-
.
x. -
.
"Introduced almost 3000 words to the English language" non so neanche come commentare.
E' uscito il retelling di Otello scritto da Tracy Chevalier, New Boy:CITAZIONEArriving at his fifth school in as many years, diplomat’s son Osei Kokote knows he needs an ally if he is to survive his first day – so he’s lucky to hit it off with Dee, the most popular girl in school. But one student can’t stand to witness this budding relationship: Ian decides to destroy the friendship between the black boy and the golden girl. By the end of the day, the school and its key players – teachers and pupils alike – will never be the same again.
The tragedy of Othello is transposed to a 1970s suburban Washington schoolyard, where kids fall in and out of love with each other before lunchtime, and practice a casual racism picked up from their parents and teachers. Peeking over the shoulders of four 11 year olds – Osei, Dee, Ian, and his reluctant ‘girlfriend’ Mimi – Tracy Chevalier's powerful drama of friends torn apart by jealousy, bullying and betrayal will leave you reeling.
x
Recensione del Guardian:CITAZIONECharles and Mary Lamb have a lot to answer for. Ever since their Tales from Shakespeare, an idea has taken root that his great plays are a kind of animated fiction, blueprints for perfectly formed, compelling stories. On this reading, our national poet is just a master storyteller who spins archetypal stories and characters as if he were Hollywood’s golden goose.
Well, not really. Shakespeare was a playwright, not a novelist, who traded in brilliant theatrical metaphors and unforgettable characters. Often from borrowed material, he conjured stunning stage plots – a quite different thing from fiction – through what the scholar Stephen Greenblatt calls the exercise of “strategic opacity”. In other words, Shakespeare would plant some unresolved and inexplicable mystery at the heart of his greatest work, and let its multi-faceted complexity dazzle and bewitch his audience.
Sign up for the Bookmarks email
Read more
Take Othello, for example. At a basic narrative level, it’s impossible. Desdemona’s marriage to “the Moor”, never properly explained or explored, lasts about half an hour before Iago, for reasons he refuses to elucidate, plots to poison his master’s relationship, and bring him to ruin with “motiveless malignity”. Othello, for his part, is provoked to a murderous fury by a mislaid handkerchief, an improbably slight device that must sponsor an impossible weight of lethal jealousy. And yet, despite these improbabilities, Othello on stage is both an edge-of-your-seat dramatic masterpiece and a great tragedy about sexual jealousy, identity, race and betrayal. That’s a heady mix few contemporary novelists would dare to contemplate.
So Tracy Chevalier is indeed a brave woman. Her “Othello retold” becomes a mission impossible that must a) make sense of, and b) modernise a classic of world theatre within a short novel.
Chevalier’s solution, which works very well if you’ve never seen the play, is to translate Othello, the heroic mercenary general who has “done the state some service”, into Osei (or “O”), a diplomat’s son and Ghanaian schoolboy in the ’burbs of 1970s Washington DC. In keeping with this rootless, quotidian milieu, Desdemona becomes an Italian-American girl, “Dee” Benedetti; Iago “Ian” the school bully; while the playground becomes the lethal arena for the collision of four rambunctious teens, struggling for identity and acting out some tumultuous schoolroom rivalries.
Forget race hatred, marital passion or adult frenzy, Chevalier’s drama centres on “what it means to be the outsider”. To add urgency to an everyday story of high-school bullying, she compresses the action into the cycle of a school day, from “morning recess”, to lunch break, to “afternoon recess” to the climactic “after school”. It’s a clever strategy, executed with typical aplomb by the gifted author of Girl With a Pearl Earring. But, deprived of the complex opacity of Shakespeare’s theatrical vision, and lacking the wild teenage darkness of, for instance, Lord of the Flies, her novel becomes linear, reductive and almost banal – a playground scrap, in which a prized strawberry pencil case must stand in for Desdemona’s fatal handkerchief.
The Hogarth Shakespeare has done surprisingly well for a fundamentally flawed idea. Chevalier is following Margaret Atwood (The Tempest), Howard Jacobson (The Merchant of Venice) and Jeanette Winterson (The Winter’s Tale). Her New Boy is an often inspired riff on adolescence and alienation. Its violent closing pages take it within hailing distance of its theatrical source material. But the real lesson of this book is to instruct the reader in the profound, possibly unbridgeable, differences between drama and fiction. Chevalier’s pointed retelling should be taught in creative writing schools across the English-speaking world.
Edited by gracelessheart. - 12/7/2017, 12:41. -
.
Non ci avrei scommesso viste le altre opere di lei ma sembra un bell'approccio! . -
.
A proposito degli adattamenti moderni e dell'attualità di Shakespeare, non si può non postare questo:
. -
.
Segnalo un libro consigliato da uno dei prof di letteratura che avevo alla triennale, l'autore è quello dell'apprezzatissimo The Swerve: CITAZIONEThis acclaimed account of Shakespeare's life and work recovers and explores the links between the man and his world. It yields a new understanding of his genius and brilliantly makes clear how Shakespeare became Shakespeare.
x. -
.
Ho Will in the world ma non l'ho mai letto, di recente ho finito quest'altro libro: CITAZIONE“One man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.”
In this illuminating, innovative biography, Jonathan Bate, one of today’s most accomplished Shakespearean scholars, has found a fascinating new way to tell the story of the great dramatist. Using the Bard’s own immortal list of a man’s seven ages in As You Like It, Bate deduces the crucial events of Shakespeare’s life and connects them to his world and work as never before.
x
Come da (sotto)titolo, si tratta di una biografia della "mente" di Shakespeare, quindi è un libro che analizza le sue opere mettendole in relazione con il contesto culturale dell'epoca, e offre una panoramica piuttosto ampia sul teatro e la letteratura elisabettiani. Ci sono anche numerose informazioni sulla vita di Shakespeare, che ogni tanto l'autore prova a dedurre dai suoi lavori: alcuni particolari potrebbero essere semplici coincidenze, altri invece sembrano degli indizi importanti (come quando Shakespeare cita per nome e cognome nelle opere giovanili abitanti di Stratford o dei villaggi vicini). Il libro non tratta della controversia sull'autorship, ma più andavo avanti più mi chiedevo come sia possibile che abbia preso piede xD In ogni caso è una lettura piacevole e interessante, che mi sento di consigliare.. -
.CITAZIONEIl libro non tratta della controversia sull'autorship, ma più andavo avanti più mi chiedevo come sia possibile che abbia preso piede xD
Ti dirò che in Shakespeare for Dummies (si noti l'altezza della roba che leggo) la smonta praticamente in una paginetta, appena posso posto le foto.. -
.
Non c'è mai abbastanza materiale sulla questione secondo me xD
Allora, Stephen Greenblatt è tra gli studiosi che mettono in dubbio la collaborazione di Marlowe nell'Henry VI:CITAZIONEWhy some scholars are skeptical
It’s worth bearing in mind that the edition of the New Oxford Shakespeare that lays out this argument and all the accompanying research hasn’t been published yet, so all of the scholars I talked to were careful to make the caveat that they aren’t working with full knowledge of the data. The one scholar I’ve spoken with who has seen some of the data, Jonathan Hope of the University of Strathclyde, assured me that “It is very thorough and respectable.”
But according to these experts, there are a few reasons to be skeptical about the New Oxford Shakespeare’s claims:
1. Marlowe was a great writer, and the Henry VI plays aren’t that good
The main argument for the idea that Shakespeare had a co-author for the Henry VI plays is that they’re not consistently up to Shakespeare’s standard — but that doesn’t mean that they’re up to Marlowe’s standard, either. Marlowe’s style was noticeably different from Shakespeare’s, but it was still really, really good. If Shakespeare and Marlowe collaborated, you would expect a play that had some noticeable tonal shifts but also had at least really good — if not great — blank verse all the way through. The Henry VI plays are not really good all the way through.
Again, this is an aesthetic argument, so it’s hard to be definitive, but experts on Marlowe and Shakespeare remain skeptical.
Stephen Greenblatt of Harvard, the author of Will in the World, said, “I’m a bit skeptical [of the claim that Marlowe is a co-author], mostly because those plays seem pretty crude to me, in the way I associate with the more usual candidates for collaboration, especially George Peele. But I suppose it is possible.”
And Eric Rasmussen, who co-edited Oxford’s edition of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus and Other Plays and the Arden edition of 3 Henry VI, sees only a little Marlowe in the Henry VI plays. “I would agree that there’s a whiff of Marlowe in the Jack Cade scenes in Part 2,” he says, “but otherwise not much.”
2. The word-cluster methodology is not necessarily definitive
The New Oxford Shakespeare’s methodology depends on the idea that we can reliably link a given word cluster to a given writer. But as John Drakakis of the University of Stirling told me, that’s not necessarily the case. “Dramatists could imitate each other,” Drakakis says, “so what looks like a Marlovian style might have been Shakespeare imitating someone else.”
So that “glory droopeth” in 1 Henry VI might be Marlowe using one of his favorite phrases — or it could have been Shakespeare trying to sound like one of his favorite writers. We don’t know for sure.
It’s also not clear that we can definitively say that Marlowe used the phrase “glory droopeth” more than any of his contemporaries. Of all the printed matter produced in the Elizabeth era, only about 15 to 20 percent survives today, Drakakis says. That means that it’s much more difficult to make a statistically significant claim about the relative frequency of Elizabethan word usage than Taylor and his colleagues are suggesting.
src
Qui un'intervista con un altro studioso scettico sulla questione:CITAZIONEAs an attribution expert who has devoted years to examining the authorship of the Henry VI trilogy, I am uneasy about these headlines. Unfortunately, while statistical analysis, like literary analysis, can aspire to an objective viewpoint, it also relies upon subjective interpretation. Taylor and colleagues don’t appear to have paused to consider whether individual words, denuded of their linguistic context, can be relied upon in analyses of early modern plays – a genre that contains a multitude of characters, each of which speak with individualised voices.
Can the mere regularity with which certain words and phrases appear in the text really distinguish between different authors – considering at the time of writing allusion, parody and appropriation were rife? Shakespeare borrowed words and phrases from Marlowe’s plays. Marlowe borrowed phrases and images from Shakespeare, and also from his fellow dramatist and lodger, Thomas Kyd, who in turn borrowed phrases from him. Matters are complicated further by the fact that there are many other hands – compositors, editors, scribes – involved in the creation of the folios through which the plays have survived the centuries to reach us today.
As the scholar Muriel St Clare Byrne demonstrated in her 1932 work Bibliographical Clues in Collaborate Plays, the number of parallels alone cannot be used to distinguish authors. Scholars must also examine the qualitative aspects of shared phrases – and whether these reveal distinct combinations of both thought and language, indicative of a single mind. Reading-based methods still have a place in modern authorship studies but, unfortunately, all too many scholars are convinced by studies that take a number-crunching approach to play texts.
By whose hand?
Kyd is very much the ghost at the feast here. One of the most famous dramatists of the period, he revolutionised tragedy as a genre and paved the way for Shakespeare’s dramaturgy with his Spanish Tragedy. Contemporary writing and allusions indicate that he wrote a Hamlet play, now lost, while evidence drawn from the characteristics of the text demonstrates that he was responsible for the anonymously-authored Elizabethan play King Leir, which served as a source for Shakespeare’s King Lear.
Kyd had considerable influence on Shakespeare, and also collaborated with him on Edward III. But due to the small number of acknowledged works, his name is not as well-known as that of Marlowe or Shakespeare. So the notion that it was the more infamous Marlowe – secret agent! Murdered! Conspiracy! – who collaborated with Shakespeare has perhaps greater appeal to would-be buyers of the forthcoming New Oxford Shakespeare edition.
However, there is firm evidence that Kyd collaborated with the pamphleteer and playwright Thomas Nashe on the play that became Henry VI Part One. This play was an attempt by theatrical company Lord Strange’s Men to capitalise on the success of Shakespeare’s two-parter dealing with the young king’s disastrous reign. All three Henry VI plays were acquired by the Chamberlain’s Men, for whom Shakespeare seems to have added a few scenes to the first part, perhaps in an attempt to link it with his two plays on the Wars of the Roses.
Different approach, different answer
There are methods that have proven effective in distinguishing authors, such as analyses of verse style (such as the rates in which dramatists employed an extra syllable at the end of lines), prosody (pauses and the positions they appear in the verse), and collocations of words and phrases.
Taken together these support the theory that it was Kyd and not Marlowe who had a main hand in writing the first part of the trilogy. These traditional methods also support the hypothesis that Shakespeare wrote Henry VI Part Two and Part Three for Pembroke’s Men without the aid of another dramatist. But even so, echoes of his contemporaries’ works abound in these texts, as we might expect in drama of the period.
In sintesi, tutti pensano che Shakespeare non abbia scritto l'Henry VI pt. 1 da solo, ma nessuno è d'accordo sul nome del collaboratore.. -
.
Sono contenta di non essere l'unica che non trova HVI troppo esaltante, anche se probabilmente sono giunta a tale conclusione in base a criteri molto più poveri e banali di quelli degli studiosi XD onestamente non sarei mai in grado di dire la mia sulla questione ed invidio molto chi lo è, a qualunque conclusione giunga. . -
.
Pare che Tolstoj odiasse Shakespeare XD Qui si può scaricare il suo saggio dedicato all'argomento.
Orwell scrisse un articolo piuttosto interessante in cui sono riassunte le posizioni di Tolstoj :CITAZIONETolstoy's pamphlets are the least-known part of his work, and his attack on Shakespeare(1) is not even an easy document to get hold of, at any rate in an English translation. Perhaps, therefore, it will be useful if I give a summary of the pamphlet before trying to discuss it.
Tolstoy begins by saying that throughout life Shakespeare has aroused in him ‘an irresistible repulsion and tedium’. Conscious that the opinion of the civilized world is against him, he has made one attempt after another on Shakespeare's works, reading and re-reading them in Russian, English and German; but ‘I invariably underwent the same feelings; repulsion, weariness and bewilderment’. Now, at the age of seventy-five, he has once again re-read the entire works of Shakespeare, including the historical plays, and
I have felt with an even greater force, the same feelings — this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to discover in him non-existent merits — thereby distorting their aesthetic and ethical understanding — is a great evil, as is every untruth.
Shakespeare, Tolstoy adds, is not merely no genius, but is not even ‘an average author’, and in order to demonstrate this fact he will examine King Lear, which, as he is able to show by quotations from Hazlitt, Brandes and others, has been extravagantly praised and can be taken as an example of Shakespeare's best work.
Tolstoy then makes a sort of exposition of the plot of King Lear, finding it at every step to be stupid, verbose, unnatural, unintelligible, bombastic, vulgar, tedious and full of incredible events, ‘wild ravings’, ‘mirthless jokes’, anachronisms, irrelevaricies, obscenities, worn-out stage conventions and other faults both moral and aesthetic. Lear is, in any case, a plagiarism of an earlier and much better play, King Leir, by an unknown author, which Shakespeare stole and then ruined. It is worth quoting a specimen paragraph to illustrate the manner in which Tolstoy goes to work. Act III, Scene 2 (in which Lear, Kent and the Fool are together in the storm) is summarized thus:
Lear walks about the heath and says word which are meant to express his despair: he desires that the winds should blow so hard that they (the winds) should crack their cheeks and that the rain should fiood everything, that lightning should singe his white bead, and the thunder flatten the world and destroy all germs ‘that make ungrateful man’! The fool keeps uttering still more senseless words. Enter Kent: Lear says that for some reason during this storm all criminals shall be found out and convicted. Kent, still unrecognized by Lear, endeavours to persuade him to take refuge in a hovel. At this point the fool utters a prophecy in no wise related to the situation and they all depart.
Tolstoy's final verdict on Lear is that no unhypnotized observer, if such an observer existed, could read it to the end with any feeling except ‘aversion and weariness’. And exactly the same is true of ‘all the other extolled dramas of Shakespeare, not to mention the senseless dramatized tales, Pericles, Twelfth Night, The Tempest, Cymbeline, Troilus and Cressida.’
Having dealt with Lear Tolstoy draws up a more general indictment against Shakespeare. He finds that Shakespeare has a certain technical skill which is partly traceable to his having been an actor, but otherwise no merits whatever. He has no power of delineating character or of making words, and actions spring naturally out of situations, Us language is uniformly exaggerated and ridiculous, he constantly thrusts his own random thoughts into the mouth of any character who happens to be handy, he displays a ‘complete absence of aesthetic feeling’, and his words ‘have nothing whatever in common with art and poetry’.
‘Shakespeare might have been whatever you like,’ Tolstoy concludes, ‘but he was not an artist.’ Moreover, his opinions are not original or interesting, and his tendency is ‘of the lowest and most immoral’. Curiously enough, Tolstoy does not base this last judgement on Shakespeare's own utterances, but on the statements of two critics, Gervinus and Brandes. According to Gervinus (or at any, rate Tolstoy's reading of Gervinus) ‘Shakespeare taught... that one may be too good’, while according to Brandes: ‘Shakespeare's fundamental principle... is that the end justifies the means.’ Tolstoy adds on his own account that Shakespeare was a jingo patriot of the worst type, but apart from this he considers that Gervinus and Brandes have given a true and adequate description of Shakespeare's view of life.
Tolstoy then recapitulates in a few paragraphs the theory of art which he had expressed at greater length elsewhere. Put still more shortly, it amounts to a demand for dignity of subject matter, sincerity, and good craftsmanships. A great work of art must deal with some subject which is ‘important to the life of mankind’, it must express someting which the author genuinely feels, and it must use such technical methods as will produce the desired effect. As Shakespeare is debased in outlook, slipshod in execution and incapable of being sincere even for a moment, he obviously stands condemned.
Alcune obiezioni sollevate da Orwell:CITAZIONEWe do not know a great deal about Shakespeare's religious beliefs, and from the evidence of his writings it would be difficult to prove that he had any. But at any rate he was not a saint or a would-be saint: he was a human being, and in some ways not a very good one. It is clear, for instance, that he liked to stand well with the rich and powerful, and was capable of flattering them in the most servile way. He is also noticeably cautious, not to say cowardly, in his manner of uttering unpopular opinions. Almost never does he put a subversive or sceptical remark into the mouth of a character likely to be identified with himself. Throughout his plays the acute social critics, the people who are not taken in by accepted fallacies, are buffoons, villains, lunatics or persons who are shamming insanity or are in a state of violent hysteria. Lear is a play in which this tendency is particularly well marked. It contains a great deal of veiled social criticism — a point Tolstoy misses — but it is all uttered either by the Fool, by Edgar when he is pretending to be mad, or by Lear during his bouts of madness. In his sane moments Lear hardly ever makes an intelligent remark. And yet the very fact that Shakespeare had to use these subterfuges shows how widely his thoughts ranged. He could not restrain himself from commenting on almost everything, although he put on a series of masks in order to do so. If one has once read Shakespeare with attention, it is not easy to go a day without quoting him, because there are not many subjects of major importance that he does not discuss or at least mention somewhere or other, in his unsystematic but illuminating way. Even the irrelevancies that litter every one of his plays — the puns and riddles, the lists of names, the scraps of ‘reportage’ like the conversation of the carriers in Henry IV the bawdy jokes, the rescued fragments of forgotten ballads — are merely the products of excessive vitality. Shakespeare was not a philosopher or a scientist, but he did have curiosity, he loved the surface of the earth and the process of life — which, it should be repealed, is not the same thing as wanting to have a good time and stay alive as long as possible. Of course, it is not because of the quality of his thought that Shakespeare has survived, and he might not even be remembered as a dramatist if he had not also been a poet. His main hold on us is through language. How deeply Shakespeare himself was fascinated by the music of words can probably be inferred from the speeches of Pistol. What Pistol says is largely meaningless, but if one considers his lines singly they are magnificent rhetorical verse. Evidently, pieces of resounding nonsense (‘Let floods o'erswell, and fiends for food howl on’, etc.) were constantly appearing in Shakespeare's mind of their own accord, and a half-lunatic character had to be invented to use them up.
Tolstoy's native tongue was not English, and one cannot blame him for being unmoved by Shakespeare's verse, nor even, perhaps, for refusing to believe that Shakespeare's skill with words was something out of the ordinary. But he would also have rejected the whole notion of valuing poetry for its texture — valuing it, that is to say, as a kind of music. If it could somehow have been proved to him that his whole explanation of Shakespeare's rise to fame is mistaken, that inside the English-speaking world, at any rate, Shakespeare's popularity is genuine, that his mere skill in placing one syllable beside another has given acute pleasure to generation after generation of English-speaking people — all this would not have been counted as a merit to Shakespeare, but rather the contrary. It would simply have been one more proof of the irreligious, earthbound nature of Shakespeare and his admirers. Tolstoy would have said that poetry is to be judged by its meaning, and that seductive sounds merely cause false meanings to go unnoticed. At every level it is the same issue — this world against the next: and certainly the music of words is something that belongs to this world.. -
.
Devo dire che le storie di grandi autori che odiano altri grandi autori mi hanno sempre affascinata perché dicono molto della soggettività dell'apprezzamento di tutto ciò che è creativo. Ora ovviamente non ho letto l'intera opera di Shakespeare e (sembra incredibile) non ho mai letto Re Lear, però mi riesce difficile pensare che sia così brutto da provocare odio e repulsione. . -
.
Vorrei poter ritrovare quel post con i più grandi autori dell'Ottocento che si criticano tra di loro XD Neanch'io ho letto il Re Lear, ma alla fine Tolstoj lo prende solo come esempio perché anche altre opere di Shakespeare non gli erano piaciute. Esempio: CITAZIONE"Well, but the profound utterances and sayings expressed by Shakespeare's characters," Shakespeare's panegyrists will retort. "See Lear's monolog on punishment, Kent's speech about vengeance, or Edgar's about his former life, Gloucester's reflections on the instability of fortune, and, in other dramas, the famous monologs of Hamlet, Antony, and others."
Thoughts and sayings may be appreciated, I will answer, in a prose work, in an essay, a collection of aphorisms, but not in an artistic dramatic production, the object of which is to elicit sympathy with that which is represented. Therefore the monologs and sayings of Shakespeare, even did they contain very many deep and new thoughts, which they do not, do not constitute the merits of an artistic, poetic production. On the contrary, these speeches, expressed in unnatural conditions, can only spoil artistic works.
Comunque con tutto il rispetto per il vecchio Lev, stavolta mi schiero dalla parte di Orwell xD. -
.
Bah sì same, ha scritto il mio libro preferito ma non posso essere d'accordo xD forse le aspettative (?) hanno in qualche modo distorto il modo in cui ha vissuto il testo. Che poi spesso con Shakespeare non è tanto quello che racconta che spesso è ~ copiato ~ ma il come. . -
.
Non ricordo se l'avessimo già postato:
Il tempo e la Storia su Shakespeare (con Bernardini & Barbero)
Questa invece è una puntata di Italia. Viaggio nella bellezza dedicata ai luoghi dello Stivale in cui Shakes ha ambientato le suo opere:
Video. -
.
Nuovo romanzo della serie Hogarth Shakespeare, ispirato al Re Lear: CITAZIONEA reimagining of one of Shakespeare’s most well-read tragedies, by the contemporary, critcally acclaimed master of domestic drama
Henry Dunbar, the once all-powerful head of a global media corporation, is not having a good day. In his dotage he hands over care of the corporation to his two eldest daughters, Abby and Megan, but as relations sour he starts to doubt the wisdom of past decisions.
Now imprisoned in Meadowmeade, an upscale sanatorium in rural England, with only a demented alcoholic comedian as company, Dunbar starts planning his escape. As he flees into the hills, his family is hot on his heels. But who will find him first, his beloved youngest daughter, Florence, or the tigresses Abby and Megan, so keen to divest him of his estate?
Edward St Aubyn is renowned for his masterwork, the five Melrose novels, which dissect with savage and beautiful precision the agonies of family life. His take on King Lear, Shakespeare’s most devastating family story, is an excoriating novel for and of our times – an examination of power, money and the value of forgiveness.
src
Il prossimo della serie sarà Macbeth di Jon Nesbo, in uscita ad aprile:CITAZIONEA HEART-POUNDING NEW THRILLER FROM THE AUTHOR OF THE SNOWMAN AND THE THIRST
Set in the 1970s in a run-down, rainy industrial town, Jo Nesbo’s Macbeth centers around a police force struggling to shed an incessant drug problem. Duncan, chief of police, is idealistic and visionary, a dream to the townspeople but a nightmare for criminals. The drug trade is ruled by two drug lords, one of whom—a master of manipulation named Hecate—has connections with the highest in power, and plans to use them to get his way.
Hecate’s plot hinges on steadily, insidiously manipulating Inspector Macbeth: the head of SWAT and a man already susceptible to violent and paranoid tendencies. What follows is an unputdownable story of love and guilt, political ambition, and greed for more, exploring the darkest corners of human nature, and the aspirations of the criminal mind.
x
.