Representations of Fate in William Shakespeares Midsummer Nights Dream - Research Paper Example

Representations of Fate in William Shakespeare’s “Midsummer Night’s Dream” As with many of Shakespeare’s works, “Midsummer Night’s Dream” heavily relies on interpretations of fate and destiny as a determinant for the plot and character development that the play experiences. This traditional understanding of destiny and fate are displayed via the fact that seemingly no matter what the characters do or the paths that are chosen, their fate and/or destiny is sealed and they are merely leading a predetermined set of determinants that they have little of any control over. In this way, Shakespeare is able to reveal a view of the world that is seen through the lens of fatalism. Whereas many individuals may like to consider themselves sovereign and able to chose which path they will ultimately pursue, the view which Shakespeare acquaints the reader with within the constructs of the play reveals a world in which whatever choice is picked, whatever decision is made, whatever alternate path is followed, the end result is that fate’s design has been implemented. Whereas a more traditional interpretation of fate would have the reader assume that a more logical progression towards fate’s ultimate goal would be effected, Shakespeare helps to develop upon this be proving the non-linear nature through which fate’s designs can be ultimately implemented. Accordingly, this brief essay will seek to analyze the representation of fate within “Midsummer Night’s Dream” as well as to draw a level of inference and comparison to some of the other ways in which this construct was understood at the time and throughout the different works of William Shakespeare. Likewise, key elements of the action of the play will be examined as a means to understand the underlying meaning that the author intended to acquaint the reader with via the circumstances that were presented. The play itself opens with a quick introduction to the subject matter. Egues of Athens has designs to marry his daughter to one of two suitable bachelors that would strengthen his grip on power. As Hermia shows resistance to this particular set of options with which she is presented, Egues tells her of the dire consequences should she choose to avoid the will of her father in this matter. As such, the constructs of fate and human plans are quickly lain out for the reader to understand. Whereas the father has his own interpretation of how Hermia should live her life and what ends will benefit him, Hermia herself has other designs. However, this primary and overused plot device is further differentiated by the fact that a third unseen and silent character – fate – has designs that neither the father nor the daughter could comprehend. The interplay between these characters and the design that fate holds for them is the primary motivator for the means by which the development within the play takes place. As the play progresses, Lysander and Hermia conspire to elope and by performing a marriage in Lysander’s aunt’s house, undue the plans that Hermia’s father has so heartlessly set for her. What is unique about the occurrences that take place as the two are on their way to Lysander’s aunt’s house is the fact that fate is represented as something fickle; far less organized and full of design than what one might traditionally assume. As if almost by accident, fate, via the characters of the fairies and the craftsmen in the forest, collide with the young lovers to affect a change that would otherwise doubtless not be realized. Another deeply unique aspect of fate as presented within this particular play is the fact that it is not realized as either the humans or the fairies intend. In this way, the imperfect nature and developmental understandings of how fate is affected on humanity is brought to the reader’s attention. As evidence of the imperfect implementation of fate, Shakespeare acquaints the reader with the ultimate design that the fairies intend on influencing. This design hinges upon the fact that the fairies themselves are imperfect and implement their own designs that run amuck and ultimately cause consequences that are both unexpected and unintended. Such a revelation helps the reader to understand that the traditional interpretation of “fate” as was likely understood in Shakespeare’s time as well as within our own time. Rather than being something that is set in stone and something that has been ordained since time immemorial, fate is presented by Shakespeare as a type of construct that has the ability to grow and develop, to change course, to flow, and to affect the development of the characters involved in both unexpected and non-predeterminate ways. Such an understanding of fate defies the traditional definitions that doubtless many individuals hold. As a function of this, Shakespeare is intending to grasp the attention to the viewer and redirect their understanding of this term. As the conflict between the fairy king and queen intensifies, the fairy king sends forth his servant, Puck, to effect the changes he wishes to see take place regardless of the wishes of the individuals involved or his own wife. As such, Puck himself is charged with locating a magical flower that when placed on the eyes of the victim will cause him/her to fall deeply in love with the first person they see. Intending to affect this on Titiana’s eyelids, Pluck makes the mistake of applying the potion to Lysander’s eyelids instead. The course of the development becomes infinitely entangled as Pluck realizes his mistake, the parties awake, and the potion takes effect. What is specifically unique about the way in which this situation unfolds is that the reader is originally introduced to the powers of the fairies as entities that hold the fate and destiny of the world within their grasp. Yet, as the play unfolds, the reader becomes intimately aware of the fact that these fairies and their minions are in fact nearly as muddled and confused as the humanity that they attempt to lord over (Sprang 117). Further, the reader is left to question the way in which the fairies actually control the fate they supposedly manage and what degree a higher interpretation or level of fate in fact controls the circumstances within which they operate within. As a way to further engage the audience with this concept of flawed fate and the degree to which the fairies and their minions attempt to rectify the damage they have wrought, Shakespeare illustrates a long line of decisions and imperfect choices that lead the fairies and those upon whom they desire to have an impact down a long and torturous road towards a final resolution. The first of these is illustrated by the fact that Puck understands his mistake and immediately runs to apply the flower’s juice to the correct individual. However, upon awakening, the effect that is experienced by both parties is that they are deeply in love with the same woman (Kottman 447). This misunderstanding of the true intention of fate is illustrated by the way that all involved in constructing this alternate and unintentional definition of fate work tirelessly to correct the mistake; however, all the while, it only serves to unfold in a way that places all parties in a deeper misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what was originally intended for each. As a function of further intervention, the fairies with the help of Puck, work tirelessly to correct their prior failures and eventually are able to direct the fates of those they have thus far been affected. A further development, apart from the fact that fate itself is imperfect, is the fact that rather than a traditional definition of a cupid type group of characters that have the effect of joining two people that would otherwise not be together, the fairies and their minion only serve to aggravate the way in which fate was represented within the couples that were already in existence at the outset of the story. Although a greater degree of development took place between Demetrius and Titiana. In this way, the audience is made to understand that the existence of fate does not assist in rectifying any situation that would not have otherwise been rectified had the fairies and Puck never existed within the constructs of the play. By using such a description and convention of fate, Shakespeare is able to develop upon the traditional understanding through a farcical comedy. Rather than a force that is all-wise, all knowing, and has a set path that must be adhered to, Shakespeare relates a situation in which fate is as equally flawed, perhaps more so, than the humanity that it attempts to act upon (Minogue 256). Although this definition of fate is not necessarily shared among his other works, the particular definition of fate that is related via this particular play helps to develop upon this idea that fate itself is imperfect and utilizes any and all means at its disposal to accomplish the goals it desires. Moreover, what is unique in this particular play is the fact that the reader begins to raise the salient question of whether fate is itself actually useful. Whereas human designs would have eventually affected their own ends that would have had equally happy endings, fate itself was a seeming interloper into the action and only served to delay the gratification, happiness, and joy that could have been experienced in a much shorter time span than had fate not intervened in the first place. Similarly interesting is the fact that once the action of the play has concluded, Puck stays on the scene to beg an apology of the viewer for intervening and request that the viewer merely forget about what has happened and attribute all of the preceding tension and suspense to the fact that the representation of the play itself was merely a dream. In this way, a powerful construct is built within the lines of the play. Although the play itself had been almost entirely concentric upon the roles of love and fate, the final lines beg the reader to question whether their own interpretation of fate is itself something similar to a figment of the imagination; i.e. a dream (Holderness 40). With such a pertinent yet rhetorical question, Shakespeare ends the play by reminding the audience that although it may at times to simple to merely pawn obscene occurrences of life to the existence of fate, the fact of the matter is that fate itself is no more able to better control, direct, and guide the actions and consequences of life than humanity (Shakespeare 43). Such an understanding is of course tacit in that Puck does not come right out and state such a fact; rather, the implied meaning of his apology is to plant a seed of doubt within the minds of the audience with respect to the pervasive belief that fate is somehow able to guide and direct human action in a way that humanity is somehow unable to affect. While many of Shakespeare’s plays integrated with the idea, interpretation, and analysis of the theory of fate, “Midsummer Night’s Dream” does so in a way that none of the other plays did. As a means of examining fate through the lens of how it seemingly governed by a higher level of fate itself, by showing the imperfection of its designs, and by revealing that fate was unable to effect a convincing improvement on the situations that were lain out in the beginning of the play, Shakespeare introduces the reader to a degree of skepticism regarding belief in the concept (Paris 14). This is of course not to say that Shakespeare himself either believed or disbelieved in the notion of fate. As was evidenced by plays both before and after this play, Shakespeare regularly engaged with the topic and worked to show the means by which characters within his plays sought to rectify their lives with the understanding, rejection, knowledge, or acquiescence of the idea of fate. Rather, “Midsummer Night’s Dream” helps to reveal an alternate perspective on fate that not been hitherto revealed within his works. Works Cited Holderness, Graham. "Shakespeare Remembered." Critical Survey 22.2 (2010): 39-61. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Kottman, Paul A. "No Greater Powers Than We Can Contradict." Criticism 54.3 (2012): 445-454. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Minogue, Kenneth. "Individualism And Its Contemporary Fate." Independent Review 17.2 (2012): 257-269. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Paris, Bernard J. Bargains With Fate: Psychological Crises And Conflicts In Shakespeare And His Plays. New York, NY US: Insight Books/Plenum Press, 1991. PsycINFO. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Shakespeare, William. A midsummer night's dream. London Rutland, Vt: J.M. Dent C.E. Tuttle, 1993. Print. Sprang, Felix C. H. "Never Fortune Did Play A Subtler Game." European Journal Of English Studies 15.2 (2011): 115-128. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Dec. 2012. Read More