(2) The Comedy of Errors

So, this play can be summed up as follows: Two sets of twins, together in a city but strangers to each other. One set of twins are masters, and the other set are buffoonish servants to those masters. Enter other characters who constantly mistake their identities (that’s the “errors” part). Hilarity ensues (that’s the “comedy” part). I appreciated the twists and turns of this one and if you follow it, it is pretty interesting to see how Shakespeare keeps the joke going, scene after scene, like a verbal juggling act, because of course, all the characters must be kept ignorant until the end for it all to work.

Often labeled a simple “farce,” this play is considered by some to be one of Shakespeare’s weaker works (as so well presented in the Riverside introduction to this play, a farce implies that the playwright will do anything for a laugh, including sacrificing complexity and nuance for less “serious” elements such as slapstick and pure fantasy, thus the derogatory nature of the label, at least from a “deep” or “artistic” perspective). I both agree and disagree. It did seem that the plot and structure was just a little bit…mechanical…or maybe a bit too construed at times, bent of creating the situational comedy above all else. It employs “Deus ex machine” to the point where one becomes a little too conscious of the play as a play, rather than something “greater,” something that transports you. Does that make sense? It’s as if, through the wild and winding series of errors that is this play, it becomes too easy to get lost in the trees (shallow, plot-driven details) and miss the forest (deeper, more rewarding thematic implications)?

But don’t get me wrong, there was much to like, including many great quotes (“Marry, he must have a long spoon that must eat with the Devil.”) and many great characters (like Antipholus of Syracuse, clearly the “cooler” and more likeable of the two twin brothers). So, like I said, I’m torn on this one, appreciating it on some levels while agreeing that it may not be one of his strongest efforts (which for Shakespeare, means simply just “genius” instead of “pure genius,” right?).