Scan barcode
A review by bensontmac
Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare
dark
emotional
hopeful
mysterious
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0
Giving Julius Caesar a rating is difficult because at times while reading it, it felt distant and alien -- a dusty relic from 400+ years ago with unfamiliar language and obscure themes. But when I got into it, it was honestly kind of beautiful. I was able to see the humanity of the characters; I saw the way Brutus's gentleness of character clashed with his violent sense of duty; I saw how Cassius was ultimately a noble and admirable man despite his anger and his warlike tendencies; I understood that Antony's villainous actions were largely motivated not by inherent evil but by love for Caesar. I was able to appreciate how the interactions between characters revealed a host of complex and warring emotions at play inside each person. It was hard to get through, and the arcane language threw me off, but I'd still say it's an excellent book.
This is the second Shakespeare play I've read, and I've been a bit surprised both times. He is so sparse on details; pretty much the only information the audience gets is either directly learned or inferred from character dialogue. As a result, I've often felt frustrated with the critical bonanza surrounding Shakespeare's works. The edition of Caesar I read, for example, contained 104 pages of actual original text and about 250 pages of analysis, introduction, Notes on the Text, critical analysis, etc. How do people get so excited, and write at such length, about such a short book? How much deep meaning is really wrapped into those 104 pages, and how much is overanalysis? Don't get me wrong: I was able to get a lot of emotion and meaning out of Julius Caesar. I also think that some of those hidden layers will be clearer upon subsequent rereads. But I'm still docking a star because, in comparison to all the hubbub about it, the book itself was a bit of a letdown.
This is the second Shakespeare play I've read, and I've been a bit surprised both times. He is so sparse on details; pretty much the only information the audience gets is either directly learned or inferred from character dialogue. As a result, I've often felt frustrated with the critical bonanza surrounding Shakespeare's works. The edition of Caesar I read, for example, contained 104 pages of actual original text and about 250 pages of analysis, introduction, Notes on the Text, critical analysis, etc. How do people get so excited, and write at such length, about such a short book? How much deep meaning is really wrapped into those 104 pages, and how much is overanalysis? Don't get me wrong: I was able to get a lot of emotion and meaning out of Julius Caesar. I also think that some of those hidden layers will be clearer upon subsequent rereads. But I'm still docking a star because, in comparison to all the hubbub about it, the book itself was a bit of a letdown.