Equus [Peter Shaffer] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. An explosive play that took critics and audiences by storm, Equus is Peter Shaffer’s. Get all the key plot points of Peter Shaffer’s Equus on one page. From the creators of SparkNotes. This one-page guide includes a plot summary and brief analysis of Equus by Peter Shaffer. Equus is a play by English playwright Peter Shaffer. Focusing .
|Published (Last):||26 October 2007|
|PDF File Size:||16.35 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.90 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving….
Peter Shaffer wanted to make elaborate theatre – and he succeeded
Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Equus by Peter Shaffer. Equus by Peter Shaffer. In “Equus,” which took critics and public alike by storm and has gone on to become a modern classic, Peter Shaffer depicts the story of a deranged youth who blinds six horses with a spike.
Through a psychiatrist’s analysis of the events, Shaffer creates a chilling portrait of how materialism and convenience have killed our capacity for worship and passion and, consequently In “Equus,” which took critics and public alike by storm and has gone on to become a modern classic, Peter Shaffer depicts the story of a deranged youth who blinds six horses with a spike.
Through a psychiatrist’s analysis of the events, Shaffer creates a chilling portrait of how materialism and convenience have killed our capacity for worship and passion and, consequently, our capacity peteer pain.
Rarely has a playwrite created an atmosphere and situation that so harshly pinpoint the spiritual and mental decay of modern man. Paperbackpages. Published October 2nd by Penguin Books first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
Equus (play) – Wikipedia
To ask other readers questions about Shfaferplease sign up. When was this play performed at the GATE? Lists with This Book.
Peter Shaffer desarrolla su argumento con astucia detectivesca. Al lado del Dr. Jun 16, stephanie rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: View all 5 comments. This is messed up. Nov eqjus, Pavle rated it it was amazing Shelves: Uzeh ovo da me malo drmne od dugih knjiga koje sam naredjao. Jer ko Uzeh ovo da me malo drmne od dugih knjiga koje sam naredjao.
Shaffer starts the play peyer offering the readers and audiences alike, a character to dislike – even hate. As the play progresses, the psychologist takes the audience into the minds of the troubled young teen who blinded six horses.
Very early on the psychologist makes a note of Alan’s reciprocity during his sessions; the unabashed effort being covert or being blatantly verbally abusive to his doctor only showed the shaffeer of devolution of his mind.
Alan’s mind warps God, horses, religion and its Shaffer starts the play by offering the readers and audiences alike, a character to dislike – even hate. Alan’s mind warps God, horses, religion and its iconography into a garbled mush that makes his actions and reactions shwffer.
Shaffer doesn’t hold back on the observations Alan makes during the course of the play. The graphic nature of Alan’s actions and the route his passions and obsession take.
When reasons being to unfold, it becomes difficult to pin point an shafffer event that shaped Alan the way he is. Shaffer twists every possible influencing factor that aids in mental development of a child thus making Alan’s final act almost an inevitable response.
Peter Shaffer wanted to make elaborate theatre – and he succeeded | Stage | The Guardian
Shaffer delivers petwr final monologue with subdued aggression and gentle hopelessness. The closing statement is what makes the play standout from its contemporaries.
Equus is a study of disappointments, archetypes, iconography, contradictions, relationships, parenting, religion, passion, love, sex and then some. One of those few plays that one can enjoy reading as much as when it is on stage.
I don’t ewuus if it took Harry Potter to disrobe for people to finally see this masterwork. This is without a doubt my favorite play from one of my favorite playwrights. Like most great works, it conflates several dichotomies without leaning too heavily on any of them. A teenage boy blinding six horses in a fit of psychosexual mania? There’s whispers the London production’s coming stateside.
If so, I I don’t care if it took Harry Potter to disrobe for people to finally see this masterwork. If so, I don’t care how much it costs, I’ll be there.
Ever since reading this for a summer research project shsffer I’ve wanted to see it produced. Mar 14, Purnaja rated it it was amazing. Equus is the dramatization of a psychologically damaged young man, Alan, who, for no known reason, blinded six horses with a hoof pick at the stables he worked at.
The action takes place after the event in the hospital which the courts have remanded Alan, and while the crime is central to the play, the play revolves around the character of the psychiatrist, Dysart, who is tasked with ‘curing’ the boy. Those who have a wider background in such things are probably well aware of this play–it won a Equus is the dramatization of a psychologically damaged young man, Alan, who, for no known reason, blinded six horses with a fquus pick at the stables he worked at.
Those who have a wider background in such things are probably well aware of this play–it won a Tony Award in for best play and best direction, and there was also a film adaptation in but I knew nothing about it before picking it up on a whim at some discard sale; the back cover description sounded interesting and I keep an eye out for unusual dramatic works.
And I found it quite engaging and cleverly handled, for the most part, without any of the falseness or staginess that I find in a lot of drama when it’s printed out in book form.
The stage presentation equus available on YouTube, and I plan on watching it soon, but I can well imagine that this would be powerful to see acted out. And, despite the unusual methods and stage direction, I never had any problem following the action.
The element that resonated with me most was the doctor’s dilemma. At a point in the play, he questions his role as a healer, and whether it is better to allow dangerous but unique individuals alone or attempt to convert them into a safe, conforming members of society. Until the resolution of the play in its final scenes, the narrative engages one like a detective story might–what was the motivation behind this crime?
But it’s the end where the play stumbles, I think, though I’m not sure if the author could have provided us with any conclusion that would be satisfying. It’s like a horror film that conceals the monster until the end, but when we see it, all we see is a guy in a shafefr suit. The themes and ideas that Schaffer presents us with up until the end are provocative and engaging and I don’t know that there are really answers to them, and the implied cause-and-effect solution that’s revealed in the end seems too pat to me.
Perhaps it wouldn’t have been, though, in this time and place. This is one of the few instances though where the let-down I felt at the end of the narrative didn’t completely destroy my enjoyment of the build-up.
This play has many unusual stage directions, and I thought they were surprisingly inventive and deft, and, as I mentioned before, the dialogue as a rule realistic and believable. And one could say that by concentrating on the resolution to the boy’s story, when all along it is really about the doctor’s existential crisis is missing the point, and I would agree, but unfortunately the two are intertwined, and I felt that the one impinged on the other. Still quite worthwhile to look into though, and I look forward to watching a stage presentation soon.
To Be or Not To Be dept. I’m continually asking myself, when I read something that is meant for the stage, if I’m actually ‘experiencing’ the eqius at all. The question doesn’t come up for me as much when I reading Shakespeare, or the ancient Greeks, but nearly every other dramatic work I read rather than see on stage makes me wonder if I’ve bought equu sack lunch from McDonald’s, and then sat in the Red Lobster parking lot to eat it. The meta-question might be, ‘Who cares? I wonder less when I read something like Equuswhich I felt was inventive and captured genuine speech patters, more though when I read something that sounds dreadfully melodramatic on paper, like much of Tennessee Williams does to me.
Perhaps these things need to be seen to be believed. Does the reverse hold true petdr all?
If someone has seen but not read Hamletis that a complete experience? No one wonders if a film adaptation is necessary to complete a novel, but if you’ve seen Mel Gibson’s version, have you experienced enough ‘Hamlet-ness’ for it to be genuine? Branagh’s version of Henry V is shxffer good–I doubt Petee have been as involved in a dry reading of pefer script although ‘We happy few With novels, the enterprise seems to me to be completed in the reader’s head; with a play, there doesn’t really seem to be a way to capture the thing-in-itself, as even a live performance is still dependent on the actors’ expertise in their roles–though that does seem to me to be the closest that we can get.
Esuus the end, it’s more of a thought-experiment than a real question, and moot as well, since I’m only going to have the opportunity to experience a tiny fraction of these works on a live stage compared to the few I’ll get around to reading–it’s probably far easier to find a production of Cats than Coriolanusfor instance, unless you’re rather diligent, or live in a place that has a strong theatrical tradition.
I’m not much for either, so it’s probably YouTube and chill for me. Mar 27, Adam Floridia rated it it was amazing Shelves: Been teaching it for years now, but haven’t actually read it cover-to-cover in a whileit seems. Anyway, I finally decided to read the copy that the students buy and update page numbers in questions and stuff.
Just gotta say, play is still amazing! I’d love to see it performed. I’ve re-read this numerous times since my junior year of high school; however, the last time was probably about a decade ago. Now, in revising my ENG class and realizing that I can assign any play I want, it seemed obvious to revisit my favorite. Did I just happen to read this at the right time in life? Would its gilded status now be tarnished by me being a different reader? The book is amazing; it will definitely be assigned reading.
My mind is already buzzing with possible connections for creative paper topics: Book orders are due early April, then I’ve got until Fall to hash things out. This was the first book that made me truly appreciate literature. I always thought that symbolism and deeper meaning was a load of crap; this play changed my opinion. I was given this play by a dear friend of mine. Once I set sail through its pages, I got addicted to it.
What I like most about it is that it is psychological.
The plot is well built. I also like the part where Alan and Dysart mutually investigate the matter of each other’s dreams to find out that it was the shrink’s dream is more related to illnesses the dream being the doctor practicing the ritual of sacrificing snaffer of chi I was given this play by a dear friend of mine.