A revision of Shakespeare’s tragedies Othello and Romeo and Juliet, Ann-Marie MacDonald’s comedy Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) follows Constance Ledbelly, an assistant professor at Queen’s University, as she delves into the plots of the two plays, attempting to discern the possible influence of a Wise Fool on the texts, as well as embarking on her own path of self-discovery. Throughout the novel, moments of laughter arise, many of which provoke broader discussion of the topics broached.
MacDonald wields comedy to develop the theme that to achieve personal success, one must not simply act on the words of others, but understand and analyze the deeper meanings behind them. Comedic situations arise when characters in the two texts explored by the protagonist take actions on the basis of the words of others without scrutinizing them. Similarly, Constance is consistently thwarted from reaching her goals by her lack of analysis, and is only able to develop her own ideas and beliefs when she makes a concerted effort to understand what others say.
Comedic situations in Constance’s experiences are abundant, caused by actions taken by characters without having understood or analyzed the words and motives of others. One such situation arises when Desdemona, first impressed by Constance, turns against her after listening blindly to lago’s accusations. By asserting that Constance seeks to bed Othello, and presenting the manuscript as proof of her association with the Turks, lago poisons the mind of the short-tempered Desdemona, who vows to get revenge: “I’ll try her once in fairness.
Then I’ll chop her into messes” (MacDonald 48). Although she seems to be wanting to discern truth from fiction, Desdemona is already convinced of Constance’s guilt by lago’s words and false evidence; combined with the other woman’s obliviousness to her surroundings, this results in several humorous moments of irony and misunderstandings prior to Constance’s warp travel. In her new destination, both Romeo and Juliet, blinded by their first impressions, fall in love with Constance, resulting in another plethora of laughter-invoking blunders.
Husband and wife of one night, their sudden love for Constance is a result of their juvenile impulsiveness, and it is left to Constance to circumnavigate their hyperbolic attempts to woo her. Maclnnes notes the specific qualities of each of the lovers, which cause their unreasoned actions: “MacDonald… carefully constructs Romeo into an erratic young man... Juliet is depicted as… a girl obsessed with the idea of tragic death… the reader is no longer able to take the portrayal of the young couple seriously” (Maclnnes).
The abnormalities of the two characters interfere with their ability to consider the situation and their feelings from a rational perspective, and their actions are all impulsive and emotionally charged. The final conflict occurs as Desdemona and Juliet fight over Constance’s affection, having misunderstood the first words of the other. They instantly see the other as a threat, and immediately set upon contradicting what the other says – forming a quite ridiculous scenario.
The irony of this scene is that if the two rivals had stopped to analyze the situation before acting or speaking, they would have found no reason to create such a dramatic situation, as Constance later points out in her customary, roundabout fashion. The majority of humorous situations in which the protagonist finds herself are the results of actions taken sans rational considerations of the words or motives of other characters.
By the same token, Constance, despite her status as an academic, stumbles into many humorous situations as a result of not analyzing others’ words, only reaching her goals after beginning to analyze what others say. The opening scene at Queen’s University sees her perform silly and often naive actions, reacting to the statements of others without truly thinking about the meaning of what is said.
Constance feels the need to apologize when Ramona offhandedly chastises her for drinking Coors beer: “It … Was a gift” (MacDonald 12). The rebuke, seemingly innocuous, is delivered with malignance and condescension from Ramona, Claude Night’s love interest; in not analyzing the emotions governing it, Constance misunderstands her words as decrying her choice of beer. Her response, trying to justify her perceived wrong, is not only pathetic, but also comically ridiculous. Similarly, Constance is undone in her search for the Fool because she does not seek to understand the deeper meaning behind the words of other characters.
The ghost attempts to explain her influence on the two texts to her, but she hilariously misunderstands, confusing “You’re it” with “Yorick” and “A lass” with “Alas” (73-4). The ghost’s communication of Constance’s status as the Fool, although implied, is constructed as to make the point evident; nevertheless, her acceptance of the words’ surface meaning leads her to a vastly different comprehension, creating a scene of comic contrast.
The comedy culminates in Constance’s final encounter with the Shakespearian characters, when she finally begins to analyze the speech of others. She finally sees the flaws of Desdemona and Juliet, and truly understands the ghost’s point: “I’m it?… I’m it. I’m the Fool! ” (87). Witness to the childish bickering between the other two females, Constance is able to see the situation from a spectator’s point of view, which allows her to make reasoned conclusions, notably the realization of her innate nature.
Constance’s inner quest is fraught with comic scenes due to her not analyzing the words of others, and only is completed once she begins to do so. Laughter, invoked in scenes caused by Constance’s inability to understand the hidden meanings of others’ speech and by other characters’ actions without rational analysis, promotes the central idea that one must not simply act on, but also understand and analyze the deeper meanings of the words of others to attain personal success.
MacDonald further elaborates on this message, raising questions on self-discovery and the need for both thought and action in modern society. By constantly questioning oneself and balancing both analysis and acts, one may be truly able to exist both independently and as a social participant, which should lead to a more content life.
