The Bard's Blog (EngL 3007)

I really liked the play King Lear. Although I truely believe it was a tradgety I also found certain parts of the play to be really funny, mainly when King Lear breached insanity. I liked that unlike many of Shakespeares plays this one was well organized and many of the characters had motives behind their actions rather than being completely irrational, that is until everyone starting killing and dieing randomly in the end. I thought the beginning of the play sounded almost like a fairy tale when King Lear asked his daughters to prove their love for him. But it was definately an intense, well thought out play. I liked that there were true characters that actually seemed good hearted like Albany, Edgar, and Cornelia. In many of Shakespeare's plays even the main characters aren't good people. I thought the rivalry betweent the sisters was interesting. The two seemed to have everything planned out so well until their jealousy and lust for more turned them against each other. I thought the role of a father was a definate key in this play as far as similarities between Gloucester and King Lear both choosing to support the very children (Edmund, Goneril, and Regan) that planned to ruin them. It shows that although they were good men they had poor judgement and didn't trust their most loving children.

Posted by Christen Mundt at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I really liked the play King Lear. Although I truely believe it was a tradgety I also found certain parts of the play to be really funny, mainly when King Lear breached insanity. I liked that unlike many of Shakespeares plays this one was well organized and many of the characters had motives behind their actions rather than being completely irrational, that is until everyone starting killing and dieing randomly in the end. I thought the beginning of the play sounded almost like a fairy tale when King Lear asked his daughters to prove their love for him. But it was definately an intense, well thought out play. I liked that there were true characters that actually seemed good hearted like Albany, Edgar, and Cornelia. In many of Shakespeare's plays even the main characters aren't good people. I thought the rivalry betweent the sisters was interesting. The two seemed to have everything planned out so well until their jealousy and lust for more turned them against each other. I thought the role of a father was a definate key in this play as far as similarities between Gloucester and King Lear both choosing to support the very children (Edmund, Goneril, and Regan) that planned to ruin them. It shows that although they were good men they had poor judgement and didn't trust their most loving children.

Posted by Christen Mundt at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought King Lear was a prideful, but nonetheless respectful, character from the beginning of the play. Yes, he exiled his favorite daughter, but due to her own stubbornness and pride. Regardless, he recognized his degeneration due to age and relinquished his throne and entrusted his personal care to those he most trusted. The tragedy is that he was so poorly treated, his kingdom, and his entire family were destroyed. Of all of the plays we've read, I think this is most suitably called a tragedy.

Posted by Mandi Krumheuer at 5:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was shocked in the end when I found out what had happened to Goneril and Regan. First of all, I was amazed that Regan was poisoned by her own sister. This clearly shows that Goneril was mean and cruel and cared nothing for her sister; she was in it for her own self. But then why would she commit suicide? She could have had Edmund to herself, which is why I thought she poisoned Regan. Maybe after she poisoned her sister she felt guilty and couldn't live with what she had done. I was not really expecting that either of them were going to live to the end, but I was definatley surprised by how they did die in the end.

Posted by Cynthia Friedman at 5:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One question I asked myself as I read King Lear was "What kind of statement is Shakespeare making about daughters?" He seems to portray daugthers in a negative light. It made me wonder if Shakespeare was implying that a King must pass on power through male heirs or major problems will arise. His daughters were selfish and always concerned about themselves. The were competing for the same man (Edmund), who was a Machaevellian bastard, who sold out his father - and got his father's eyes cut out. He lied to get his brother Edgar banished. It seems that sons are not all that great either. However Edmund was that bastard son. It is interesting to me that the characters who disguised themselves througout the play were the same characters who were in better situations at the end. Another part of the play that I enjoyed was that the fool died in the end. I could not believe that people would tolerate the poignant remarks that he made at King Lear's side.

Posted by Sands at 5:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the beginning of the play, the two sisters seemed like they were joining together to take over for their father, King lear. However, as we all know, this was not the case in the end. The two sisters battled against each other not only for the land, but also for Edmund (which I thought was a little strange). This was interesting because it didn't really seem like Edmund was really interested in either of them. He just kind of went along with both of them and played both sides. This way, he kept both sisters happy. I don't think Edmund actually liked either of them at all. But it seemed like the sisters really thought that he was in love with them. This whole thing shows that the girls really don't know what relationships are all about. This is evident not only in this case, but also with their won husbands. Neither one of the girls was truely being faithful to their husband, and therefore don't really care about these men as people. They were both selfish from the beginning with the land, and they continued to be this way with Edmund.

Posted by Rebecca Kuehl at 4:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I like how King Lear takes something that Cordelia said and turned into a huge deal even though there was nothing wrong with the response in the first place. My dad also does that. I've been told I do it too. Let's be as pessimistic as possible and then overreact so that everyone is miserable in the end.

Posted by Loanna Stainbrook at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

in the last act V, Edmnund tells the audience that he has sworn his love to both Goneril and Regan. Why do you think this is? Do you think that this triangle is because they all do not want to show mercy to Lear and Cordelia? Or do you think he confesses his love to each sister, in order to obtain Lear's Kingdom for himself?

Posted by Amanda Crotty at 4:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

does nothing really come of nothing?
cordelia tells lear that she has notihng to tell him, because she doesn't have anything more to offer than the love of a daughter for a father. nothing seems to really come for nothing in the end of the play, with the good and evil characters both dying. Lear, and CoRdelia, both die in the end, proving this fact.
i think it is interesting that once lear finally comes to realize cordelias love for him, it is too late, and he and her both end up dying. it shows that human nature is to doubt, and perhaps be selfish.

Posted by Brandi Crotty at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

does nothing really come of nothing?
cordelia tells lear that she has notihng to tell him, because she doesn't have anything more to offer than the love of a daughter for a father. nothing seems to really come for nothing in the end of the play, with the good and evil characters both dying. Lear, and CoRdelia, both die in the end, proving this fact.
i think it is interesting that once lear finally comes to realize cordelias love for him, it is too late, and he and her both end up dying. it shows that human nature is to doubt, and perhaps be selfish.

Posted by Brandi Crotty at 3:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought the play was good.... in the sense that I read it and liked all the killings and deaths. But I was really starting to notice a reacurring theme of madness. Everywhere you look in Shakespeare's plays there is crazy guy or somebody going crazy. It seems so natural and everyone doesnt think twice about it. Lear goes mad and people expect it. He goes in and out of sainity like hes possessed. Not to mention that there are more crazy people just outside wandering around ready to take Gloucester away into the woods and if you are ever in need of being disguised just put on some tattered clothes and say your mad people will belive anything. I just thought it was weird that so many people out their were crazy or about to go crazy.

Posted by Alexander Brown at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

OED - 1. a. Ill health, sickness, disease. Obs. b. A specific kind of illness; an ailment, a disease.
c. A personification of disease. Obs.
2. fig. The condition of mental, spiritual, or moral ill health (of an individual, of society or some section of it, or of the human race); any such condition that calls for a remedy. Cf. DISEASE n. 3.

Used by Lear in 3.4, Maladay refers to the weather as a threat to his physical health, yet he explains to Kent his real affliction is on of the mind/heart. Lear explains that his "madness" or sorrow is so great in his mind that it sheilds his senses from the malicious weather. "The body's delicate: the tempest in my mind
Doth from my senses take all feeling else
Save what beats there."

It goes so show that Lear is experienceing a disparity between his consciousness and reality. He is obcessed with the corrupt conditions of his kingdom and his daughters--a mental illness that in this situation could cause his literal death by disease or sickness.

Posted by Nicolas Stephens at 3:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What does everyone think about the idea of Cordelia as a Christ-like figure? Throughout the play, she pursues Lear, seeking to forgive him and absolve his sins, more or less. She also states, "O dear father, / It is thy business that I go about� (IV.iv.24–25), which easily compares to Luke 2:49, when Christ says, "I must go about my father’s business." (Thank you, sparknotes.)

I just thought the issue interesting, and I think there's a lot of relevance to it. The only problem is, Cordelia almost comes back to life, in Lear's eyes, but doesn't. This could be a very nihilistic view on Christianity. Thoughts?

Posted by Patrick Luby at 1:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought that is was rather weird that Lear would call Cordelia a poor fool. It in the book it says that it is used as a term of endearment but throughout the play I felt like it was used derogatively. I don't know, it just doesn't make much sense to me because at this point in the play Lear seems to have it mostly together. As a side note, the only thing that made me laugh throughout the whole play was when Gloucester was asking to kiss Lears hand and he said, "Let me wipe it first; it smells of mortality (4.6.131) It made me laugh and I don't know why but I thought I should share that. Hope everyone had a nice weekend!

Posted by Erin Brekke at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I know that this issue of the way women are viewed in Shakespeare’s plays comes up constantly, but I’m not sure anyone can argue that some of the immoral female characters he’s ever written are in this play and I feel like it’s worth writing about it. First of all, Goneril and Regan are insincere, greedy, and are just really unlikable. They blow sunshine up Lear’s skirt, then after getting the kingdom, send him out into cold, literally, to fend for himself. They eventually both try to win the affections of Edmund, even though Goneril is married and Regan’s husband had recently died.

As we discussed in class last week, the way that Gloucester, Edmund, and even Edgar talk about Edmund’s mother is very crude. While Gloucester and Edmund attack Edmund’s mother personally, referring to her as a whore, Edgar condemns all vaginas in 5.3.171-172, referring to Gloucester’s affair, when he says “ The dark and vicious place where thee he got/ Cost him his eyes.�

So the question I pose--- How is Shakespeare using Cordelia to counteract these anti-feminist characters and statements, and what is he really saying about women in King Lear?

Posted by Kimberly Miller at 3:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From Nicolas Stephens:
Hamelt in his modern guises compares hamlet with many modern works
including Goethe, Scott, Dickens, and Melville. He argues that hamlet is
written from a bias of youth, and that the interrference of the older
generation emphasizes the artist and romaticism of hamlet.Wlesh says that
ophelia's resistance to her father and hamlet to his new father/uncle
coincides with their resistance to the anchient regime of partriarchy. and
that ophelia drown herself out of self defence from opression, and hamlet's
madness and the murders he commits is a device to ride the community of
corrucpion of patriarchy.

John lee, Shakespeare's hamlet and the controversies of self. lee argues
that hamlet does not have a self-constituting sense of self. he draws from
the constructionist theory that the self adapts and constructs truthsabout
reality based on external facors. lee says that hamlets self landscape is
fragile and that the murder of his father and the wedding of his uncle and
mother are like buldozers that reshape and begin to develop his self's
nature landscape into a new externaly construsted atmoshpere.reality. his
self, or being cannot place this new reality into a clearly valued context
and drives him insane. he tries to tell about it, but cannot. so he
constructs a new personality to cope with it.

Greenblat, hamlet in purgatory. Greenblatt says that shakespeare was
exploring the lack of obligation and consciesness of sons to dead fathers.
he explains the history of purgatory and its its relevence to the story of
hamlet. he argues that Shakespeare's ghostly creations were less a product
of his specific cultural/historical moment than a manifestation of dramatic
genius.

Cefalu damn'ed custom habits devil. He argues that Because hamlet
objectifies habits, Hamlet imagines persons to be constituted by behavior,
custom, and dispositional states all the way down, so that they are
unendowed with what Derek Parfit would describe as any further facts to
their psychological identity, such as disembodied minds or thoughts.
Because functionalism focuses attention on the roles minds play, rather
than on where minds are in relation to bodies, brains, or the external
world, it conceives of minds on the analogy of simple the mediating role
the mind plays in the teleological and biological economy of the individual
machines and mechanisms rather than inner substances or brain states. Minds
are often described as flexible software programs rather than hardware or
underlying substrates.
From allen Majkrzak:
Hamlet and the Pirates

This essay argues that Hamlet planned the meeting with the pirates that saved him from England. There is mention of the use of the word “craft� to mean ship. Also, it’s hard to ignore the fact that it was very convenient for the pirates to rescue him like they did.

http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00346551/ap020302/02a00030/0?currentResult=00346551%2bap020302%2b02a00030%2b0%2c00&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAdvancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26All%3Dhamlet%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%26None%3D%26ti%3Don%26ab%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jt%3D

Hamlet, Misogyny against Queen Elizabeth

This essay argues that Hamlet serves as a discussion against the aging of Queen Elizabeth. By the time the play was written the Queen was getting pretty old. She was missing quite a few of her teeth and people thought she was getting very wrinkly. Also, she wore a ton of makeup and wore revealing cloths to appear younger then she was. Many of the lines in Hamlet refer to painting one’s face as foolish. There was also general sentiment in England at the time against the Queen for being so old and ugly.

http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00373222/di982105/98p0489h/0?currentResult=00373222%2bdi982105%2b98p0489h%2b0%2c00&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAdvancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3DNewestFirst%26si%3D76%26All%3Dhamlet%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%26None%3D%26ti%3Don%26ab%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jt%3D

Hamlet, Shakespeare’s Catholic sentiments

This essay argues that Shakespeare may have had some Catholic tendencies. The Ghost refers to purgatory, which is a markedly Catholic idea. Protestants don’t believe in it, and writing about it could have been considered heresy in Shakespeare’s time. By placing the story in ancient Denmark he may have been able to get away with it.

http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00373222/di982111/98p0590q/0?currentResult=00373222%2bdi982111%2b98p0590q%2b0%2c00&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FAdvancedResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3DNewestFirst%26si%3D51%26All%3Dhamlet%26Exact%3D%26One%3D%26None%3D%26ti%3Don%26ab%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26jt%3D

From Loann S:

The Imagery of Constraint in Hamlet

http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00373222/di982036/98p08022/0?currentResult=00373222%2bdi982036%2b98p08022%2b0%2c1F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3DHamlet

This article was about the various ways that the characters were shown
through words of being incapabile of running their own lives. It discusses
how the characters try to express personal constraint/restraint to control
their actions and end up being indecisive and failing to take action. Often
they will attribute this hesitancy to higher powers and relinquish the
supposed control they are supposed to have.

The Word in Hamlet
http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00373222/di981930/98p0063z/0?currentResult=00373222%2bdi981930%2b98p0063z%2b0%2cFF03&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3D%26si%3D351%26Query%3DHamlet

This was a rather interesting article that discusses the ideas that are
present in Hamlet that words are just words and actions speak louder than
words. To say something is to waste time but to do something is to be
meritable.

The Lion King and Hamlet: A Homecoming for the Exiled Child
http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00138274/ap030791/03a00150/0?currentResult=00138274%2bap030791%2b03a00150%2b0%2c0F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3D%26si%3D101%26Query%3DHamlet

This article compares the Lion King and Hamlet and discusses some
archetypal themes that are present in the two stories and how Hamlet breaks
the average way these themes are usually present such as he doesn't become
King at the end and everyone both good and evil die.

Hamlet's "Too, Too Solid Flesh"
http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/03610160/di008252/00p0070v/0?currentResult=03610160%2bdi008252%2b00p0070v%2b0%2cFF7F&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3D%26si%3D101%26Query%3DHamlet

This article discusses both a possible Oedipus Complex that Hamlet may have
and a possibilty that Hamlet actually does lust after Ophelia and therefore
transposes all his frustration that he has onto his mother and condemns her
for his own desires.

The Woman in Hamlet and Interpersonal View
http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00979740/sp040015/04x0278r/0?currentResult=00979740%2bsp040015%2b04x0278r%2b0%2cFFFF07&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3D%26si%3D76%26Query%3DHamlet

This discusses the injustice experinenced by Women in the play Hamlet and how
although they are shown to be of the weaker side they are actually stronger
because they become connected with their emotional half and only come to doom
when the men in the play force them to deny their feelings and become stone
hearted.

Ophelia: Shakespeare's Pathetic Plot Device
http://www.jstor.org.floyd.lib.umn.edu/view/00373222/di981978/98p03652/0?currentResult=00373222%2bdi981978%2b98p03652%2b0%2c0E&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26so%3D%26si%3D51%26Query%3DHamlet

This article suggests that Ophelia had no real importance to the play and
that perhaps she was just used a plot device to push Hamlet to the edge of
reason.

From Erin B:

1. Title: “Hamlet’s Mice, Motes, Moles, and Minching Malecho�
Ruth Stevenson, 1939-
New Literary History, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Summer, 2002), pp. 435-459

-This article deals with the style of Hamlet and the idea of Hamlet as a poem and it also deals with Shakespeare’s use of metaphors, allusions and alliteration.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/new_literary_history/v033/33.3stevenson.html
This link won’t get you there however, it needs to be through a UMN library.

2. Title: “Hamlet in His Modern Guises�
David Lee Miller
Shakespeare Quarterly (Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington DC) (54:2) [Summer 2003] p 203

-This article discusses Hamlet’s manifestations and relations to modern stories. This article also discusses the thought that Hamlet let to Freud’s superego theory.

http://lion.chadwyck.com/searchFulltext.do?id=R01718679&divLevel=0&area=abell&forward=critref_ft

3. Title: Quintessence of Dust: The Mystical Meaning of Hamlet
Kenneth K.C. Chan

-This book proposes that through Hamlet, Shakespeare creates a “central spiritual message� and that this book explains every mystery surrounding the play Hamlet that perplexes critical analysts.

http://homepage.mac.com/sapphirestudios/qod/

4. Title: “Shakespeare’s Hamlet�
Chikako Kumamoto
The Explicator, Summer 2006 v64 i4 p201(4) Copyright 2006 Heldref Publications

-This article states that Shakespeare had no idea what he was writing and that he paid no attention to plot when constructing the play. The article proposes that there is no way to understand the play due to inconsistencies in the play.

http://59486.ihclibproxy.pals.msus.edu/itw/infomark/787/414/88456113w1/purl=rcl_EAIM_0_A152694340&dyn=13!xrn_2_0_A152694340?sw_aep=mnainver

5. Title: “Prince of Self-pity�
Allan Massie

Spectator July 15, 2006 pNA
Copyright 2006 The Spectator Ltd. (UK)

-This article tries to answer if Hamlet is really a whining kid or a brooding intellectual?

http://59486.ihclibproxy.pals.msus.edu/itw/infomark/787/414/88456113w1/purl+rc1_EAIM_0_A148260596&dyn=35!xrn_3_0_A148260596?sw_aep=mnainver\

Posted by Nicolas Stephens at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My Riverside Shakespeare classifies this play as a comedy. Huh. I was starting to get that, when Cressida was being a smartass talking to Pandarus with all the sexual undertones... I was starting to believe that it would be a comedy, but everything else in the play didn't seem funny at all. The Quarto title page, as per the New Cambridge Shakespeare, reads "The Historie of Troylus and Cresseida" and this seemed to fit the bill since it reads more like the other Shakespeare histories I've read: long-winded, speechy, and boring. And confusing at the same time. Yay Cressida... why don't we get more of her wit? And Thersites, too - he was bitter and angry, but almost funny at the same time. Definately a memorable character, as opposed to all the big speechy peoples, who at times seemed interchangeable because they all got up and had long winded-speeches, then let the other guys give their long-winded speeches.

Posted by Katherine Holmes at 6:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I liked this play but I did get confused because I kept comparing it to the movie Troy. The history in the movie is so alike but because of the characters Troilus and Cressida they are so different. If memory serves me correctly these two main characters aren't even in the movie Troy. I also wanted to know how Pandarus was seen to have so much control and the focus wasn't more on King Priam. I thought it was somewhat funny that Pandarus was trying expose his daughter to so many men and encouraging her to go for one of them. In somewhat of a response to one of the entries I read, i think the reason Cressida was reluctant to show Troilus that she loved him was because she thought that a woman who didn't throw herself at men was more attractive and that by being subtile she was almost seen as more attractive for being harder to get.

Posted by Christen Mundt at 5:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This play has way too many sub plots. As someone else said, the title didn't fit the play because so little had to do with the two lovers. The analysis of metaphors and analogies may be more compelling than the plot. None of the characters were developed as much as I would have liked, and I had a hard time seeing it as tragedy because I at no time felt sypathy for anyone except Hector.

Posted by Erica Pinigis at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And now I see why. This was probably my least favorite of all of Shakespeare's plays that I've read so far. It wasn't as dry as many and it could be moderately entertaining in theatre, but I can't help but feel it was quickly written and a bunch of things were just thrown in there, much like John Mayer and Jack Johnson songs are now. I'm not well versed in Greek Mythology/History, and I don't doubt that Shakespeare was, but I struggle to believe that this play is anywhere near historically accurate or comparable to texts written back in the day. Additionally, I'm curious as to why the play is titiled Troilus and Cressida, when it seems that they really aren't the most significant characters in the play. I'm also puzzled as to how this fits into any of Shakespeare's genres.

Posted by Mandi Krumheuer at 5:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay so this is the second time I'm writing this stupid thing because this retarded blog refused to post my entry when I when to submit it. Okay so basically I said why do the characters in Shakespeare's plays like to use other people to win their intended lovers. Of course Cressida is going to be more likely to go for the Greek lord since he actually talked to her and didn't use some other person to convince her that she should have sex with him. In a lot of Shakespeare's plays the characters woo other characters using someone else to build their image. At least in Taming of the Shrew two of Bianca's suitors did it themselves.

Posted by Loanna Stainbrook at 4:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Throughout the play, I was always extremely confused about the title. If Shakespeare did indeed frame his story around the affair of Troilus and Cressida, then maybe a title after those two characters would be significant. But, instead Shakespeare gives a psuedo-revision of Homer to add more pessimistic feelings on love and war to the classic myth of the Trojan War. Instead of Achilles murdering Hector in a fit of rage, we get a group of soldiers doing the deed for him; and instead of a tragic love affair between two people caught in the sorrows of war, we get a narrative whose imagery shamelessly alludes to venereal diseases. Maybe, this is the "point," but Shakespeare's revision left me wanting to read The Illiad.

Posted by Bradley Norton at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I didn't know the movie Troy came from this play. There were a few different things between the movie and the play though. For instance, Hector is killed in a duel with Achilles in the movie and not ambushed by a group like in the play. Another difference is that the play doesn't seem to have big events happen, but instead it seems something big might happen and nothing does. for example, when hector and ajax engage in a duel I thought someone was going to die but it ended up in a draw. This seemed to be an overall theme in the play, whereas the movie it seemed to be packed with big events.

Posted by Josh Kasprzyk at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think that the character of Thersites is pretty interesting. throughout the play, he acts as a devils advocate to the rest of the characters. he seems to always be trying to start a fight with the other characters. In scene 5.8, he talks about being a bastard, and how he can't get mad at the bastard, because he is one himself, and that a "bear will not bite another." and since they wont, neither will a bastard do wrong to another bastard. he talks about a cuckold, and the cuckold-master which is a man married to an unfaithful wife. Throughout the play thresites eavesdrops on a lot of the conversations by other characters as well. which probably allows him to be the devils advocate.

Posted by Brandi Crotty at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If Troilus and cressida were so in love, why did it take them so long to profess their love for one another? Cressida stated that she was in love with Troilus from the beginning but then didn't admit to until the third act. Also, why was she so upset that she had admitted to her love with Troilus? If he had already stated his feelings for her to Pandarus, then why is it such a big deal for her to admitt the same feelings. Speaking of Pandarus, was his role in this relationship taking off sort of a devil's advocate thing? was his purpose only to get the two together? and if so, how does he benefit from the relationship?

Posted by Amanda Crotty at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I wasn't a big fan of this play, but the character of Cressida pulled me in the most. I didn't understand her! She complained to her Uncle about him being her pimp and making her a whore, but in the end she really did become a whore. My question is has she always been a whore or did she feel she needed to really become one after sleeping with Troilus and moving to the greeks camp? All I really know after reading this play is that Shakespeare makes mistakes...

Posted by Whitney Tyler at 2:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought that this play was interesting because of the unique window of time that in choose in presenting the greek and trojan war. It seems ironic that the love story this play choose to take on was that of Troilus and Cressida when the far more famous relationship was between Helen of Troy and Paris. Paris loved Helen so much that he had no choice but to steal her from her husband, Menalaus, and bring her to Troy - it was this love story that started the war. Paris would do anything to keep Helen from going to Greek hands. Yet Troilus gives away Cressida to the Greeks without a fight. It seems very ironic to me that the older brother will start a war over a woman, and the younger pretends as though he wil always be with Cressida and then when an obstacle gets in his way, he gives up and gives her to the Greeks.

Posted by Sands at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading this play was difficult for me. Normally, I can find a character I enjoy who can help me breathe life into the play and who then can help me interpret what I'm reading. There were so many characters in this play, it was really hard for me to dig in on the level of the characters.

Certainly there were some funny parts. I found Thersites to be a rather funny distraction from the romance and violence, if not a little out of place. There are simply so many characters and so many lines I'm sure that this play would make out well as an "ensemble piece."

When read however, I just couldn't get the players in my mind to make the play interesting. I think thematically the play operated better for me: a bleak satire about failed love affairs and inconclusive war. I had read in my textbook that this play hadn't been recorded as being played at any time during the Victorian age but has since seen a relative revival: given our modern wars and the nature of our own modern love affairs I could perhaps see why this is true.

Posted by Jordan Husney at 2:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once I got to Act 5, I was assuming that play would all be tied together and things would get wraped up, which is usually what happens. However, all that was there was Hector's battle scene. At first I thought that maybe the ending scenes were accidentally left out of the play...what happened? Hector was killed and Troilus went to inform Priam, but what happens between Troilus and Diomedes, and most importantly, what happens between Troilus and Cressida? Afer all, the play is titled after them, and we are left hanging. I was very disappointed with how the play ends. Are we to just make up an ending on our own? I look foward to our discussions tonight in class, because I feel like I was just watching a movie and right when it gets to the best part, the movie stops working. I did not see this coming!

Posted by Cynthia Friedman at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Did anyone else find Troilus and Cressida to be a little bit of a let down in places. First off this play seemed to be very different from the others and to top it off he seemed bent of new wave or edgy. By not letting what everyone thinks going to happen happen. Like with the duel with Hector and Ajax that ends in a tie, this isnt little league its a war and someone has to die. Then the big boss battle thats supose to go down between Hector and Achilles. It bascily turned into a prison shower shanking, where Hector was caught with his armor off by a bunch of dudes. Oh well I guess there is always next time for Shakespeare to swich up his style again.

Posted by Alexander Brown at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought it was extremely weird for Helen to tickle Pandarus in 3.1. This part of the play really stuck out to me when I was reading it because I was wondering why this scene was even a part of the play. Why is important that Pandarus can sing and does sing to the Helen and Paris? Helen also strokes Pandarus' forehead right before he sings and Paris doesn't have a problem with it. It just seems really weird and out of place. This leads me to another problem or weirdness about he play was that Helen and Paris seem to have a more substantial love than do Troilus and Cressida, so why is the title of the play giving so much credence to a love that isn't really anything but a one night stand? I guess to me everything in this play seemed disjointed and odd.

Posted by Erin Brekke at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For anyone as ignorant about Greek (and Trojan) history as I am, here's a few links that might help:

http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War

http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/trojanwar.html

Posted by Patience Anderson at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For anyone as ignorant about Greek (and Trojan) history as I am, here's a few links that might help:

http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War

http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/trojanwar.html

Posted by Patience Anderson at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

For anyone as ignorant about Greek (and Trojan) history as I am, here's a few links that might help:

http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War

http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/trojanwar.html

Posted by Patience Anderson at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For anyone as ignorant about Greek (and Trojan) history as I am, here's a few links that might help:

http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_War

http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/trojanwar.html

Posted by Patience Anderson at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

After reading Troilus and Cressida, I was left wondering, “what’s the point?� Most of the characters were un-likeable, the plot was a little anti-climactic, and I don’t really feel like much got resolved in the end (or that any problems were presented). One of the redeeming qualities is that near the end, there was a lot of dialogue, but these were balanced with the heavy monologues in the first couple acts. If anyone could give me some insight into what they thought the play was about, their take on the characters, or what they liked about the play, it’d be appreciated.

Posted by Kimberly Miller at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I was discussing hamlet with a friend of mind who is really well read in shakespeare but she has a nact of turning everything she discusses to an issues that put woman at the for front. She had interesting comments though and I want to know what you guys think of this. She said that when she read this she thought that the true evil mastermind in this play was the Queen and not Claudius. She said that if you thought of it as a power trip from the Queen the play makes much more sense. What if it was her plot to turn the brothers against eachother because she knew she could rule claudius better tham she could Hamlet. Then this would explain her quick marriage lack of mourning for her departed husband and distance from her son and his true right to the crown. It would also explain her takin the drink at the end and not as a way to save Hamlet out of love for him but rather for a sacrafice that would guarantee a spot for her in heaven. It would also explain her sanity throughout the play as she watched people she knew all her life die and not get worked up like any of the men (i.e Laereties, Claudius, Hamlet, etc...). I thought of this as pretty good food for thought and an excellent new perspective that i don't think that i would of thought of. What are your insights

Posted by Eric Rutherford at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hamlet's character kindof bugs me because he is soooo emotional. The most obvious thing about him is that he is very indecisive. Even when he seems to show interest or dislike for someone he's never really clear about it. I was especially unimpressed when Hamlet had the chance to kill Claudius but didn't. If he really didn't want Claudius to have the easy way out he could have tortured him or thought of some way of making him suffer. One thing that bothered me is that if Hamlet doesn't want to kill Claudius earlier because he was forgiven and might go to heaven why is it ok to try to kill him later when he accidently kills Polonius.

Posted by Christen Mundt at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Was ophelia's death suicide, or self defense? in the play, The King and Queen make it sound as though it was her overwhelming grief over her father's death that caused her insanity and suicide. But I wonder if it wasn't the fact that Polonius, Laertes and Hamlet dominated her emotions, especially her love for all of them. Upon learning that her lover Hamlet killed her beloved dictator father, ophelia's conscience is torn between her true desires and her family obligation. I think this decision could have lead her to madness. She may have killed herself to avoid the guilt of choosing between and therefore forsaking either Hamlet or her family. She may have committed suicide to defend herself from the wrath and hatred, or from being forsaken by the men in her life.

Posted by Nicolas Stephens at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Do you think Gertrude was involved in Cladius before the murder of her husband? If you don't believe that they were involved before the murder, why do you think that she decided to get involved with claduas so soon after the dealth. Do you think she was decieved by Cladius?

Posted by Josh Kasprzyk at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Clearly Hamlet is portrayed as the hero in this play, but re-reading it, I struggle to see past his obvious madness. Whether he was crazy to begin with or driven crazy by his need for revenge, it seems to me a situation in which one today would be institutionalized. He claims that the ghost of his father told him who murdered him and to seek revenge. Does that sound like a likely story?

Also, I'm particularly struck by the play within a play of act 3. It seems to me that almost every play of Shakespeare's contains this play within a play and I'm curious as to what purpose others in the class might think it serves other than to ruin the plot. Anyone?

Posted by Mandi Krumheuer at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This was the first time that I read Hamlet and I had never really realized how so influential the play is on popular culture today. I thought that I was unfamiliar with this play, however I have heard many of the lines throughout the play. I didn't know that the source of "To thine own self be true" was Polonius speaking to his son Laertes. I had heard the phrase "To be or not to be that is the question" in many movies (eg. Billy Madison), however I hadn't realized that Hamlet was speaking of suicide. To me in some respects this play seemed the darkest of the ones we had read because Hamlet's shiftiness and madness was on display in a way that made you feel sorry for Hamlet. To me Hamlet is a truly tragic play in comparison to Richard III and Titus Andronicus. Hamlet is an easier character to identify with because it seems as though since his fathers death he began acting out of the ordinary and mad. It was because he had suspicions about his fathers death before the ghost. Hamlet seemed a victim of circumstance. Richard III brought misery wherever he went. Titus Andronicus was just so strange that although the events were tragic, you cannot sympathise with him in the same way you can Hamlet. Hamlet is also dark in the sense that it is obsessed with death. Hamlet reminds us that even the great ones return to dust. "Alexander died, Alexander was buried, Alexander returneth tinto dust....Imperial Caesar, dead and turned to clay." Hamlets obsession with death and the fact the he must died is finally solved in the end of the play when everybody dies. I guess its fitting that the madness of the play was an obsession with death that the conclusion must be filled with death. Another story in popular culture related to this play is the movie, What Dreams May Come which is a line within the play spoken by Hamlet. This not surprisingly is a movie dealing with death and the dark side of the afterlife.

Posted by Sands at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The character of Opehlia was always a mystery to me as I read through Hamlet. She always seemed to do what people told her, and didn't really have any distinctive qualities. Her father told her to stay away from Hamlet and to not love him, so she obeyed. Her brother told her the same thing and made her promise him that she wouldn't persue Hamlet, and she did. But then at the end of the play she goes mad and then kills herself. I found this to be really strange and didn't follow the normal pattern of how she reacts to people. Granted the murder of her father was very upsetting, but it seemed like she went to the extreme. I think what happened was that all her life people were just telling her what to do and she wanted to please them, but then when her controlling father died, she didn't know what to do, so she went crazy. For me, Ophelia's suicide was probably the most surprising aspect of the play.

Posted by Cynthia Friedman at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I actually don't think that Hamlet is a tragedy because the whole play is gloomy from the beggining. A tragedy would be something good going to bad, but there was never really a happy time in the entire play. The only part of the play that was happy was the incestuous queen before she finds out that her new husband killed her former husband, but there's something wrong with her to begin with to marry a month after the death of her husband. What's interesting is that everybody seems to love the queen, regardless of her faults. King Claudius always loved her, Hamlet is secretly madly in love with her, and the former king's ghost even has mercy on her when Hamlet is fighting with her. Why? She married his brother only one month after he died!!!!

Posted by Rebecca Kuehl at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Does anyone know anything about this? I was reading the Wikipedia article on Hamlet when I discovered the playwright Percy MacKaye actually wrote a series of prequels to Hamlet intitled The Mystery of Hamlet King of Denmark. It consists of four plays and I was just wondering if anyone had any more information on it.

Posted by Bradley Norton at 4:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the third act scene 4, Hamlet states that he must be cruel to be kind. this is something that a lot of different writers have adapted from Shakespeare's famous lines. Throughout different periods of time i recall hearing this line numerous times. I think that this line makes sense of what Hamlet is talking about. He wants to revenge his fathers death, in order to do this, he needs to kill the King claudis. in doing this he is being kind to his father and people since Claudius is not the right person to rule his kingdom. but he is also being cruel since he is planning on killing claudius, and of course that is something that is sinful in itself.

Posted by Brandi Crotty at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The large amount of senseless death in Hamlet is often discussed as being the source of tragedy in the play. I, however, think that the real tragedy in Hamlet is actually centered around Hamlet's indecisiveness. Hamlet is too often shown arguing with himself over the things that he feels he needs to do and the reasons why he shouldn't go through with the acts that seem to best solve his problems. In Titus Adronicus there wasn't any hesitation about the way revenge was going to be dealt. In that play one could truly associate the tragedy aspect of the play with the fact that there was so much bloodshed.

Posted by Loanna Stainbrook at 3:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The end of this play seemed to show a lot of aspects from shakespeares other plays, but with the right porpotion. A good number of deaths but each had some logic behind it, all the loose ends got tied up and a it even left a little to the imgination. On another topic here is Hamlet the "movie" starring Schwarzenegger.

check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUb6PBUgemc

Posted by Alexander Brown at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I find it kind of funny that in the play when people say "let me be brief" they go on for another 10, 20 lines. Also, get ready for the big question tonight...is Hamlet really crazy or just acting? This is my favorite play, so I'm looking forward to talking about that.

Posted by Patience Anderson at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After reading the play, the scene that stuck out to me the most was the play-within-a-play scene and how Hamlet instructs the players how to act. I understand that it is necessary for the actor's to get their parts right to convey the message to King Claudius but it seems like he goes to an extreme when instructing them. This scene really stuck out to me because it seemed unnecessary to me that he would need to tell them so much because they are already are actors. When I was reading it I read it as if Hamlet was almost screaming at the actors. I didn't know if there was a reason for this scene in the play because I didn't get it.

Posted by Erin Brekke at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After plowing through Hamlet I thought some of us could use a low brow take on the subject.

Animaniacs on Hamlet

Enjoy.

Posted by Allen Majkrzak at 8:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't understand why Polonius insists on getting into everybody elses business. He can't stand to be wrong or left out of the loop on anything. To me it seems that he wants everything to revolve around him and when it doesn't he finds a way for it to do so.

Posted by Whitney Tyler at 6:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)