In William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, many instances arise that give the impression that Shakespeare held a certain amount of contempt for the theater. That notion, of course, doesn’t make much sense, as why would Shakespeare exhibit so much scorn towards the art form he dedicated much of his life to? He wouldn’t. Instead, these instances of apparent scorn are better seen as poking fun, not at the plays themselves, but at the people watching the play. It was not the theater Shakespeare had a problem with; it was the theatergoers.

There are many instances in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (hereafter MND) that suggest the audience, and not the theater, was the object of mockery. The most blatant example of this is seen in the characters of Nick Bottom and his friends. Bottom and the others are not royalty like the play’s other characters; they’re workmen such as tailors, weavers, and carpenters, the same everyday folk that probably frequented the theaters of the day. These characters are seen preparing for, and eventually putting on, the play Pyramus and Thisby in anticipation for Theseus’ wedding celebration. They are completely ignorant of the ways of acting and of the theater, and mimic the ignorance Shakespeare must have perceived in his own audience.

Bottom and the others just don’t understand how a play is supposed to work. They insist, for example, on explaining everything to their audience in numerous prologues so they (particularly the ladies) will not be frightened of Pyramus killing himself or the appearance of a lion. And Bottom, in his preparation for playing Pyramus, wants to know "What is Pyramus? a lover, or a tyrant?" (1.2.22). Bottom is, in effect, looking for a stereotypical role to play, as his knowledge of theater is limited to understanding only the broadest of character types. Boring stock characters are all he knows. Furthermore, when the actual play is performed, Bottom and the others continue to show their ignorance. Snout and Snug tell the audience who they really are. Bottom and Starveling make numerous blunders on famous peoples’ names. Unintentional oxymorons, melodramatic exclamations, and sappy poetry are scattered throughout. And Bottom continually breaks character to directly address the audience.

Shakespeare makes fun of this ignorance, and yet the main plot MND caters specifically to these misperceptions his audience may have had. Stock characters, for example, are commonplace. The "lover" stereotype Bottom is preparing to play is presented twice in the form of Lysander and Demetrius, who are so similar to one another that they can scarcely be told apart. Even Puck has trouble telling them apart: "Believe me, king of shadows, I mistook./ Did you not tell me that I should know the man/ By the Athenian garments he had on?" (3.2.347-349). As stereotypical lover characters, Lysander and Demetrius both ooze sweet talk, cliched metaphors, and sentimental poetry when talking to people they love. "I mean, that my heart unto yours [is] knit,/ So that one heart we can make of it;/ Two bosoms interchained…" (2.2.47-49) says Lysander to Hermia. Demetrius is no better when it comes to the overly sentimental speech of the lover, as when he says to Helena, "O Helen, goddess, nymph, perfect, divine!/ To what, my love, may I compare thine eyne?/ Crystal is muddy. O, how ripe in show/ Thy lips, those kissing cherries, tempting grow!" (3.2.137-140). This is all sappy poetics said by stereotypical lovers. And yet it’s made fun of through the amateur actors. Bottom and his friends, who are ignorant of theater, are the same way. Bottom’s Pyramus is a stock lover like Lysander and Demetrius, while Flute’s Thisby goes as far to utter the same overused metaphor as Demetrius when she uses the term "cherry lips" (5.1.190).

But the main plot MND continues to mirror the ignorant views of theater the amateur actors have. Lysander, Demetrius, Hermia, and Helena utter melodramatic exclamations, Hermia and Helena using them the most. It’s not the exclamations themselves that are melodramatic, but their frequency and sometimes pointless use. Hermia uses three in succession in act 1 scene 1, "O cross!" (136), "O spite!" (138), and "O hell!" (140). Later on, Helena says the same things in one line, "O spite! O hell!" (3.2.145). Sometimes, the exclamatory "O" is added at the front of words or phrases that don’t need it, making them melodramatic in the process, such as when Helena says "O that your looks could teach my smiles such skill!" (1.1.195) or "O excellent!" (3.2.247). This frequency of exclamatory "O" statements is also mocked through Bottom and his friends’ performance. "O grim-look’d night! O night with hue so black!/ O night, which ever art when day is not!/ O night, O night! alack, alack, alack," (5.1.170-173) wails Bottom as Pyramus. He even uses three in one line: "…O wall, O sweet, O lovely wall," (5.1.174). The main plot of MND uses tons of exclamations, and the ignorant amateurs outdo even them.

So what can be made of this? On the one hand, the workmen/actors are a representation of the audience, a bunch of everyday commoners who have no knowledge of how a play should work. On the other hand, the main plot of MND features the same types of mistakes, stereotypes, and cliches of theater these commoners think is normal and correct. This may seem like a direct contradiction, until the cliched and melodramatic characters of Lysander, Demetrius, Hermia, and Helena become an audience themselves. As they watch Bottom and his friends’ performance, they are put in the same position as the real-life audience watching MND. The audience is mocked again. They aren’t just people who understand only stock characters, they are the stock characters.

The lovers watching Bottom’s play are also willing participants. They want to be the audience for the play, even if they know it’s bad. When Philostrate tells Theseus "[The play] is not for you. I have heard it over,/ And it is nothing, nothing in the world;" (5.1.77-78), Theseus still insists on seeing it. He knows the play is going to be bad, but wants to see it anyway. Perhaps this is another of Shakespeare’s comments regarding the theatergoer. Even if a play is bad, even if its full of cliches and conventions and bad poetry, the people will still pay money to come and see it.

What’s so interesting about this notion of mocking the audience is that it works with any type of person, and any type of reaction. While Bottom and the other actors are lower- to middle-class workmen, and can represent Shakespeare’s lower- to middle- class audience, Theseus and the lovers are of upper-class nobility, and can represent Shakespeare’s upper-class audience. The lower- and middle- classes are represented by clowns ignorant to the ways of theater, while the upper-class is represented by foolish stock-characters who’s reaction to a theatrical performance is to openly ridicule it. People who don’t understand theater are mocked through character’s similar misunderstandings, while those who do understand theater and find MND cliched and typical are humbled by the rudeness of Bottom’s audience. It works on several different levels, all of which result in the audience being made fun of in some form.

This mockery, of course, is all in good fun. In other words, this mockery is hardly malicious. While MND makes fun of its audience to a certain degree, it isn’t done in such a fashion that the theatergoers would get angry and never come to see another of his plays. Puck’s speech at the end of the play smoothes over any potential hostility: "If we shadows have offended,/ Think but this, and all is mended/… Give me your hands, if we be friends,/ And Robin shall restore amends."(5.1.423-438). It’s Shakespeare’s own little disclaimer, as if he was saying to the audience, "It was just a joke! Relax!"

A Midsummer Night’s Dream does have many portions that seem openly against plays, but reality, these portions are meant to make fun of the theatergoers. It mocks the audience who knows nothing of how plays work or should work, audiences who pay money regardless of a play’s quality, and audiences who mock plays without having real reasons why. It also makes fun of plays’ conventions that are overused to a point of ridiculousness, and the audience’s reactions to such conventions that they have no right complaining about since they willingly come to watch. It may seem harsh of Shakespeare to make fun of his audience, but he wasn’t mean about it. He’s merely poking fun, and its not nasty at all.