Skip to main content

Would A Midsummer Night's Dream have worked as a play without the Rude Mechanicals? What is the purpose of their inclusion?

A Midsummer Night’s Dream follows several threads which sometimes intertwine. The four lovers, the fairies, and the rude mechanicals are the three main storylines. The rude mechanicals are less essential to the plot than the other two. Without them, only a few adjustments would have to be made to keep the story together. The play would also be darker and more serious. However, the players add a delightful levity to the comedy and provide the other characters with much entertainment.


The commoners counterbalance the story’s noble fairies, lovers, and leaders. These men are actors by night and tradesmen by day. They speak in prose rather than verse, except when they recite lines from their terrible play Pyramus and Thisby. The egoistic Bottom, who wishes to perform all the roles, plays a part in the fairy king’s humiliation of the fairy queen Titania. Puck turns his head into a donkey’s, frightening the other mortals and adding to Midsummer’s fantastical qualities. Bewitched by a love potion, Titania hears his presumably wretched singing and declares, “What angel wakes me from my flowery bed?” She woos him, and when he awakes, he believes the whole experience was a dream.


Bottom serves as the play’s buffoonish clown, and their performance before the aristocrats fulfills the theatrical trope of a play within a play. The rude mechanicals contribute to and enhance the roles of other characters, but they are also an engrossing plotline in their own right. The audience laughs at and empathizes with their fears and triumphs, however silly. Midsummer would survive without them, but it would not have the same charm.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.