FREE ESSAY ON REACTION TO THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

REACTION TO THE MERRY WIVES OF WINDSOR

The first thing that struck me about The Merry Wives of Windsor was the appearance of some
characters from Henry VI: Falstaff, Bardolph, Nym, and Pistol. The second thing that
struck me was the complexity of the plot. Shakespeare is tough enough for me to
understand on its own, without the introduction of a plots that twist and turn, and
entwine each other like snakes.
I wish I could see the play performed, because it seems like a delightful comedy, and I
feel that seeing actual players going through the motions presented to me in the text
would do wonders for my comprehension. This is my first play read outside of class, with
no real discussion to help me through the parts that don't make a lot of sense the first
time around. Fortunately, I found some resources on the web that provided synopses of
Shakespeare's plays, and really aided my understanding of the play.
The aforementioned plots reminded me of the plots common to Seinfeld, quite possibly the
most glorious of television shows. Seinfeld always had at least two plots going per
episode, and the outcome of one always seemed to have some effect on the outcome of the
other. It seems that the original recipe for sitcoms is this: get two plots going side by
side, near the end of the piece, smash them into each other, and then tie up all of the
loose ends. This recipe is followed in The Taming of the Shrew (the two plots being the
marriage of Petruchio and Katherine, and the wooing of Bianca), and again appears in the
Merry Wives of Windsor (Falstaff's attempted wooing of the wives being one, and the
impending marriage of Anne being the other.) It would be interesting to see if all of
Shakespeare's comedies follow this same pattern, and if so, to see if previous
playwrights used the same formula.
The appearance of the characters from Henry VI, especially Falstaff, was also quite
interesting. For some reason, seeing the other characters shared by the plays didn't do
quite as much for me as seeing Falstaff. Perhaps I identify with Falstaff more than the
others (a rather damning proposition, considering what I'm about to write), but I think
it's more likely due to the fact that Falstaff is more prominent that the others. Knowing
that Falstaff was a gay lover in Henry VI, and seeing him involved in obviously
heterosexual pursuits, I was reminded of our conversation in class concerning the views
of sex in Elizabethan times, compared to our current views on the subject. I feel that
seeing Falstaff in this play gives me a lot more insight into the character Shakespeare
was trying to create for his audiences than Falstaff's appearances that we have seen in
class. Falstaff really gave me the impression of being a scoundrel in this play, plotting
to commit adultery, and then add insult to injury by stealing money from the husbands of
the adulterous wives. He's accused at the beginning of the play for getting Slender drunk
to pick his purse, and he hires off his "friend" Bardolph as a bartender. Finally, as a
result of all of this, Falstaff ends up the butt of a practical joke. Everyone ends up
forgiving everyone else, and they all go home to live happily ever after, and laugh about
the events they have just gone through.
If that last sentence seems lacking, it's with reason. I was relatively disappointed with
the way the play ended. It seemed to me like Shakespeare decided he was finished writing,
and looked for the quickest way to end his play. It was one step better than the Greek's
method of having one of the Gods come down from Olympus, and decide who married who, who
died honorably, and who was damned to Hades. I felt that The Taming of the Shrew ended
much more cohesively.