I really enjoyed it, even though I wasn't sure I picked up every nuance, since I haven't studied much Shakespeare since high school. So I expected to be confused, but I mostly wasn't. straightforward? Less whimsical? When they're performing the play and you're basically just seeing a depiction of the Shakespeare, I'd call the art more narrative and less atmospheric, if that makes sense. dream world, or whatever, the world of the spookypants business going on with the actual real faerie types, and because of the way the art depicting the play is. (I mean so far, in this book.) I have to admit that at first, I thought there was a little bit of a possible too-cute-for-its-own-good problem, in that it's already a play within a play, and now it's a play within a play within a larger story? It's a little Russian-nesting-dolls for me in principle, but I found that I adjusted.Īnd one of the reasons I adjusted was that I had no trouble at all distinguishing between the levels of reality because of the way the art is done - both because of the use of blue to signify the. So this is the story where we are getting most heavily into the idea of stories and dreams, to me. Tell us what you think about faerie business, layers of reality, and why Glen is so mean about a perfectly nice movie about overwrought high school students.
After that, you take over in the comments. Once again, I invited our comics blogger, Glen Weldon, to trade a few thoughts with me to kick things off. (And no, it's not a rendering of the Shakespeare play, exactly. This week, we read "A Midsummer Night's Dream," the third of the four stories in the book. The occasional Monkey See I Will If You Will Book Club has reconvened to read Neil Gaiman's The Sandman: Dream Country.
0 kommentar(er)
