William Shakespeare and his plays

[JWC3]

As you like it

Orlando = ESE
Touchstone = ILE?
Rosalind = EIE I mean she can't be Te valuing, cause her and Celia's plan is so damn retarded that no Te type would allow her to follow through, and I really think that only an EIE could make such a terrible plan work. And yes that is a compliment to EIEs

EDIT: Maybe Te PoLR for her then?

Also the idea of Romeo and Juliet being duals is charming but being so in love with some one that you kill your self when you can't have them is a very beta NF sentiment that is expressed by both characters. Also I don't think the idea of compulsive intimacy is a view that's as strongly shared by Beta STs. I had them both typed as IEI. However I'm willing to switch one to EIE, doesn't really matter which. In fact I'm fine with giving them both a general Beta NF tag without getting more specific.

[silverchris9]

Also the idea of Romeo and Juliet being duals is charming but being so in love with some one that you kill your self when you can't have them is a very beta NF sentiment that is expressed by both characters. Also I don't think the idea of compulsive intimacy is a view that's as strongly shared by Beta STs. I had them both typed as IEI. However I'm willing to switch one to EIE, doesn't really matter which. In fact I'm fine with giving them both a general Beta NF tag without getting more specific.

But Romeo also spends half of his time (the half that isn't spent falling in love) killing people, which is as un-beta NF (stereotypically) as falling in love at first sight is stereotypically beta NF. Also, one of his big problems is that he woos by the book, which is rather Ti: memorize the modules and deploy them as necessary, make sure to swear by the moon, etc. Juliet uses Fe to teach him how to express his feelings more authentically. Also, I think a beta NF (IEI moreso than EIE) would be much more hesitant about love than Romeo is. I mean, I don't know that I would climb over a wall into the house of a bunch of people who want to kill me no matter how in love I was, and certainly not without several hours/days of prevaricating. And look at how fast he moves! He's totally an Se-ego. Also how he deals with Paris at the end is very SeTi: If you leave me alone and let me do what I'm doing, you can live. If you don't, I will kill you. These are the rules. Please don't break them, 'cause I'm not in the mood to kill anybody. Also, Romeo lacks emotional control--even when an EIE is overwhelmed, it's like, they're in charge of their emotions, not vice versa. Romeo's emotions are in charge of him, totally.

I would have thought EIE for Henry V although I'm basing this more on Henry V and not his portrayal as Hal in the prior plays so you could be right.

I haven't gotten to Henry V yet, but yeah, a lot of Henry's power comes from his emotional expression, cheering people on, etc. You can even see that in Henry IV. But... I dunno, I just don't want him to be an Fe-ego. Don't know why. Might think about it more. But EIE is the more obvious typing. Certainly an Se-valuer (unlike Falstaff, who *seems* to be an Si-valuer).


EDIT: Also, infinite sadfaces about missing Christopher Plummer.

[JWC3]

But Romeo also spends half of his time (the half that isn't spent falling in love) killing people, which is as un-beta NF (stereotypically) as falling in love at first sight is stereotypically beta NF. Also, one of his big problems is that he woos by the book, which is rather Ti: memorize the modules and deploy them as necessary, make sure to swear by the moon, etc. Juliet uses Fe to teach him how to express his feelings more authentically. Also, I think a beta NF (IEI moreso than EIE) would be much more hesitant about love than Romeo is. I mean, I don't know that I would climb over a wall into the house of a bunch of people who want to kill me no matter how in love I was, and certainly not without several hours/days of prevaricating. And look at how fast he moves! He's totally an Se-ego. Also how he deals with Paris at the end is very SeTi: If you leave me alone and let me do what I'm doing, you can live. If you don't, I will kill you. These are the rules. Please don't break them, 'cause I'm not in the mood to kill anybody. Also, Romeo lacks emotional control--

You make a very good case, I'll concede. I suppose when I typed them I just couldn't see past the fact that they both killed themselves for love.

even when an EIE is overwhelmed, it's like, they're in charge of their emotions, not vice versa. Romeo's emotions are in charge of him, totally.

I do strongly disagree with this though. EIEs can lose control of their emotions just like every one else.

[silverchris9]

I do strongly disagree with this though. EIEs can lose control of their emotions just like every one else.

Yeah, I'll concede that one.


Also, Hotspur is Beta ST.

I think that Hal is Gamma SF because although he uses emotional expression to manipulate people and build a sense of normal-guy camaraderie with his soldiers, he's actually more of a hard-line Te-valuer who does things as they are expedient. He's isn't emotionally manipulative like, say, Medea is: she is a slave to her emotions (in her actions, not in her emotional expression---she, like Hal, can display any emotion that she wants), she has to go in the directions her feelings dictate, even up to and including killing her own children. But Hal doesn't follow his feelings at all, as seen in the rejection of Falstaff. And the part when he thinks Falstaff has died, he definitely has this vibe of loving Falstaff more than he consciously knows he ought to---but in the end that "ought to" voice, that voice of Se + Te pragmatism, totally wins out and governs all his actions. Like an EIE, he can choose to display whatever emotion he wants; certainly both types can do that. But EIEs, especially in the absence of LSIs, will ultimately base the actions they choose to make on emotions, on feelings, on what will create the emotional life they desire. SEEs on the other hand are more likely to ignore their emotional preferences in the pursuit of all the thing Hal pursues: esteem, the favor of people they care about (i.e., his dad), power, stability, etc. EIEs aren't as pragmatic as gammas, I don't think. And Hal is actually super-pragmatic. And quadra progression-wise, Henry V is definitely in a gamma phase, coming right after a civil war, putting rebellions down by force, creating stability, smoothing things out, making a stable country, etc.


Midsummer Night's Dream

Bottom: SEI-Fe (I saw a guy play bottom once, and even though the production as a whole was horrible, the guy playing Bottom was FANTASTIC AMAZING WONDERFUL EXCELLENT AWESOMENESS and I wish I had it on video to watch again it was so great).


Also, I've changed my mind and now I think Macbeth is an introvert.

[discojoe]

Richard III: EIE

[JWC3]

Puck = ? I have no idea, but I feel like this one is important.

[DirectorAbbie]

This is a great idea. I'll bookmark it and participate later.

[Quote Unquote]

Mercutio was an ILE

"The name Mercutio was present in Shakespeare's sources for Romeo and Juliet, however his character was not well-established, and he was even presented as a romantic rival for Juliet.[1] Mercutio's name is related to the word "mercurial," meaning, "having an unpredictable and fast changing mood," an accurate description of Mercutio's personality. The word "mercurial" itself derives from the ancient Roman messenger god Mercury (Hermes)."

Tell me, in what theoretical world do you live? Hermes, the god of intellect, the symbol of the soul and reason, the messenger of the gods (the element the rules matter and connects with the divine, in one word: spirit), the soulful one, the ethereal, wise, powerful, the creator of culture, Thoth in Egyptian mythology, the one who is full of trickery and fun, the one who rules mood and temper, who the fuck would think that all these characteristics would exist in a lead type. This can only be connected to . And Mercutio does embodies the archetype of Hermes, of a Enneagram 7, not an 8 like types.

Mercutio is full of honor.

"Mercutio is apt to make long, drawn out speeches (the most famous of which is the Queen Mab speech)"

Doesn't it obviously point out at ILE?

"and is generally thought to be reckless, a jester, and a free spirit."

again.

"Due to his reckless and flamboyant personality"

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

"Mercutio is the instigator of many fights with his rather mean spirited humor, and often insults Tybalt Capulet, a renowned swordsman."

Look at the ILEs on this forum, they are the instigator of fights here. Mercutio's provocations in Romeo and Juliet are always of intellectual nature, they have nothing to do with the survival instinct and ego imposition of SLEs. Compare Discojoe and me, who is the one who initiates most fights here? who is the one who creates most of the polemics here? Discojoe always say stupid crap, but never initates idealist conflects, they are usually started by infantiles. In two days I've made more noise than Discojoe in his entire life.

"It is Mercutio's temper that leads to Tybalts death, and Romeos banishment and the tragedy that follows."

These life turmoils are more common among strong ILEs than SLEs. Richard Wagner's life - who was indeed a Creative-ILE - was an exact match of what ILEs strong idealism can engender. His life was full of ups and downs only due strong idealism in regard of art, politics, philosphy, you name it.

"He is not a Montague nor a Capulet, but his friends are Montagues, likely due to the fact that he cannot stand Tybalt of the Capulets. Mercutio is one of the few in Verona with the ability to freely float around both houses."

Mercutio is more fond of the masculine house, Montague. This is again a symbolical allusion of Hermes, who was the only god with full access to both the underworld and to the Olympus. Hermes represents the spirit that rules the matter, and can be afflicted by the pains of matter (Capulet house : underworld) but always will be of pure Olympian Nature and more fond of the light and truth (Masculine house of Montague : Olympus). By using the word "float" in this exert of the wikipedia article, my Ne immediately uses its allegorical functioning. I can't help connecting it to the Styx river of the underworld. Romeo and Juliet is by quite of some extent, an allegoric story.

"Due to his quick wit and flamboyant, affable personality, Mercutio is one of Shakespeare's most popular characters."

This is also more an ILE thing than SLE. Many ILEs are that knid of person who you can never ignore, you'll either hate them or love them, because of the much more idealistic and universal approach and activism ILEs have, they fight for ideals. SLEs are mostly concerned about themselves and their particularity. SLEs are hated because of defending too much their egos, adn imposing it on others. By their lack of concern toward humanity. SLEs are hated because they are so readily to defend their own egoistical position, so they bother only those are a menace to their egoism. ILEs bother everyone by their high universal ideals (of course, there is a scale of evolution regarding ILEs. There are those who are weaker and not so bold. More strong types will be those are more psychologically structured and solid. Socionics doesn't give any tool for measuring this hierarchy within a single type. But enneagram does, it's called integration. Very integrated 7s are more coherent with this reckless idealist description of ILEs I gave).

Ponder about Mercutio, do you see him more as an idealist or as an egoist? Draw your own conclusions.

Regarding Shakespeare works, It indeed has a lot of Fe, from what I can remember. BUT, most surely, his stories and the essential meaning drawn by his works are not of his own source. It's clear to me that it has two layers. First: A shallow layer full of embellishment, expression, emotions, feelings and deeply symbolic, that are the form, the shape, the mold, are the sculptured figure. This was made by Shakespeare himself. And a second Layer: Allegoric, abstract, meaningful, prophetical, linguistic, interpretative, drawing many abstract essences and implications. For those who don't know it, Symbolism and Allegory are by no means the same thing. Allegory is more powerful and abstract, symbolism is more direct and material. There are no abstract symbols, in the same extent as there are no material allegories. An allegory is the process by which you use abstract concepts for representing other abstract concepts. Symbols are material representation of the material. Allegories (), in the most valuable symbolic works, always complete symbols by abstract implication (Ne is all about implication). This deeper allegoric layer in Shakespeare's works were not made by him, they are a non-Shakespearean substratum external to him. This substratum is totally allegoric (Ne) and are well known allegories used since the dawn of civilization, since Babylon, I can assure you. They are the marble on which Shakespeare used his tools for shaping his work ("Fe +Ni" on "Ne + Ti"). They were a part of his artistic inspiration. That's why, when you read Shakespeare, you can see he weakened the value and the strength of the allegoric concepts, by overly focusing on the shallow surface, by giving too much form and taking too much attention to superficiality. That's why when you read purely allegoric works, like most of the bible, you can have much deeper insights of significance and abstract completion, but in the other hand they are too shapeless. when you read Shakespeare, it's undeniable how much of the allegoric strength was lost, how most of the significance was downplayed. Significance is also not Ni related, since significance is 100% abstraction.

You can compare Shakespeare with Cervantes or Homer, who were, maybe, some of the most important sources for Shakespeare. Cervantes and Homer wer surely Ne lead types, their work was not symbolic, neither emotional but only abstract, intellectual and allegoric. But in most of the time I dedicate myself to read Shakespeare than Cervantes or Dostoievsky (who are my favorites), because Shakespeare is more superficial, I relax more reading it, it's not a really meditative and philosophical kind of art. I can turn off my brain when I read the bard of Stratford-upon-Avon. His work is sweeter and much less prophetical.

Sometimes, I fear, that in a less intellectual environment like our current world, Shakespeare would have made vain art, and would not direct himself through these Allegoric works of heritage.

[Gilly]

Iago: C-EIE

[Gilly]

Beatrice: D-SLE
Benedick: D-EIE

[silverchris9]

Beatrice: D-SLE
Benedick: D-EIE

Arguments? Not saying I disagree, just haven't read the play in a while.

[Gilly]

Hotspur: D-SLE