Hamlet or Hamlet?
I haven't been able to find the Jstor article we're supposed to read for Hamlet! I"ve searched Jstor several times. Anyone else have this trouble? Anyone have any luck? Thanks.
« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 30, 2006
October 23, 2006
The unchangeable/destruction?
In reading both the Merchant of Venice, Titus Andronicus, and Taming of the shrew I found something very disturbing in Shakespeare's undertone that seemed very disturbing, even more so than his love for bloodshed, betrayal, or even his insights on sex. What I come to believe (and if there is disagreement I would like this answered) that he believes that somethings can not be changed and so therefore destroyed. In Titus there was Aaron who by birth can't be changed he shows this in Aarons speech of non remourse and when he shows that Aarons son will come to be just as foul as Aaron (this is shown when Aaron speaks about how his son will be brought up). In this there could only be on outcome for Aaron and that was death. Taming had a character that similarly could not be changed, but death could not satisfactorily fix this character in Kathryn (reason being is that humanity can survive without moors but needs woman for reproduction). So to destroy such uncorrected rebellion in women you must not kill them, but he shows this can be done with a lifestyle in which she can be BROKEN. Lastly Merchants character (in Shylock) was a little harder for Shakespeare, because death would be Holocaustic, and breaking seemed to be impossible seeing as how Jewish people seem to live and thrive amongst things such as ridicule, violence, seperation, and non acceptence (all the things it took to break Katharina). But still there is still a solution to this and its forced assimaltion or convertion. Now I'm not sayin that there is anything wrong with Shakespeare works, I rather like them; but can anybody argue that he seems to be pigheaded to an extremest degree or do you think he was just writing in hopes to shame/appease his audience who were truly the ones who felt this way?
October 21, 2006
Richard III Scholarly Survey
I had promised to post the Richard III Scholarly Survey presentation, complete with bibliographical entries. Please download it using the following: link.
Good luck with all those papers!
October 16, 2006
England's Confusing...
I guess what struck me the most about this play when compared to the other tragedies I've read (Titus Andronicus, Hamlet, etc.) was that this one was so very very ENGLISH. All the characters were English royalty etc., and I found it really hard to follow because there were so many of them, they were so interrelated, and they all had so many names! I mean, Richard III whose name is Gloucester but whose brother, Clarence, is really named George... ahhhh! I mean, in Hamlet, there was old Hamlet and young Hamlet. Both were the royal line of Denmark, and they both had only one name! There was no one else in the royal family whose relationship was not clearly defined relative to Hamlet - no third cousins twice removed that would beg questions on why these royal figures were there and how they were part of the royal family anyway. In Richard III, like the history play I've read (Henry VI), there are so many characters it is extremely difficult to keep track of them. I still don't know who all of them are or what they're doing in the play. I keep wondering what the implications are that this play is actually centered in England, versus so many of Shakespeare's other plays which are all set in locations outside of England. Does this set this play apart from others, does it make the audience at the original Globe relate to it more, or less, or does it make them question their own society? These are a few of the things I was wondering about.
Richards dreamwaking
As Richard wakes from his dream where all of the ghosts visit him, he has a monologue where he shows his first sign of regret. What's really interesting is the psychological thoughts that this speech brings to mind. Is he insane? Can he really be afraid of himself? Would that explain his behavior/his ability of butcher anyone close to him? Or was the speech just a highly dramatised portrayal of remorse and fear and helplessnessness? Both?
I just found it interesting to think about.
Richard the III
I found it interesting that Richard became more evil as the play progressed, but seemed to still feel remorse as he imagined the people he killed. I would think that when he came to power and began to feel remorse that he would try to stop his evil ways.
Josh Kasprzyk
word and coments on richard the third
Jocund- Feeling, expressing, or communicating mirth or cheerfulness; mirthful, merry, cheerful, blithe, gay, sprightly, light-hearted; pleasant, cheering, delightful. (Of persons, actions, things, etc.) . BUT MORE APPLICABLE IS THE SECOND DEF>_ b. Feeling pleasure at some particular event or circumstance; joyful, glad, well-pleased. Obs.
RICHMOND
The sweetest sleep, and fairest-boding dreams
That ever enter'd in a drowsy head,
Have I since your departure had, my lords.
Methought their souls, whose bodies Richard murder'd,
Came to my tent, and cried on victory:
I promise you, my soul is very jocund
In the remembrance of so fair a dream.
Boy, this play is long. It seems as though many people were ambitious in murdering one another, but this paragragraph details the satisfaction many will feel after Richards death at war. Richard seems more happy to shame, humiliate, mame, exile people than to kill them outright, although he obviously loses no tears over his dead family. What a jerk. Anyways, this play amde me think of Karma and planting seeds of ill-will. Beware the path you choose.
Richard III
Why do you think Richard always talks about being disfigured and ugly throughout the play? Do you think Richard had to villian-like to solve his problems due to his disfigurment, or was that the only way to go about it?
Richard the third
why is it that richard felt he needed to be villanious and trecherous in order to achieve what he wanted? Was it really neccessary for him to kill everyone that stood in the way of his ultimate goal? Why is it that, even after he killed the husband and the father, that [Anne] agreed to be with him? And why did everyone agree with Richard in saying that margaret was crazy???
An Interesting Article
I found an interesting article on the web stating that readers should look at Richard III as merely another tragedy and not even go into the historical implications:
"The controversial, but vital, point may be illustrated by examining parallels of character, theme, and action in Richard III and Macbeth. Here it is important to note that literary critics often illustrate the emergence of Shakespearean tragedy from the history plays by tracing these parallels (27). (Indeed Lily Campbell asserts that Shakespeare wrote Richard III with no clear distinction between tragedy and history in mind.) Of course, both plays draw on Holinshed, although Shakespeare freely adapted "historical" accounts of both reigns to his dramatic purposes. Macbeth's crimes are every bit as bloody as Richard III's, and Macbeth's may be even more detrimental to the commonweal. Richard and Macbeth die almost precisely in the same desperate state of mind and almost in exactly the same manner. Finally, their epitaphs bring them to the same judgment: Richard is a "bloody dog" (V.v.2) and Macbeth is a "dead butcher" (V.ix.35). Why, then, do we accept, even admire, Shakespeare's wicked Macbeth, while we insist that his depiction of a wicked Richard III is a travesty of history? Our attitude toward these characters, of course, hinges on literary rather than historical considerations. By consensus, Macbeth is a great tragedy, while Richard III is a "history play""
The whole article is here: http://www.r3.org/bookcase/moore1.html
Power at any Cost
I do believe that Richard III is truly representative of a Machiavellian personality. Richard was quick to make alliances with people where it would benefit him, and when it became more beneficial to betray that person - Richard did so without a second thought. All obstacles that stood in his way were to be removed at all costs. He killed his family members, he killed those loyal to him. He tried to marry his niece to maintain his stranglehold on power. The play Richad III depicts Shakespeare's cynical nature about those in power and the lengths they will go to achieve/maintain power.
I especially enjoyed the scene where all the ghosts visited both Richard and Richmond, where they would first curse Richard - and then wish good luck to Richmond in battle. Fortunately, karma finally caught up with Richard and all his evil deeds.
Another concept I found the play to be at odds with was the idea that there were individuals chosen by god to rule. Richard claimed this divine right - being of royal blood. However, it seemed after all the innocent bloodshed that this is a preposterous claim to make. For if it were one's divine right to rule the throne of England - it seems that one would be given the crown and not have to steal the crown or overthrow the next in line. Richard III was Machiavellian and ruthless - and aquired power at any cost.
Richard III
I would love to say that I had the attention spand or ability to understand everything in this play but I can't. Untill the very end I had a lot of trouble remembering who was who, and who was related to who, and who wanted to kill who. I thought it was interesting how different this play way from Titus although both involved a lot of scandal and murder. My favorite character would have to be Queen Margaret because I loved how she took a stand and cursed everyone, she's definately a character I'd want on my side. I also found it interesting how in this play Richard III kindof gets what's coming to him which is a little different from what I would expect from one of Shakespeare's plays. Overall this play was detailed and a little hard to follow considering my lack of experience with Shakespeare's work.
Propoganda
For me, it was hard to read the play because it presents itself as a history, which it is not a very accurate history if we are going to call it that. It sparked interest in me to learn what was the true history of this Richard and how much the truth was distorted in the play to make the new empire look good. However, this interest wasn't great enough to make me actually do any research. So I am left in a mystery of what could be true and how horrible this guy really was. They paint this guy as a horrible murderer, but was he really all that different then any other King? And as a side, people should name their children different names! I got really confused trying to keep people straight that they kept referring to that weren't even a part of the play. Overall, I thought this play was extremely confusing. I would have to agree that out of the plays we have read for the class, I liked this one the least.
mixed signals
Does anyone else think it's a little weird that Lady Anne failed to remember her curse upon the wife of Gloucester until after she married him and he was killing little boys? Why would such a tragic event like that have to take place to jog her memory of her fatefully uttered words? And if people we so convinced that curses worked then why didn't everyone go around jinxing people?
foreshadowing
The only thing I liked about this play was the foreshadowing. I don't know why, but I'm unusually drawn to foreshadowing. If it weren't for that, there would be nothing else worth reading in this play. I didn't like it. I think part of that has to do with our last play, Titus Adronicus. There's been too much violence and killing two weeks in a row. It seems so pedantic almost. I feel like the characters in both of these plays are never able to be fully developed because they die away too quickly. It might be because the characters are only there to support the main character, Richard, and they only serve to show the vulgarity of Richard, but it doesn't make it very fun to read for me. I really don't have much else to say about this play that I didn't like at all.
Richard the third
Out of all the plays we have read so far, I have to say that I like Richard the third the least. I couldn't really connect with any of the characters in the play, especially to Richard. However, there were two scenes in particular that I did like. The first was when Queen Elizabeth, Queen Margaret, and the dutchess confront Richard and the all curse him. I had been waiting for someone to confront Richard, and I was very excited that it was the three women. The other scene I liked was in act five when all the ghosts come and haunt Richard. Throughout the whole play Margret kept cursing Richard and I was curious to see if any of the curses worked...and they did! So overall, I wasn't that thrilled with the play, but I am glad that Richard was taken down in the end and lost the battle he seemed so confident in winning.
Tragic Hero
My first semester of college, I took a philosophy class in which we read Aristotle's Poetics (which Prof. mentioned in class last week) and analyzed Hamlet through that lens. One of the major characteristics of tragedy, for Aristotle, is the Tragic Hero, who has to be better than the average person, have something tragic happen to him (or her) and have the redeeming quality of the play (thus, he or she is the hero). I thought throughout class last week and could not conclude who would be the Tragic Hero in Titus Adronicus. Generally, it is Shakespeare's title character, but I couldn't figure out which, if any, characters in the play were better than the others and I couldn't decide if anyone could be classified the hero. I found the whole play sad on the whole, but I struggle with the idea that Aristotle might consider it a tragedy. Any thoughts?
October 15, 2006
Richard the third
One of my favorite characters in this play would have to be Queen Margaret. I love all the curses that she put on Richards family. She was so detailed in everything she said, and it was no surprise that all her curses came true!
Can i get a murder
While reading Richard III I think im still in the mindset of Titus, i keep expecting someone to get shanked at any moment. I keep hearing about all the deaths caused by Richard but do we get to see any of them, no. Finaly whats his face bites it, Clarence. This one just feels a lot more like Shakespeares old style from taming of the shrew. Who needs fancy similes and metaphors when you can stab your problems away.
October 10, 2006
shakespeare (problems at home)
Does anyone else believe that Shakespeare had problems at home because after reading these plays especially the last two all the disputes seem to be within families. I mean think of it wether it be capulets and montagues, richard and clearence, or titus his sons / saturninus & bassianus there always seems to be this theme of a family feud. I read somewhere that a writer writes what he knows if he wants his writings to be true and deep. So if that be true and we already know that Shakespeare lived away from his family and may of had mistresses, but he's writing about murdering family members; so that makes you think how bad is his family life.
October 2, 2006
Social Commentary
I think Taming of the Shrew pokes fun at a serious social problem in Shakespeare's time, and much of history. I don't think Shakespeare intended this play to be degrading to women, but to make light of their typical role in his society. He makes light in two ways. In one respect, Kate is absolutely ridiculous and fights every part of becoming subservient to a man, while Bianca takes advantage of her own ability to be submissive in order to get what she wants. It's ironic that, in the end, Kate submits to her expected submissive ways when Bianca rebells against hers when she got what she wanted. Shakespeare uses this plot to express that while women are, indeed, expected to be subservient to men, they may gain the upper-hand through manipulation as Bianca did, or they may, in fact, grow to appreciate thier inteded roles in society, just like Kate.
Kate
Kate in the taming of the Shrew never really shows what she really feels. I feel as though we see Kate through the eyes of everyone else rather than through herself. We never really see her be a shrew except with her family, which isn't all the unusual and when Petruccio is practically forcing marriage upon her, which I think anybody would be that way. I think she is the way she is because everybody expects her to be that way.
The taming of the shrew
I thought seeing the film was more helpful to me in understanding the characters and plot. When reading I didn't find the play very funny, but after watching the clip in class I can see this why this play was considered a comedy. The beginning of the play was very confusing to me when I first read it as the play went from sly and the lord to the play within the play. The movie helped me understand what was going on and was very helpful.
relations ...
In the play the "taming of the shrew" Shakespeare has the character Katherina portrayed as a woman who needs to be "tamed" of her shrewness. I thought that it was interesting to compare this book to the so called modern version of the play, "10 Things I Hate About You." Growing up, that was one of my favorite movies, and still is. when you compare that movie tpears play, you get similar plots and characters, although you dont get the play within the play scenario, and some of the characters are taken out. In hte movie Kat is still a "shrew" in a sense, but there is a reason behind it, that being of a formal relationship with one of the suitors of Bianca. (a bad ending for the two). in the play, there is no reason as to why Kate acts like a shrew to all men. I found that interesting that the writers of the movie included that fact and it wasn't an original part of the story line. Also, Gremio wasn't in the movie, there was only one school teacher, so to speak, who taught Bianca language. (french) I do like however, how in the play and the movie, that the suitor of Katherina uses her "shrewness" to obtain her, he uses her wit to get her to fall for his charm.
Lucentio = Sly
(I haven't read through the entire blog, so it is possible that this idea has already been brought up.) After reaching the end of the play, I realize how strong the parallels are between Sly and Lucentio. At the beginning of the play, the poor beggar is sold into a flase life by the Lord. It can be stated that Lucentio is also sold into a false life by Bianca. Upon first meeting her, he believes her to be perfection, but by the end of the play he realizes that she is essentially not as fit of a wife as he first guessed; just like Sly will certainly discover that he is not a lord but merely a beggar. (Just so everyone knows, I understand that this is the most sexist reading of the play imaginable).
ending...
Although I found The Taming of the Shrew to be a very entertaining play, I wasn't too pleased with the ending. It seems as though Shakespeare just left too much up in the air for the end of the play. And I also feel as though he left some questions unanswered. Such as, what does sly think of the ultimate ending of the play; i do realize that there are some alternate endings to the play, but the play within the play ends abruptly also. Also, is there a reason why Shakespeare decided to have Katherine be the only wife that was "tamed", whereas the widow and Bianca wouldn't obey their husbands the way they were expected to by Hortensio and Lucentio?
Kate's taming...
I would like to comment on stai0047's entry about Kate's apparent taming but, as I am apparently technologically illiterate and cannot figure out how, I will have to settle for responding in my own entry.
I too was dismayed by Kate's utter supplication at the end. Not only was it disgustingly sexist, it was also, withiin the context of the story, extremely hard to swallow. I would more readily buy your theory of her coping with mental trauma if the abuse had gone on longer, months or even years perhaps. But, if I'm following the timeline correctly, this whole thing took place over a matter of days. A week at most. And that just seems far too short a time for someone as headstrong as Kate to be cowed so thoroughly, even by someone as willfull as Petruccio.
I would have prefered Shakespeare to include some kind of clue in the dialogue as to what was really going on Kate's mind during her closing speech. As it stands, it leaves it completely up to the interpretation of the performer.
What happened to Sly?
This was the first time that I read The Taming of the Shrew and I found it to be quite humorous. One of the funniest scenes in the play in my mind was the opening scene with Christopher Sly. I find it curious that there was no conclusion to his story in The Shrew. Although there was a conclusion in the appendix for A Shrew. I enjoyed the fact that when Sly woke up outside the pub he was not upset about not being a lord, he was more excited to go home and tame his own wife.
I also found it interesting that this was such a universal tale - that transcends cultures. With the Irish people having over one hundred variations of this story about taming a difficult wife. It amazes me more than a dozen cultures have similar stories.
One part of the story that I found strange was when Vincentio arrived in Padua and the deception was exposed - I found it hard to believe that Baptista could handle it so well that he had been fooled in to giving his prized daughter away to liar. I guess he just was happy she married someone rich in the end. Obviously he showed some dedication to their love by the lenghts he was willing to go to get it.
Can't beat 'em? Join'em!
Having seen the play before I read Taming of the Shrew, I thought that Petrucio was an admirable, domineering guy, funny and quick witted. Yet after reading it, I wonder if he really isn't mad, as Katarina constantly declares. The production I attended was hosted by a private baptist college, and there was no joking in Kate's final speech. I interpret the text to transform Kate into an accomplice, a consort in her husband's foolery--once she learns he only speaks to jest. She may have actually enjoyed calling Vincente a young woman. While I feel that Petrucio's conditioning (taming, training, whatever) of Kate was cruel, her speech at the end may have been delivered sardonically in order to stick it to her sister, the widow, and the boys, knowing her husband had already won the sport at hand.
Kate's whipped
I ended up liking this play more than I thought I would. I actually found the humor in it and liked it even more when I realized that "10 Things I hate about you" originated from it's plot. Although I am not a fan of Petruccio I found his smart ass ways to be entertaining. I think the movie we watched in class last week put the play into perspective more and made it easier to see what the characters true intentions were. When Kate lectured the widow and Bianca towards the end of the play I was shocked; I understood that she was more under Petruccio's command but didn't realize she was completely whipped. It was pathetic because of how serious she was but funny if you compare it to todays standards, because there is no way that a woman of this day and age would ever let that happen; at least I sure hope not.
Tamed or Pretending?
I took a Shakespeare class last semester and the first play that we read and discussed was The Taming of the Shrew. Many people in our class argued for and seemed thoroughly convinced that Kate wasn't really destroyed and that Petruchio and her had come to some kind of understanding and that they were really in love. They used the evidence that at the end Kate and a very long soliloquy at the end and that in itself screams that she was never really dominated. I can't help but thinking that people are just trying to cope with such an uncomfortable situation and perhaps they are dealing with the play by telling themselves that everything is puppies and candy at the end. From what I've read in the story there is nothing to suggest that Kate isn't anything at the end but the victim of some serious mental trauma and is merely coping to survive. If we use logic like this then surely we can turn anything that we read and see into what we want irregardless of what the writer intended by it.
October 1, 2006
Taming
I'm curious as to why Kate didn't put up a bigger fight with Petruccio when he told her they would be married. She acted like a shrew with him, but not nearly as bad as others. Did she meet her match perhaps? Even at the wedding she didn't put up a shrewish fight with anyone really. By the way, has anyone seen 10 Things I hate about you? Just curious.
Under My Thumb
Sitting at the computer, I was listening to my music set on random. Up comes "Under My Thumb" by the Rolling Stones. I listened to the lyrics and thought, "my goodness, this is The Taming of the Shrew!" Of course, I was not the first to ever have this particular thought.
I didn't have to go further than Wikipedia to read from the Under My Thumb entry:
The song's lyrics, an examination of a sexual power struggle, were very much in tune with the rebellious, vaguely misogynistic attitude that the mid-'60s Stones had cultivated, though the concept of "Under My Thumb" is arguably more sophisticated--even psychological--than any of the other controversial the Stones had released up to that point.
Jagger's lyrics celebrate the satisfaction of finally having controlled and gained leverage over a previously pushy, dominating woman. The lyrics, which savor the successful "taming of the shrew" with glee (comparing the woman in question to a "pet" and a "cat"), definitely provoked negative reactions among some listeners, especially feminists, who objected to the suppressive sexual politics of the male narrator. It can be reasonably argued, however, that the song is a vignette, or simply an examination of sexual malevolence and tension, and that the maliciousness of both the lyrics and Jagger's performance is theatrical and doesn't seriously advocate male domination. Many listeners also note that the woman who is the subject of the song was previously the dominant figure in the relationship, and that the narrator was originally submissive to her, making the implications of the song more complicated than simple chauvinism. Jagger later reflected on the track in a 1995 interview: "It's a bit of a jokey number, really. It's not really an anti-feminist song any more than any of the others.... Yes, it's a caricature, and it's in reply to a girl who was a very pushy woman."
This leads me to wonder, can we view the entirety of the Taming of the Shrew in the same light as, "a bit of a jokey number," or must we be outraged as feminists?
Dogs, Women and Arrogance
After reading the ending I couldn't help but notice the simalarites between the men betting over which wife was "the veriest shrew of all" and the huntsmen arguing over which person had the best dog. With the Lord being like Petruccio in bragging about their "possessions" being better.
I also thought that the last two lines Petruccio says were really funny. He says
'Twas I won the wager, though you hit the white,
And being a winner, God give you good night.
This again reinforced Petruccio's arrogance. He is poking fun at Lucentio because he lost the bet. He says even though Lucentio hit the target (the white), I still one the bet. He is saying haha even though you thought you got the better wife, I really did. I'm better than you. He is a lot like the Lord in the beginning, just thinking that he is better than everyone else.
The Perfect Couple
Although I cannot bring myself to agree with Petruccio’s treatment of Kate I can only laugh when I think of how perfect they are for each other. It’s hard to decide which one is a bigger ass. In the end they probably deserve each other. I would hate to see a fair and noble woman married to Petruccio. She would probably be crushed worse than Kate. Likewise for Kate, she could probably destroy most men.
I can only imagine what their children will be like.