfriend
Ramona and secondly Claude Night’s accepting of the job at Oxford Universty
(Snyder, 2006, p. 45) that she had believed could be granted to her. Additionally, the
heroine recognizes that she has been taken advantage of by Professor Claude Night. To
get his attention, Constance has been pening essays for Claude Night as a ghostwriter

98
for their whole time of the relationship. Professor Claude Night has capitalized on this
event, and as a consequence of her hard work, he has received widespread publications
and positions (Wilson, 1992, p. 4), whereas Constance has been unable to complete her
doctoral thesis. The protagonist, filled with disappointment and despair, resolves to
contact the Dean and announce her resignation.

A confrontation with the altered figure of Desdemona is important for

Constance in order for her to learn to believe in herself and her own views, as well as
gain the confidence to write about and defend them. Like in Carl Jung’s interpretation,
Constance is instructed to integrate the “Desdemona” portion over her own psyche as a
piece of the “two” has been added to the “one” alluded to in the manuscripts. In other
words, by adding Shakespeare’s two protagonists “Desdemona and Juliet” to one
“Constance”, the result will be not three different personalities, but a completely single
individuated Constance. According to Banuta Rubess, who demonstrates a few of Carl
Jung’s notions that MacDonald employs:

The real story happens in the zone of the unconscious mind. Constance stews
in her office like base matter in an alchemical dish; she reaches the nigredo/ nadir of
her existence, and this allows her to reconsider her life, herself as if in a dream.
Desdemona and Juliet are archetypes of her own unconscious, Othello and Tybalt are
permutations of Professor Night, and the Chorus, Iago and Yorick can be seen as
versions of her own goading animus. But if we push the alchemical and Jungian
concepts aside, the story still stands- perfectly- as a re-visioning of some of
Shakespeare’s best characters. (“Introduction”, MacDonald, 1998, p, xii)

Throughout the play, MacDonald draws obvious connections to Carl Gustav

Jung’s psychology. Thus, Chorus begins the preface as follows:

divide the mind’s opposing archetypes

– if you possess the courage for the task –
invite them from the shadows to the light;
unite these lurking shards of broken glass
into a mirror that reflects one soul.
And in this merging of unconscious selves,
There lies the mystic ‘marriage of true minds’
Portrayed as Gemini, hermaphrodite and twin,
Now steers the stars of Constance Ledbelly,
And offers her a double-edged re-birthday. (MacDonald, p. 13- 14)

99
 According to MacDonald’s view, Desdemona and Juliet symbolize two ignored
parts of Constance’s personality or her shadow selves, which reflect hidden
characteristics and features of the personality. The essence of the shadow selves,
according to Carl Jung, is an identical gender as the subject “-- for its nature can in
large measure be inferred from the contents of the personal unconscious” (1985, p.
147), which is exposed in dreams and legends. It is clear that Constance’s ‘trip’
through Romeo and Juliet and Othello is dreamy like, and Constance underlines this
dreamy matter when she first encounters Desdemona (Everyone turns and stares at
Constance) “Hi… Desdemona?... This is like a dream… you’re just as I imagined you
to be” (MacDonald, p. 33) then also once again as she comes face to face with Juliet:

Constance… For years I’ve sought to penetrate your source,

And dreamt of meeting you a thousand times-
…
Julite… Awake. Or let me share thy sleep of dreams.
I’d have thee penetrate my secret source,
And know me full as well and sleep as thou
Dost know thyself o dreamer, Constance. (MacDonald, p. 65)

The shadow, according to Carl Gustav Jung in his book Aspects of the
Feminine, is a morality issue that threatens the whole ego-personality system:

… no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To
become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present
and real… Closer examination of the dark characteristics… that is, inferiorities constituting
the shadow… reveals that they have an emotional nature, a kind of autonomy, and
accordingly an obsessive or, better, possessive quality. Emotion, incidentally, is not an
activity of the individual but something that happens to him (1982, p. 165).

Although the shadow presumably comprises the concealed, suppressed, and

undesirable qualities of a person’s psyche, it is possible to misinterpret the shadow as
merely exhibiting the negative sides of a person’s nature. Yet, excellent characteristics,
creative ideas, and natural “instincts may also be found in the shadow” (Jung & Franz,
1976, p. 118). When Desdemona and Constance meet in Constance’s realm of dreams,
Desdemona reveals what Constance wants to know. Desdemona’s aggression and
bravery are suppressed sides of Constance that must be acknowledged and controlled;
Desdemona’s perseverance and acute inquiry are good characteristics that Constance
should emphasize. Desdemona assists Constance in defining her quest at the level of
the plot: Constance “That’s it, you see, I can’t return until- That is… \my Queens have
charged me with a fearful task: I must find out my true identity,\ and then discover

100
who the author be” (MacDonald, p. 35). Besides, Desdemona coerces Constance into
confessing her affection towards professor Claude Night.

An improbable method for a feminist drama is the use of Jungian analysis, with
its ahistorical and maybe essentialist idea of archetypes. It is still uncertain to what
degree MacDonald embraces Jung’s concepts without question, or if she appropriates
Carl Jung for her own objectives, as she did with Shakespeare. When it comes to tone,
the final speech of Chorus is a parody:

Chorus: The alchemy of ancient hieroglyphs

has permeated the unconscious mind
of Constance L. and manifested form,
where there was once subconscious dreamy thought.
The best of friends and foes exist within,
where archetypal shadows come to light
and doff their monster masks when we say ‘boo’.
Where mingling and unmingling opposites
Performs a wondrous feat of alchemy,
And spins grey matter, into precious gold. (MacDonald, p. 87)

This attitude to ideas of “archetypal shadows” might indicate that, despite

MacDonald’s use of depth psychology’s discourse, her play stays irreverently comedy.

However, MacDonald’s feminist formation does not seek to end with her
heroine’s experiences of hopelessness; instead, she wishes to depict how such
experiences result in positive personality transformation. As a result, the protagonist of
MacDonald’s play is bound to go on a path toward rehabilitation and completeness.
Her play illustrates an unanticipated and magical metamorphosis of
Constance’s undeveloped self throughout the theory of individuation --a theory that
Carl Jung has praised greatly since he believed it allows for the creation of a powerful,
complete and harmonious self. While the protagonist waits for the Dean’s department
to respond to her call, she resolves to toss the Gustav Manuscript into the waste bin.
Nevertheless, she stops her attempt when she notices that a piece of the texts
has become readable and reads “You who possess the eyes to see\ this strange and
wondrous alchemy\ where words transform to vision’ry\ where one plus two makes
one, not three;\ open this book if you agree … and of return no guarantee– \unless you
find your true identity” (MacDonald, p. 27- 8). Constance accepts this challenge and
when she opens the manuscript as the Chorus explains, it drops through the waste
container into the domain “of the unconscious mind” (MacDonald, p. 28). Considering

101
how critics have responded to this scene, the status of this fictitious domain becomes a
controversial question: Mark Fortier argues that it is a more widespread aspect of the
feminine psyche (2002, p. 320). According to Shelley Scott and Laurin R. Porter, the
depicted dreamy realm corresponds to Constance Ledbelly’s personal unconscious
mind (2006, p. 33). In any event, within this part of unconscious, Constance enters the
theatrical realm of the Bard’s Othello, where she reveals Iago’s dishonesty to the Moor
and dramatically transforms the storyline of the tragic and remarks: “I’ve wrecked a
masterpiece. I’ve ruined the play, / I’ve turned Shakespeare’s ‘Othello’ to a farce”
(MacDonald, p. 30) by disclosing the truth. In fact, Constance Ledbelly’s intervention
in Shakespeare’s plays has a profound influence on the lives of Shakespeare’s figures.
Constance realizes that her actions are having a devastating effect. In several scenes,
later, Constance observes “The Mona Lisa and a babe float by. / Which one of these
two treasures do you save? / I’ve saved the baby, and let the Mona drown-- / or did the
Author know that I’d be coming here” (MacDonald, p. 37) implying to her disruptive
behavior. Certainly, MacDonald’s adaptation has taken an entirely different approach
to Bard’s two tragic plays. Thus, MacDonald reinterprets and changes some of Bard’s
most fascinating and famous events and figures in her adaptation.

Additionally, when Constance intervenes in Bard’s world, she encounters a

courageous and adventurous Desdemona, a character who differs significantly from
the Bard’s delicate, obedient and naive Desdemona, who symbolizes the “passive
embodiment of virtue”, yet curiously enjoys hearing “horror tales” (Wilson, 1992, p.
7). Marta Dvorak sarcastically describes Desdemona in MacDonald’s play as an
Othello in dress (1994, p. 129). Despite the fact that Desdemona lacks gentleness, yet
determination to please her husband can be seen easily. Desdemona expresses her
likability to Constance through “soldierly embracing” (MacDonald, p. 30) after
Othello presents her to Desdemona. According to the Renaissance patriarchal
conventions, her actions would be regarded as inappropriate for a woman and would
be more appropriate for a powerful man like Othello or Tybalt. As a result, many
critics believe that MacDonald in this scene draws attention to Desdemona’s
masculinity and tries to show the reader that women are independent and have the
power to choose and build their own identities.

On the next page of the manuscript, Constance has been transformed to Bard’s
realm of Romeo and Juliet, where she saves Mercutio from certain death by Tybalt

102
“She tackles Romeo. They fly into the sword fight, knocking Tybalt and Mercutio aside.
Tybalt and Mercutio jump to their feet and immediately points their swords at
Constance while Romeo sits on her” (MacDonld, p. 52-53; italics in the original).
Changing this classic as well, the postmodern protagonist “Constance” encounters
Romeo and Juliet, who behaved like “spoilt, petulant and moody teenagers”
(Kerslake, 1994, p. 138). Moreover, an overtly erotic portrayal of Juliet, utterly at
variance with the purity generally associated with her, has been particularly
distressing for the audience admiring Shakespeare’s work. For example, Juliet seduces
Constance when she recognizes her as a young boy named Constantine:

Juliet: Thirteen! Tomorrow will I be fourteen

Constance: You will? So will! I mean, be a year older.
Juliet: We share the self-same stars! We’re truly matched.
Constance: Juliet?
Juliet: My love?
Constance: I’m flattered…
...
Juliet: Then are thy vestal senses all intact.
O let Juliet initiate
Thy budding taste of woman’s dewy rose.
Learn how the rose becomes a sea of love;
Come part the waves and plumb Atlantic depths.
I’ll guide thee to the oyster’s precious pearl…
We’ll seek out wat’ry caves for glist’ning treasure,
Spelunk all night until we die of pleasure. (MacDonald, p. 69)

In light of Jungian theory, MacDonald’s disrespectful and unpleasant portrayal

of Juliet, which emphasizes her inclination to feel excessive love, is understandable.
According to Jungian theory, Juliet serves as a part of Constance’s psyche, which
Constance must accept to develop into a well-rounded character.

The support and assistance of other female characters (Desdemona and Juliet)
serve as a method of strengthening MacDonald’s protagonist (Constance). To put it
simply, Juliet and Desdemona in MacDonald’s adaptation version are Constance’s
unconscious archetypes. More specifically, both characters Desdemona and Juliet
work as establishing elements of their personality that have remained inactive for a
long period (Djordjevic, 2003, p. 103). As a result, Constance must merge
Desdemona’s and Juliet’s traits into her personality to be a much more complete
entity. Desdemona helps her in finding strength and bravery, whereas Juliet assists her
in recognizing her love. Thus, Desdemona and Juliet along with Constance constitute
the Carl Jung’s Trinity—a tripartite, well-rounded woman characters, who embody the

103
smart woman “Constance”, the courageous woman “Desdemona” and the passionate
woman “Juliet” (Djordjevic, 2003, p. 99). To stress out the oneness of this formation,
the Chorus portrays the mystic union of Constance Ledbelly’s selves as “when you add
one to two does not equal three, but one” (MacDonald, p. 27). Constance, as the
“smart side of the tripartite concept of perfect femininity” (Djordjevic, 2003, p. 95),
influences Juliet and Desdemona to alter their behavior and personalities. While
Desdemona is foolish and aggressive, Juliet is infatuated with death, as Constance
realizes at the end of the narrative. In an attempt to assist these protagonists, she
convinces them that their overwhelming traits and unreasonable or risky behaviors
may result in fatal consequences.

Furthermore, Jungian theory offers a rather detailed demonstration of how

Constance, Desdemona, and Juliet are complementary to one another. Women,
according to Jung, are predominantly guided by the rule of Eros, whereas men are
mainly controlled by the notion of Logos. According to Carl Jung, Eros implies
“passive, submissive, emotional, receptive, psychic relatedness” (qtd. İn Samuels,
2015, p. 171) which encourages women to identify themselves in terms of their
relationships with others instead of independent, self-sufficient individuals. In Bard’s
tragedy plays Othello and Rome and Juliet, both heroines Desdemona and Juliet are
subjugated by Eros, as mild and sweet women who are entirely dependent on their
husbands. A similar claim may be indeed made about Constance in the outset of Ann-
Marie MacDonald’s adaptation, when she conforms herself to the concept of the
submissive nice female, who does not object to Professor Claude Night’s rather
negative opinion about her, “Oh Constance. You have such an interesting little mind”
(MacDonald, p. 23). In this domain, Logos implies “active, assertive, intellectual,
penetrative, objective interest”(qtd. İn Samuels, p. 171) that has an autonomous entity
controlled not by emotion, sympathy or love, but by reason and logic. In contrast to the
source texts, Juliet and Desdemona in MacDonald’s play are portrayed as archetypes
(aspects) of Logos that help in growing conventionally masculine features in
Constance’s psyche. In this case, Desdemona taught Constance to “acquire a taste for
blood. I’ll help thee. Come” (MacDonald, p. 37), whereas Juliet is infatuated with
poetic tragic death and sensuous love, “The time for innocence is sped!/ I’ll love once
more before I’m dead!…Wouldst love me if I told thee who it be?” (MacDonald, p.
69). In fact, Desdemona’s and Juliet’s traits have been permitted to males (men) rather

104
than females (women). As a result of the process of incorporating their male
characteristics into her character, the protagonist (Constance) can acquire integrity
since her opposing characteristics are now in harmony.

It is important to remember that, in Good night Desdemona (Good morning

Juliet), strengthening a woman does not just imply acquiring strength but also involves
using that strength to achieve psychological balance and control inside one’s own
personality. MacDonald’s adaptation reveals several methods of strengthening women
as it progresses. One is alchemy, which has unexpected outcomes in Good Night
(Good Morning Juliet). She portrays magic as a catalyst for Constance’s development.
Nevertheless, the author’s depiction of alchemy in her text is not strictly conventional;
rather, she exploits the notion of alchemy in the context of Jungian interpretation.
Alchemy is used by Carl Jung as a representation of personal metamorphosis.
According to this interpretation, the Gustav Manuscript serves just like a distinctive
medium for Constance to uncover her actual self via the process of “where mingling
and unmingling opposites/ transforms base metal into precious gold” (MacDonald, p.
13) inside her psyche into a harmonic and steady union.

In the play Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet), female unity serves
as a powerful form of strengthening women. However, not only the female characters
who assist the heroine (Constance) in MacDonald’s adaptation in her recovery and
development; men also assist and participate in these processes in various ways.
Consequently, without the presence of the male Ghost in MacDonald’s play,
Constance’s transformation would be incomplete. The Ghost appears on two different
occasions in the play in Act three scene six and scene nine in front of Constance
informing her of clues that eventually lead the protagonist to discover her actual
identity. As Mark Fortier explains that the ghost’s closest approach to identifying itself
is to remark, “You are it” (MacDonald, p. 86), implying that the specter is the heroine
(Constance) (Fortier, 2002, p. 345). Similarly, Laura Snyder believes that the Ghost
represents a hidden masculine aspect of the Constance’s psyche that she must confront
and embrace to “identify her own power” (2006, p. 50). As a result, Constance finds
out that she is at the same time “the Author and the Wise Fool are one and the same…”
(MacDonald, p. 86) when she finally figures out the Ghost’s clues. Thus, as a woman
she proves herself to be talented with certain capabilities and power.

105
 Consequently, Anne Marie MacDonald dramatizes transformation. Ann Wilson
states that MacDonald’s Good Night Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) is a work
about strengthening women (1992, p. 12). Indeed, its conclusion may be classified as
quite cheerful. The playwright MacDonald admits in an interview with Rita Much that
she regards her work to be a “Jungian fairy tale” (1991, p. 128). A final scene in
MacDonald’s adaptation depicts Constance Ledbelly at university in her office as the
strong woman of a higher position and a writer of her own self and much more
confident and feminine, with her pen transformed into “precious gold” (MacDonald, p.
87). Even though Constance’s profound sensitive transformation and ongoing
psychological development have not been explicitly shown as Shannon Hengen claims
(1995, p. 98), the readers have been assured, at the end that her transformation has
been accomplished positively when Chorus states “Where mingling and unmingling
opposites\ performs a wondrous feat of alchemy,\ and spins grey matter, into precious
gold” (MacDonald, p. 87). In conclusion, MacDonald’s feminist attitude is affirmed in
her dealing with the character Constance by strengthening women.

106
 CONCLUSION

It is unquestionable that adaptations in theatrical works may be ascribed to

varying and, occasionally paradoxical causes that stem from the adapters’ motives and
compulsions. Nevertheless, regardless of the diversity of such motivations and
compulsions, this phenomenon became a fad, a tendency, and, most importantly, a way
of viewing a particular social issue via the universal face of Bard’s plays. Any
investigation into the motivations behind adaptations discloses a wide range of goals,
but the most explicit goal is the adapter’s special and personal consideration in Bard’s
play, which prompts him to consider domesticating, transforming, altering, or adapting
it to fit into his own viewpoints of a different period and social context. By following
this uncreative method, the adapter may highlight or concentrate on one idea or feature
of the original play while ignoring or minimizing the other idea accordingly.
Therefore, the subject of the adapted play differs from the original one like in the
situation of Tom Stoppard and Arnold Wesker, who utilized the postmodern
connotations of Bard’s Hamlet and The Merchant of Vince to convey and depict their
social protest.

It is important to note, in light of this context, that the Bard himself was a
practitioner of adaptations in one way or another. For example, he borrowed the plots
or narratives for his plays from a variety of ancient European sources and altered them
to suit the tastes of the Elizabethan audience (Bullough, 1996, p. 250). Adaptations of
his own plays started in the seventeenth century and have continued ever since. It was
fashionable in the seventeenth century because it reflected the spirit of the period.
Subsequently, over the centuries, it solidified into tradition, especially as aspiring
dramatists insisted on imitating a great master of the craft like Shakespeare. This is in
addition to the master imitators who sought to sound like the Bard or who used
Shakespearean themes as measures of success to evaluate their proficiency.

In the twentieth century, when a number of theatrical trends emerged,

experimenting with certain dramatic forms was confirmed to be an adaptation-friendly
literary trend, as the various methods available to the playwright enabled him to
conceptualize plays of the Bard with new viewpoints. In many situations, however, the
outcome turns out to be a rejection and/or the destruction of the content of the source
text. Occasionally, the structure of Bard’s text, notably its length, vocabulary,

107
complexity, and language may require omissions, and such a process would result in
the creation of a new play, if not a deformed one. Thus, the adaptation of Bard’s plays
has received similar critique because of the conservative views of his plays
which basically elevate them above all other literary metamorphosis. The purpose of
the present study is to demonstrate that adaptations are, in fact, useful processes that
allow looking at well-known works from different viewpoints, giving new concepts,
and establishing new paths for the social and critical interpretation of the canonical
works. Particularly, the adaptation of Bard’s plays discloses the complexities and
ideological features of his works via subversion, interacts with a distinct type of
society, and most obviously alludes to the issues of their own setting. To explain these
notions well, the present study examined three adaptations of Bard’s plays which
depict the notions covered in each chapter: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by
Tom Stoppard The Merchant by Arnold Wesker, and Good Night Desdemona (Good
Morning Julite) by Anne-Marie MacDonald. These works illustrate how the adaptation
of Bard’s plays has purposes beyond his plays. Through particular reworking of
Bard’s materials, their major goals are to tackle the challenging problems that arise
from their historical and social context. Thus, these playwrights’ usage of
Shakespeare’s texts is a representation of their critical attitudes to the way particular
social problems and marginalized characters are handled in Bard’s works.

The analysis of these texts discloses that literary rebirth serves a deeper social
and ideological purpose by allowing the adaptation process to tackle contemporary
issues while also scrutinizing and demystifying the original work. Noticeably, these
adaptations highlight certain problematic elements of their origin texts by uncovering
formerly ignored topics and providing a voice to marginalized individuals. In contrast
to the popular belief, several modifications in these plays show that they are far from
adoring the Bard. Due to the critical views of later authors, the generally held belief
that Bard’s plays are reproduced because of their fantastic aspects is disproved. In
fact, the adaptation of Bard’s works takes two distinct ways, either
conservative or radical reproduction (Sinfield, 1983, p. 45). Regarding this difference,
it is noted that the adaptations examined in the present study are instances of radical
reproduction as shown by the modifications made to Bard’s texts’ structural and theme
elements. Wesker’s play modifies the character’s motive in Bard’s Version and
changes the ending and main storyline of the original play. MacDonald’s Good Night

108
Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) engages with the original text by changing almost
all elements including the figures and the primary storyline. Stoppard’s work
significantly alters the storyline of Hamlet, although most of the essential characters
are still there. As a result, these works highlight the difficulty of really changing
Shakespeare in new directions.

Supporting the idea that Bard’s plays are also reworked to explain the
problematic parts in his plays, these adaptations provide other interpretations for the
parts that are left confusing in the original texts. The second and third chapters in
particular make this point clear. For instance Wesker’s work is the efforts to resolve
the uncertainty surrounding the Jew’s portrayal in the source text. Concerning this
play, it has been debated for a significant amount of time whether Bard’s portrayal of
the Jewish figure is fair enough when measured against the works of his
postmodern writers. Wesker’s alteration and strengthening of the figure with no biases
which was formerly portrayed in Bard’s play demonstrate that he had not been friendly
enough when he created this figure (Shylock). Similarly, in Good Night Desdemona
(Good Morning Juliet), Anne Marie MacDonald attempts to find out the motivations
and reason behind the formerly portrayal of women characters as helpless, subordinate,
and inferior way in the Bard’s Othello and Romeo and Juliet. Since women’s persona
and rights are ignored and mistreated in the original work, there has been an effort for
strengthening the female characters through the character of Constance in
MacDonald’s version. Therefore, these plays make an effort to modify Bard’s
materials, exemplifying the fundamental goals of the adaptation process.

It should be highlighted that the personal touch and, behind it, the personal
motivation of the adapters are essential in determining the adaptation, its approach, and
its aim. Nearly all the adapters have shown that personal interest has a major role in
selecting Bard’s works for adaptation. This does not imply that no other more
extensive or general causes lay behind the adapter’s personal feelings. On the contrary,
personal interest is overshadowed when adaptation is prompted by humanitarian,
historical, or social reasons or issues confronting the postmodern world.

It is unquestionable that the universality and generality of the themes in Bard’s

plays offer the possibility for them to be reshaped to fit a specific period. This
characteristic makes any of Bard’s works adaptable to several interpretations and

109
treatments by numerous writers. In fact, Shakespeare’s works are amenable to a variety
of theatrical approaches and styles in accordance with what each playwright seeks to
portray. In general, adapting a particular viewpoint on particular societal problems has
necessitated the process of adapting a particular play to meet the requirements of
exhibiting those problems or even providing solutions to them. In this regard, Tom
Stoppard, Arnold Wesker, and Anne Marie MacDonald were motivated by a sense of
the necessity of action in the face of ideological problems of existence, racism, and
feminism, respectively. They were prompted to express their belief in social reform as
a way to solve the problems facing their societies. Using absurdist, racial, and feminist
problems, they convey their thoughts in various ways via the plays adapted. Here, they
seem to be acting after the principle that art should have a social function.

Tom Stoppard, for instance, has sought a variety of methods to add a

humanitarian and personal dimension to his version. This remake demonstrates how
Bard’s plot and characters are reframed to make room for the consideration of more
pertinent problems. It is inferred from the examination of Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead that due to the living conditions of the twentieth century, such
as the second world war and the Nazi’s extermination, with all injustices committed
against humanity, he attempted to draw the audience’s attention to the necessity of
observing everyman’s right of free life. Thousands of marginalized, exploitation and
belief in superiority or priority can be seen in the world today. Regardless of any
religious or ideological beliefs, the humanist pulse pushes one to sympathize with
marginalized persons wherever they are. From this standpoint, Stoppard’s work seeks
to expose the theme of a better world. Stoppard’s play and his adaptation of
Shakespeare, therefore, demonstrate that he used Bard’s work as an instrument for
social criticism since his goal is always to address issues pertaining to the postmodern
time.

Likewise, Since Wesker’s version is still set in 1500s Venice, it is important to

evaluate his adaptations in the perspective of the context after the Holocaust, when
minorities became more concerned about being discriminated against because of their
race and religion. It becomes obvious how Wesker revised the text to fit the situation.
In fact, Shakespeare’s work is again utilized to speak to the more historically important
issues when Wesker’s work is examined in light of such occurrences and his interest in
such issues. Also, in MacDonald’s play, the strengthened and confident depictions of

110
Desdemona, Juliet, and Constance, in contrast to Shakespeare’s play, in which the
female characters are meant to be more submissive and subordinate, indicate a
difference in the postmodern notion of female liberty.

Such significant alterations refer to the process of viewing things from a new
perspective. The plays chosen in the present study are examined in terms of adaptation
based on the works’ focus on ideological transformations throughout the adaptation
process. As these plays reshape the social context of Bard’s plays and provide new
interpretations, they interact with various social issues. In fact, it has been pointed out
about the social ties of the process of adaptation that any adapted work must
necessarily entail the reframing of notions that indirectly or directly communicate a
sense of social involvement since adaptation by itself implies a process of
alteration (Hassler & Nicklas, 2015, p. 2). Thus, adaptation aims to modify the
appearance of the earlier text to serve new ideological goals. These adaptations react to
the usage of Bard’s works socially, as well as prompt the ideas, such as existence,
racism, and feminism.

These works’ social alteration of Bard’s plays has been displayed clearly in
their focus on character metamorphosis, which also forms other essential elements in
their depiction of the Bard. In fact, adaptation has been viewed as “a type of individual
criticism with a specific emphasis on individual metamorphosis” (Sanders, 2016, p.
50). It seems that each of the adaptations used in the present study concentrates on one
or two Shakespearean characters in order to tell a different story. As a matter of fact,
the most significant alteration in each work is centered on the marginalized figures of
the original works. By placing them in different contexts, these writers provide their
own personal interpretations of these figures. For example, unlike the Bard, Stoppard
presents Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as main characters instead of Hamlet to
highlight the life of the common men in order to direct the audience’s attention to the
necessity of observing every man’s right to free life. In the Elizabethan period,
Hamlet is served by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two unimportant courtiers. They
are figures with no apparent purpose, dedicated to ridiculous tasks like spying on
prince Hamlet or pleasing the King. Nevertheless, Stoppard’s resuscitation of these
individuals as the main characters has transformed not only their value but also
elevated the spirit of everyday life for the common people via these ordinary figures.
In an effort to restore Shylock’s reputation and debunk misconceptions about Jews,

111
Wesker depicts Shylock in a different way by portraying him as an honorable member
of the Venetian. MacDonald’s transformations of Constance into a strong individual
and depicting Desdemona and Juliet as self-dependent characters serve as a critical
response to Bard’s depiction of the figures as subordinate women who are easily
manipulated by the male figures of the work. The Bard’s works are both upheld and
challenged by the postmodern playwrights. Thus, this study also raises the question of
whether these plays praise the canonical position of the Bard or critics him. Both are
the proper responses to this question. The Bard is obviously the subject of two distinct
gestures made by the playwrights in their works by imitating and distancing, praising
and criticizing.

To sum up, the present study claims that the adaptations of Bard’s plays might
be seen as a response to a certain social context. Thus, this study provides an alternate
way to the Bard by examining the postmodern attitudes of the dramatist toward his
plays. In addition, it has been observed that Shakespearean works can be given new
significance via adaptations that reinterpret his plays to appropriate them more to the
issues that are prevalent in a postmodern society. In light of the utilization of Bard’s
plays by the writers in the present study, further Shakespeare adaptations must not be
seen as mere efforts to duplicate his plays, but instead as independent works that
address their own societal issues. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that this
literary phenomenon of adapting Bard’s plays is and will continue to provide the
playwrights with new ideas that serve their own context. The resourcefulness and
richness of the plays might be one of the factors that encourage adaptation. Further,
experiments in theatrical forms continue and this helps look at the same plays from
various angles and produce them in new forms to reflect their own background
milieux.

112
 REFERENCES

Abrams, J., & Zweig, C. (1991). Meeting the shadow: The hidden power of the dark
side of human nature. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Abrams, M. H., & Harpham, G. G. (2015). A glossary of literary terms. Stamford, CT:
Cengage Learning.
Adams, H., & Searle, L. (2001). Critical theory since 1965. Tallahassee (Fla.): Florida
State University Press.
Adamski, A. (2011). Archetypes and the collective unconscious of Carl G. Jung in the
light of quantum psychology. NeuroQuantology, 9(3), 563-571.
Al-Alwan, Mona (2000). “Shakespeare and the Theatre of the Absurd” Ph.D.
dissertation, Washington State University.
Alexander, M. (2000). A history of English literature. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Allen, G. (2022). Intertextuality. London: Routledge.
Artaud, A. (2004). The theater and its double. New York: Grove Press.
Banuta, R. (1998). Introduction. Goodnight Desdemona (good morning Juliet). By
Ann-Marie MacDonald. Toronto: Playwrights Canada Press.
Barilli, R. (1989). My ‘Long Infidelity’towards Calvino. Calvino Revisited, 9-17.
Barthes, R. (1989). The rustle of language. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Beauvoir, S. D. (2015). The second sex (vintage feminism short edition). S.l.: Random
House.
Becker, P. V. (2003). John Elsom. Elsom, 363-364. doi:10.4324/9780203197318-84
Bickley, P., & Stevens, J. (2019). Essential Shakespeare: The arden guide to text and
interpretation. London: Bloomsbury Arden Shakespeare.
Blamires, H. (2020). A short history of English literature. London: Routledge.
Bloom, H. (1991). Shylock. New York: Chelsea House Publ.
Bloom, H. (1996). The western canon: The books and School of the Ages. London:
Papermac.
Bloom, H. (2005). Shakespeare's the merchant of Venice. New York: Riverhead
Books.
Bloom, H. (2011). The stranger - Albert Camus. New York, NY: Infobase Publishing.

113
Bowker, M. H. (2016). Rethinking the politics of absurdity: Albert Camus,
postmodernity, and the survival of Innocence. London: Routledge.
Bradley, L. (2008). Meddling with masterpieces: The on-going adaptation of “King
lear.” (Doctoral dissertation). Victoria, British Columbia: University of
Victoria.
Branam, G. C. (1990). Eighteenth-century adaptations of Shakespearean tragedy. Ann
Arbor: University Microfilms International.
Brassell, T. (1987). Tom Stoppard: An assessment. London: Macmillan.
Bridges, M. (1990). On strangeness. Tübingen: G. Narr Verlag.
Bullough, G. (1996). Narrative and dramatic sources of Shakespeare. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Burnett, L. (2002). Redescribing a World: Towards a Theory of Shakespearean
Adaptation in Canada. Canadian Theatre Review, 111, 5-9.
Burroughs, W. S. (1991). Screenwriting and the potentials of cinema, in Writing in a
Film Age: Essays by Contemporary Novelist, ed. Keith Cohen, (Uiwot. Press
of Colorado), 53-86.
Burt, R. (2007). Shakespeares after Shakespeare: An encyclopedia of the Bard in mass
media and popular culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Camus, A. (2016). The myth of sisyphus, and other essays. Seattle, Wash:
CreateSpace.
Carson, C. (2002). “An Eclectic Collection of Adaptations.” Rev. of Adaptations of
Shakespeare: A Critical Anthology of Plays from the 17th Century to the
Present, by Daniel Fischlin and Mark Fortier. Canadian Theatre Review, 101-
103.
Cartelli, T. (2013). Shakespeare and the End of History: Period as Brand Name.
Shakespeare and Modernity: Early Modern Millennium . London: Taylor and
Francis.
Cohen, D. (1988). Shylock and the idea of the jew. Shakespearean Motives, 104-118.
doi:10.1007/978-1-349-18967-0_7
Cohn, R. (2015). Modern Shakespeare offshoots. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Coleridge, S. T. (1905). Specimens of the table talk of the late Samuel Taylor
Coleridge. Edinburgh: J. Grant.
Cowart, D. (2012). Literary symbiosis: The reconfigured text in twentieth-century
writing. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Desmet, C., & Sawyer, R. (2013). Shakespeare and appropriation. London: Taylor
and Francis.

114
Djordjevic, I. (2003). Goodnight Desdemona (good morning juliet): From
Shakespearean tragedy to Postmodern Satyr play. Comparative Drama, 37(1),
89-115. doi:10.1353/cdr.2003.0012
Drakakis, J. (2002). Alternative shakespeares. London: Routledge.
Drakakis, J. (2014). The merchant of Venice. London: Bloomsbury Arden
Shakespeare.
Dvorak, M. (1994). Goodnight William Shakespeare (good morning Ann-Marie
MacDonald)(MacDonald's Goodnight Desdemona (good morning
Juliet)). Canadian Theatre Review, 128-133.
Eco, U. (2014). The name of the rose ; postscript to the name of the rose. Boston:
Mariner Books.
Elsom, J. (1992). Is Shakespeare still our contemporary? London usw.: Routledge.
Emig, R. (2012). Translation, adaptation and transformation, 14-24.
doi:10.1515/9783110272239.14
Endelman, T. M. (2002). The jews of Britain: 1656 to 2000. Berkeley: Univ. of
California Press.
Erickson, P. (1994). Rewriting Shakespeare, rewriting ourselves. University of
California Press.
Erne, L. (2010). Shakespeare and the problem of adaptation. English Studies, 91(2),
225-226. doi:10.1080/00138380903363647
Esslin, M. (1968). Theatre of absurd. London: Penguin Books.
Esslin, M. (1987). Samuel Beckett: A collection of critical essays. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall international.
Eyre, R., & Wright, N. (2001). Changing stages a view of British theatre in the
Twentieth Century. London: Bloomsbury.
Felperin, H. (2002). The uses of the canon: Elizabethan literature and contemporary
theory. Oxford: Clarendon Pr.
Fischlin, D. (2002). Nation and/as adaptation: Shakespeare, Canada, and authenticity.
Shakespeare in Canada: Ed. Diana Brydon, Irene Rima Makaryk, 313-338.
doi:10.3138/9781442679870-017
Fischlin, D., & Fortier, M. (2010). Adaptations of Shakespeare: A critical anthology of
plays from the seventeenth century to the present. London: Routledge.
Fortier, M. (1989). Shakespeare with a Difference: Genderbending and Genrebending
in Goodnight Desdemona. Canadian Theatre Review, 59, 47-51.
Fortier, M. (1996). Shakespeare as “Minor Theater”: Deleuze and Guattari and the
Aims of Adaptation. Mosaic: An Interdisciplinary Critical Journal, 29(1), 1–
18. [Link]

115
Fortier, M. (2002). Undead and unsafe: Adapting Shakespeare (in Canada).
Shakespeare in Canada, 339-352. doi:10.3138/9781442679870-018
Garber, M. B. (2014). Shakespeare after all. New York: Anchor Books.
Gassner, J., & Quinn, E. (2002). The reader's encyclopedia of world drama. Mineola,
NY: Dover Publications.
Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
Gossett, S. (2009). The term "masque" in Shakespeare and Fletcher, and the coxcomb.
Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 14(2), 285. doi:10.2307/450055
Gross, J. (1994). Shylock Four Hundred Years in the life of a legend. London:
Vintage.
Hassler-Forest, D., & Nicklas, P. (2015). The politics of adaptation: Media
Convergence and ideology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hassler-Forest, D., & Pascal, N. (2015). The politics of adaptation: Media
Convergence and ideology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hawkes, T. (2013). Alternative shakespeares vol 2. 2. doi:10.4324/9781315015859
Hayman, R. (1977). Interviewed by Tom Stoppard in Ronald Hayman, Tom Stoppard,
London, p. 7.
Hayman, R. (1979). Contemporary Playwrights: Arnold Wesker. London: Heinemann.
Hayman, R. (1982). Contemporary playwrights Tom Stoppard. Heinemann.
Hengen, S. (1995). “Towards a Feminist Comedy.” Canadian Literature 146, City
wilderness, 97-109.
Hermann, S. (1947). Shylock: The history of a character or the myth of the jew.
London: Gollancz.
Heschel, S. (2006). From jesus to Shylock: Christian supersessionism and “The
merchant of venice”. Harvard Theological Review, 99(4), 407-431.
doi:10.1017/s0017816006001337
Holderness, G. (2016). Shakespeare and Venice. ROUTLEDGE.
Hutcheon, L. (1993). Beginning to theorize postmodernism. Textual Practice, 1(1),
243-263. [Link]
Hutcheon, L. (2014). Theory of adaptation. Taylor and Francis.
JAUSS, H. R. (2013). Toward an aesthetic of reception. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Jonson, B. B. (1947). XXVI to the memory of my beloved, the author mr William
Shakespeare: And what he hath left us. Ben Jonson, Vol. 8: The Poems; The
Prose Works, 391-145. doi:10.1093/oseo/instance.00015627

116
Jung, C. G. (1982). Aspects of the feminine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1985). The portable jung (J. Campbell, Ed.). New York: Penguin Books.
Jung, C. G., & Franz, M. V. (1976). Man and his symbols. New York: Doubleday &.
Keats, J., & Rollins, H. E. (2012). The letters of John Keats. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kelly, K. E. (2006). The cambridge companion to Tom Stoppard. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, D. (2002). Looking at Shakespeare: A visual history of twentieth-century
performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Kerbel, S. (2010). The routledge encyclopedia of jewish writers of the twentieth
century. New York: Routledge.
Kerslake, B. (1994). “Three Keepers.” Canadian Literature 140, Published in East
Asian-Canadian Connections 138-139.
Knight, H. (2004). Goodnight Desdemona key points - the Belfry Theatre. Retrieved
June 23, 2022, from
[Link]
[Link]
KOTT, J. (1990). Shakespeare our contemporary. Routledge.
Laera, M. (2014). Theatre and adaptation: Return, rewrite, repeat. London:
Bloomsbury.
Landa, M. J. (1942). The shylock myth. London: W.H. Allen.
Lane, D. (2011). Contemporary British drama, essays from modern drama. Red Globe
Press.
Lane, F. C. (2005). Venice: A maritime republic. New York: ACLS History E-Book
Project.
Lanier, D. (2007). Shakespeare: Myth and biographical fiction. The Cambridge
Companion to Shakespeare and Popular Culture, 93-113.
doi:10.1017/ccol9780521844291.006
Lanier, D. (2014). Shakespearean rhizomatics: Adaptation, ethics, value.
In Shakespeare and the Ethics of Appropriation (pp. 21-40). Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Leeming, G. (1983). The Merchant. London: Methuen.
Leitch, T. (2008). Adaptation studies at a crossroads. Adaptation, 1(1), 63-77.
doi:10.1093/adaptation/apm005
Letissier, G. (Ed.). (2009). Rewriting/reprising: plural intertextualities. Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.

117
Litvin, M. (2011). Hamlet's Arab journey Shakespeare's prince and Nasser's ghost.
Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Lockhart, M. L., & MacDonald, A. (2005). "taking them to the Moon in a station
wagon": An interview with ann-Marie MacDonald. Canadian Review of
American Studies, 35(2), 139-157. doi:10.1353/crv.2006.0011
Loftis, S. (2016). Shakespeare's surrogates: Rewriting renaissance drama. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Luk, T. (2018). Arnold Wesker’s rewriting of Shylock in the Merchant (1976) with a
purpose. European Judaism, 51(2), 186-195. doi:10.3167/ej.2018.510225
MacDonald, A. (1998). Goodnight Desdemona (good morning juliet). Toronto:
Playwrights Canada Press.
Maisonnat, C., Paccaud-Huguet, J., & Ramel, A. (2009). Rewriting/reprising in
literature: The paradoxes of intertextuality. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars.
Marowitz, C. (1991). Recycling shakespeare. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Marsden, J. I. (1992). The appropriation of Shakespeare: Post-renaissance
reconstructions of the works and the myth. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Marsden, J. I. (2014). Re-imagined text: Shakespeare, adaptation, and eighteenth-
century literary theory. Univ Pr Of Kentucky.
Mazdon, L. (1996, January 01). Rewriting and remakes: Questions of originality and
authenticity. Retrieved July 31, 2022, from [Link]
McKinnon, J. (2013). "Looka me, I'm the force o'wisdom and progress!": Un-crowning
the classic text through Carnivalesque dramaturgy. Theatre Research in
Canada, 34(2), 216-237. doi:10.3138/tric.34.2.216
McQuitty, J. (2000). Christianity uncovered, Spiritualism. Ryde, Isle of Wight: J.
McQuitty.
Montagu, E. (2015). An essay on the writings and genius of Shakespeare, compared
with the Greek and French dramatic poets (1769). Henry the Fourth Parts I and
II, 9-13. doi:10.4324/9781315725451-3
Much, R. (1991). “Ann-Marie MacDonald Interview.” Fair Play: 12 Women Speak.
Eds. Judith Rudakoff and Rita Much. Toronto: Simon & Pierre, 127-143.
Orwell, G. (2010). The Collected Non-Fiction: Essays, Articles, Diaries and Letters.
London: Penguin.
Penrod, L. K. (2007). Translating Hélène Cixous: French feminism(s) and Anglo-
american feminist theory. TTR : Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 6(2), 39-
54. doi:10.7202/037150ar
Perletie, J. (1985). Theatre at the limit: Rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead. Modern
Drama, 28(4), 659-669. doi:10.3138/md.28.4.659

118
Poole, A. (2004). Shakespeare and the Victorians. London: Arden Shakespeare.
Porter, L. (1995). Shakespeare's "sisters": Desdemona, Juliet, and Constance Ledbelly
in Goodnight Desdemona (good morning juliet). Modern Drama, 38(3), 362-
377. doi:10.3138/md.38.3.362
Robinson, G. S. (1977). Plays without plot: The theatre of Tom Stoppard. Educational
Theatre Journal, 29(1), 37. doi:10.2307/3206500
Rozett, M. T. (1996). Talking back to Shakespeare. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Rudakoff, J. D., & Much, R. (1991). Fair play: Twelve women speak: Conversations
with Canadian playwrights. Toronto, Canada: Simon & Pierre.
Sagi, A. (2002). Albert Camus and the philosophy of the absurd. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Sammells, N. (1988). Tom Stoppard: The artist as critic. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Samuels, A. (2015). Jung and the post-Jungians. London: Routledge.
Sanders, J. (2016). Adaptation and appropriation. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Scott, M. (1989). Shakespeare and the modern dramatist. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Scott, S. (2006). Desdemona, Juliet and Constance Meet the Third Wave. Resources
for Feminist Research, 38(3), 31-40. doi:10.3138/md.38.3.362
Shaw, B., & Wilson, E. (2002). Shaw on Shakespeare: An anthology of Bernard
Shaw's writings on the plays and production of Shakespeare. New York:
Applause.
Sinfield, A. (1983). Society and literature: 1945-1970. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Sinfield, A. (1988) Making space: appropriation and confrontation in recent British
plays. In: Holderness, Graham (ed.) The Shakespeare myth. Cultural Politics .
Manchester University Press, pp. 128-144.
Sinfield, A. (1992). Faultlines: Cultural materialism and the politics of dissident
reading. Bekeley: University of California Press.
Sinfield, A. (2000). Royal Shakespeare: Theatre and the making of Ideology.
Shakespeare in Performance, 171-193. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-22713-3_9
Smith, P. J. (1995). Social Shakespeare: Aspects of Renaissance Dramaturgy and
contemporary society. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Snyder, L. (2006). “Constance Ledbelly’s Birthday: Construction of the Feminist
Archetype of the Self in Ann-Marie MacDonald’s Goodnight Desdemona
(Good Morning Juliet).” Ed. Stratos E. Constantinidis. Comparative Drama
Conference: Text and Presentation. Jefferson, NC, USA: McFarland &
Company, 43-55.

119
Spencer, C. (1972). Nahum Tate. New York: Twayne.
Spencer, C. (1998). Five restoration adaptations of Shakespeare. Urbana (IL):
University of Illinois Press.
Staves, S. (1996). Players' scepters: Fictions of authority in the restoration. Ann Arbor:
UMI Books on Demand.
Stoppard, T. (1988). Rosencrantz and guildenstern are dead. London: Penguin.
Strang, R. W. (1992). Bareham, T. ed., Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz and Guildenstem
are dead; jumpers; travesties. A casebook; Delaney, P., Tom Stoppard: The
moral vision of the major plays. Notes and Queries, 39(2), 242-243.
doi:10.1093/nq/39.2.242
Sullivan, E. (2007). Anti-bardolatry through the ages - or, why Voltaire, Tolstoy, Shaw
and Wittgenstein didn't like Shakespeare. Opticon1826, (2), 1-9.
doi:10.5334/opt.020708
Taylor, J. R. (2013). Anger and after: A guide to the new english drama. London,
Routledge Revivals.
Thody, P. (1996). Twentieth-century literature: Critical issues and themes.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Thody, P. (1996). Twentieth-century literature: Critical issues and themes.
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Thomas, C. (1997). The re-imagined text: Shakespeare, adaptation, and eighteenth
century literary theory by Jean I. Mardsen. Comparative Drama, 31(2), 319-
323. doi:10.1353/cdr.1997.0017
Wasserman, J. (2013). Modern Canadian plays. Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada: Talonbooks.
Weintraub, S. (1982). British dramatists since World War II. Detroit, MI: Gale
Research.
Wesker, A. (1977). The Merchant. London: Methuen.
Wesker, A. (1999). Rewriting Venice and Radicalizing Shylock: Nineteenth-Century
French and Romanian Adaptations of The Merchant of Venice. New York:
Forum International.
Wesker, A. (1999, July 20). Theatre: Shame on you Shakespeare. Retrieved August 5,
2022, from [Link]
[Link]
Widdowson, P. (2006). ‘writing back’: Contemporary re-visionary fiction. Textual
Practice, 20(3), 491-507. doi:10.1080/09502360600828984
Wilson, A. (1992). Critical Revisions: Ann-Marie MacDonald’s Goodnight
Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet). Women on the Canadian Stage: The
Legacy of Hrotsvit. Ed. Blizzard Publishing, 1-12.

120
Woodruff, P. (1992). Aristotle on mimesis. Essays on Aristotle’s poetics, 73.
Yachnin, P., & Whitted, B. E. (2002). Canadian bacon. Shakespeare in Canada:‘A
World Elsewhere’?.Eds. Diana Brydon and Irena R. Makaryk. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 255-273. doi:10.3138/9781442679870-014
Yachnin, P. (2005). ‘To kill a king’: the modern politics of bardicide. In Shakespeare
and Modern Theatre (pp. 50-68). Routledge.
Zeineddine, N. (2012). Looking Before and After: Modern British Drama Holds the
Mirror up to Shakespeare. A paper presented at The International Conference
on Language, Literature and Translation, University of Yarmouk, pp. 150-163.

121
 CURRICULUM VITAE

Mohammed Hameed MAJEED, a skilled instructor offering 10+ years of

teaching experience in many educational institutions. He is multilingual (Turkish,
English and Arabic). He had his BA degree in English language from Kerkuk
University in 2007 and his MA in English Literature and Cultural Studies from
Çankaya University in Ankara 2012. Recent university graduate from Karabük
University with a Doctor of Philosophy in English Language and Literature. He has
attended many conferences on English Language and Literature and published several
academic articles.

122