Reflecting On Our Class Event
Reflection.. Reflection....
I have a hard time summing up events like Friday's. I just can't seem to get what I think into the right words. Yet, here goes nothing. Our Engaging Shakespeare event was easily the most fun I have ever had with a class project, and I feel like I have gained so much from the event itself and everything leading up to it. I was also really impressed with the projects from the other groups. I guess I can talk about each of those for a bit.
First off, I thought the event planning group did a fantastic job of getting everything organized and promoting our event and our class. They found a perfect room (I loved our stage!) and I was really impressed with the website that was put together and how smoothly J.J. and Austin ran everything that night. I am anxious for all the final products to be online!
The art group did a great job with their display, everything was organized really well and I could see that people enjoyed looking at their artwork. I was impressed by the number of pieces of art they were able to create in such a short time, and they were all really good quality! Their idea of each making lesson plans and then swapping and doing each others' was neat, too, because it's more authentic making sure someone else can understand and interpret where your lesson plan is trying to lead them.
I really enjoyed the sound effects and different voices that the audio group used in their rendition of Hamlet. The "(Character Name) Dies" parts are comical to read in the scripts, but it's even more entertaining in audio form. Although I think some groaning and dying noises would have been fun. I didn't get a chance to ask them at the show, but I'm curious about how they decided what lines to cut and what to keep. I'm interested to maybe listen to the whole thing and find out how much the theme or tone of the play has changed compared to other productions just based on what lines they kept and cut out.
I was impressed with the number of plays that the music video group was able to incorporate into their project and how seamlessly all of those plays fit together. I completely agreed with the point that Kara made about how Shakespeare is so much more than love stories, and the things he talks about are real and still apply to us today.
Now I might be a little bit biased, but the documentary was amazing! It was so well done. There's really not much else to say besides that they did a great job. Although if they had stuck around our rehearsals a bit more they would have caught a ton more hilarious things on film. But maybe it's good that things worked out the way they did... Anyway, what I payed attention to of the documentary as I was trying to forget how nervous I was about going up on stage, was fabulous.
And now, for my project! Lover's of Shakespeare! I am so glad that I chose the group that I did. We put so much hard work into our mini-play, and it was all worth it. It's so neat for me to be able to look back at how all the pieces fell together and we ended up with our final product. I never realized just how much effort and creative energy goes into doing something like that. Every single person in our group had so much to contribute. And it made me so happy every time the audience laughed at some little joke or line that was my idea, even if I wasn't the one delivering it. Even though I was the youngest in our group and probably had the least experience, I learned just how much I had to give when Romeo died by 5 Hour Energy Drink, Hamlet got his hat thrown at him, Ophelia exited with a splash, and I entered via boat. Unfortunately Juliet objected to death by lightsaber.. I guess what I'm saying is that I have always somewhat undervalued myself. But in this it was very easy for me to see just how much I did contribute along the way, and it was really wonderful to have a group who took my ideas seriously. I feel like I have grown a lot, as a Shakespeare student and as a person, through just doing things the way Shakespeare wanted and putting on a show.

Meeting the Learning Outcomes
I'm almost positive that our final project fits into all of the learning outcomes, but I'll try to include some other examples as well.
Since writing the midterm post, my Shakespeare literacy has continued to increase. We read King Lear, which was another first time read for me this semester. I watched the 2010 movie version of The Tempest (which I didn't much care for, so decided against posting about) and also re watched the Kenneth Branaugh adaptation of Hamlet on my own. Seeing Hamlet after reading it again and being in the middle of my project group's different interpretation of it was a neat experience.
I have also gained depth in my Shakespeare literacy through Analyzing Shakespeare Critically. Woo! I had a lot of analytical posts before the midterm interview and continued that by finding motifs and imagery in King Lear. I also took what I have learned through analyzing Shakespeare productions and applied it to a different genre when I posted about the Savior of the World production I went to over Thanksgiving break.
Engaging Shakespeare Creatively took up a large majority of my time dedicated to this class. Which is great! Before this semester I never would have thought that I could pull from, condense, and add to one of Shakespeare's plays to make a 5 minute script that still made sense. Before this semester I had never memorized a single line of Shakespeare, now I have my part of a 15 minute play memorized, and I ended up accidentally memorizing most of Gabe's lines, too! I got to act Shakespeare on stage and on camera(through the documentary). It has been such a good experience for me and I have grown so much closer to Shakespeare's works through my personal interaction with them.
I also got to Share Shakespeare Meaningfully because I engaged it creatively. Just as it happened with the Grassroots Shakespeare Company version of Macbeth, my excitement and enthusiasm for what I was involved in got the people around me interested in what I was doing. Except this time it was even more meaningful to me because I wasn't getting my roommate excited about a production of Macbeth someone else did, but I was sharing with my friends my excitement for something I was personally involved in creating. I would regularly come home from play rehearsals and tell my roommates about some crazy new gag we came up with, or rant to my best friend about how much fun I was having. So it was that much more meaningful when each of my friends who came to the event told me how much they liked our play (or at least, that's what they said!). I am sure that this will event will become a bond between those who experiences it, and I am so glad to have been able to associate Shakespeare with a fun and entertainment, as well as give it meaning, and hopefully I have impacted the people around me's opinion of Shakespeare for the better.

As a last note, in the midterm interview the two things that I needed to work on were self directed learning and some more concise posting. Excluding this post of course, I did make an effort to keep some of my thoughts more concise and organized. I also tried to self-direct my learning by revisiting old topics and focusing on things that interested me throughout multiple plays. One of those was animal imagery, which I first posted about with The Merchant of Venice, and later revisited with the monster motif and predator comparisons in King Lear. I also followed up on a post I had done with Winter's Tale about Greek Mythology (specifically Oedipus) when I drew comparisons between King Lear and the same topic.

So there you have it. The end of another semester. Brother Burton, I would just like you to know that this has been by far my favorite class this semester. I have truly enjoyed it. Thank you for pushing us to learn on our own terms and helping me take my Shakespearean education into my own control. I'll miss this class.

And now, to end this blog the only acceptable way it could be done,
Hakuna Mutata. It means no worries.
-Martina

 "It is as if Shakespeare wished to portray a world in which most men and women are beasts, and only the exceptional few [are fully human]."

—G.B. Harrison

King Lear is no exception to this generalization. There are a number of animal images and metaphors in the text of King Lear which directly relate characters to beasts, making them seem less than human. In at least 25 instances animal imagery is applied, including references to wild geese, bears, monkeys, crabs, snails, goats, horses, and many dog breeds. However, the most pointed and vicious of the animal imagery seems to be directed at Goneril and Regan. In Act 1 Scene 4, Lear says to Regan, "Detested kite! Thou liest!" A kite here is, sadly, not something you fly in the wind on a nice summer's day. A kite is a bird of prey that feeds on small land animals and fish. Already in Act 1 Lear is suggesting that Regan's lies are cold and calculated, to take advantage to smaller, weaker prey like himself. In Act 3 Scene 4 Lear extends the metaphor to include both Goneril and Regan when he despairs at having fathered "those pelican daughters." Pelicans are another bird who live off of fish, snatching them out of the water when they feel the most secure. If Goneril and Regan are the kite and pelican, then Lear must be the fish. His daughters have beaten down on him and taken advantage enough to make him feel small, weak, and fish-like. They hunt and prey on him, and then tear apart his flesh with "sharp-tooth-d unkindness, like a vulture" (Act 2 Scene 4). What might be the most tragic part is that Lear, like a fish in the water, felt safe and secure when he divided his kingdom between his daughters. He never saw their cruel, sharp beaks coming.

Birds aren't the only mean animals that Goneril and Regan can be compared to. They are also likened to serpents and tigers, which are not only both predators, but both animals are hunters which are known for their slyness and quickness. Goneril lies in wait, hidden beneath her confessed love for her father, until she strikes Lear "with her tongue, most serpent-like, upon the very heart" (Act 2 Scene 4). The serpent simile is suited for Lear's unfaithful daughters. Most of the time you never see a snake until it's within striking distance. They blend in with their environment to survive and surprise their prey. Similarly, Goneril and Regan hide their true intentions from Lear by blending into their surroundings, doing and saying what is expected of them and decieving their father. As soon as they are close enough to strike, and are secure in already having what they want, Goneril and Regan reveal their true, serpent-like natures in the way they treat their father. By the time Lear realizes who it really is that is slithering in the grass at his feet, it's too late for him to retreat. His daughters strike and he falls because of his misplaced security and trust.

Just as we saw before in the Merchant of Venice, human nature is better understood when compared to that of animals. Animal imagery helps us to gain a clear picture of the emotions, characteristics, and actions which are meant to be portrayed. In this instance, it helped clarify to me what terrible, awful daughters Goneril and Regan were, and how stupid Lear was for trusting them.

Check it.

This class has ruined me for theater. There, I said it. Seriously though, before this semester I was just a naive girl who went to plays to hear a nice story. Now I analyze stage design and creative intent.

Last Saturday my Dad was still in town for Thanksgiving so we went with my aunt and uncle(who live in American Fork) to the LDS Conference Center Theater to watch Savior of the World. Many of you have probably seen it before, but I hadn't, so I'll give a quick summary. It was about Christ(obviously), so it worked really well as a Christmas message, but I thought it was really unique because it focused more on the events before and after Christ's life and on all the miracles and people of great faith that had to be strong for things to turn out the way they did. It opened with Zacharias and Elizabeth wishing for a child and the opportunity for Zacharias to burn the incense in the temple, then they showed Mary just before she was betrothed to Joseph. The play followed the story lines of those two couples throughout the first act, which ended with the shepherds visiting at the birth of Christ. After intermission, the second act opened with the stone being rolled in front of Christ's tomb and followed the story of the apostles and Mary Magdeline encountering the resurrected Christ and Thomas' struggle with faith when Christ does not immediately appear unto him. The play ended with the apostles promising to "feed my sheep" and running off to preach, as well as with a song.

While it was different for me to find myself thinking critically for a play that wasn't in Shakespearean, biblical language can be almost as foreign at times. But I did notice some really neat things that I don't think I would have if I weren't in this class. Firstly, the set was really amazing, and played well with the division between heaven and earth and how the two interact. The lower level had different arches and entryways that could be used to make the set feel like lots of different rooms or one big marketplace, and the floor had different sections which could rise and change, and even open to reveal a rocky peak, that made it really diverse. The upper level was like a bridge between heaven and earth, where any number of angels stood watching. Behind all of it was a backdrop of the sky which could change from night to day and even showed the new star at Christ's birth. I particularly enjoyed watching how many angels there were at any given point during the play. They would quietly come and go, some standing, some sitting. There would be sitting angels in odd numbers, always, because (I learned in a drawing class once) odd amounts of things are more visually pleasing. Whenever an angel came down to appear to someone on earth, they would go down a staircase in the back(that I probably wasn't supposed to be able to see) and come through one of the arches, then be struck with a bright white spotlight. I thought the way the did it all was really neat. The angel Gabriel spent a lot of time at the center of the upper level watching over Mary and Joseph, and later the apostles. It seemed like they were suggesting God always watching over us in the form of having angels overhead. Another thing was the amount of angels present at different points in the story. As you can see from the pictures, at Christs birth there are at least thirty of them and by the end of the play there are none. The theme I pulled from that was that heaven was very involved in the events surrounding Christs life, but now that he is gone we have to rely on his teachings and our own faith, rather than having everything given to us.

The other neat thing that I wanted to talk about was the portrayal of Christ. They never once showed his face. In the first act he doesn't appear except as a baby doll. In the second he is sometimes a voice from nowhere while the actors seem to see him, and sometimes a figure in all white with a hood up and his back to the audience. It was a weird way to portray Christ in a play that focused on him, but once I got used to it I really liked it. It put the focus less on Christ as an awe inspiring being(which he is, of course) and helped me to realize the amazing people and great trials of faith that happened surrounding his life. It helped me see how brave and faithful Mary was, and what a genuinely good person Joseph was for accepting and loving her still. It helped me to sympathize with Thomas' frustration and applaud Mary Magdeline and Peter for their leadership and courage. And, ultimately, all of their stories come back to Christ and their faith in him as their Savior. So, without once trying to interpret the character of Christ, Savior of the World taught me so much about who he is and the effect he has on people's lives.

I'm sorry this isn't very Shakespeare related, it's just what I really felt like writing about. And it seemed relevant at least in the sense that I wouldn't have loved this play so much if I weren't involved in this class. I'll be sure to post about the gruesome and bloody, non-uplifting King Lear in my next post this week.:)

I think Shakespeare was a fan of Greek writings. Oedipus the King in particular. I posted earlier in the semester about parallels between Oedipus and Perdita from Winter's Tale, and the recent blinding of Gloucester in King Lear brought my mind back to Sophocles' masterpiece. A lot of really interesting parallels can be drawn between Gloucester and Oedipus.
Although Oedipus blinds himself out of shame and Gloucester is blinded by an enemy, both find that they see better without their eyes. Gloucester reflects on the uselessness of eyes when he says, "I have no way and therefore want no eyes; I stumbled when I saw." Similarly, the blind prophet Teiresias declared to Oedipus, "thou hast eyes, yet see'st not in what misery thou art fallen, nor where thou dwellest nor with whom for mate." It is interesting that until Gloucester looses his eyes he does not realize that he has been mislead and mistreated his son, Edgar; and, upon realizing that he has killed his father and married his mother, Oedipus promptly blinds himself and his eyes become opened to the true horror of what he has done. Losing physical sight equals finding moral insight. Perhaps the message is that we can't truly look inward and find our faults until we stop focusing on everything else going on around us. Once Gloucester and Oedipus loose their sense of sight, they have nowhere to look but inside and at their own faults.
Another parallel between the two characters is their children. Antigone is faithful to Oedipus, her father, and wanders with him after he blinds himself. Edgar, likewise, is faithful to his father and leads him, though somewhat connivingly, when Gloucester cannot see for himself. Edgar even saves his father's life my not allowing him to jump off a cliff. The interesting thing about these faithful children is that both have been wronged by their father, but are still faithful to him. Antigone is the daughter of a messed up, incestuos marriage, and only days before Gloucester was sending hunting parties to kill Edgar. This is also seen in the Cordelia, who loves her father, Lear, even after he disowns and banishes her. Lear, as a foil of Gloucester, can be seen as metaphorically blind to the manipulations of his less loyal children. All three of these "blind" men needed exceptional circumstances to make them change their ways, and were fortunate enough to have children who could help them see the light. The fact that none of these faithful children had to loose their eyes to find a respectful, honorable way of life is comforting. Perhaps if we look inside ourselves and strive for a recognition of good before we have reached rock bottom we can avoid losing sight in a gruesome and bloody way.


Just a side note, I learned in my World Civilization class a few weeks ago that Roman actors, when portraying Oedipus the King, were actually expected to gouge their own eyes out on stage. Just makes me thankful to live in a slightly less bloodthirsty culture today.

So, as a Production Group, we had our first read through of a very premature script on Friday. Can I just say? It was a blast! I'm so excited for this group! Though not quite as excited as Averill always seems to be.:) Here's a look at Eric reading some of Hamlet's lines. Quite dramatically. Sorry for the terrible quality, as it was done with a phone. And make sure to turn the sound all the way up!

I'm also going to try to get this up on our group blog, so check it out!

Since we just got the group blog set up today, I'm sure no one is paying much attention to it yet. But I did throw up a quick researching post. So go check it out.
http://loveslabours232.blogspot.com/

Yay! The start of another tragedy! I can't wait to get attached to these characters only to have them all die! If you'd like a summary of King Lear so far... Google it. Here's what I got from Act 1:

"Come not between a dragon and his wrath."(1.1.120)
"Sure her offense/Must be of such unnatural degree/That monsters it"(1.1.237)
"He cannot be such a monster"(1.2.421)
"More hideous when thou show'st thee in a child/ Than the sea monster"(1.4.785)
"Monster ingratitude!"(1.5.913)

I'm sensing a motif... Maybe Shakespeare thinks there's a little monster inside all of us. King Lear's might be a bit bigger than everyone else's. Although Gonerill and Regan are seeming pretty monstrous as well. Let's be on the lookout for who's inner monster gets the best of them, and who can overcome.

So I wanted to talk about the two plays I saw this weekend, Macbeth and The Tempest. Cassandra and Averill already covered the Grassroots Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth pretty well, and Averill compared it to The Tempest. So I figured I would share my personal experience and what it taught me, more than differences in the productions themselves.

First off, I loved Macbeth. I actually went twice, the second time because I told my roommate about it and she wanted to go. The inter-activeness of the play really brought it to life. I didn't even mind that it was freezing and I stood for 2 hours. The second time I cheated a little bit, because I knew what would happen, and stood right in the center of the groundling area against the stage(the spot where the actors messed with the groundlings the most). I'm really glad I got to go twice, it was a completely different play because there was a different crowd. And the second time(on closing night) they even brought out the "Queen of England" to try to please her with their performance. Lines that I thought were scripted turned out to be the actors playing off the audience, and times when I thought the actor was making a side joke and messing with the audience turned out to be actual lines. I could see that the actors were really having fun with it. And they were awesome at reacting to whatever the groundlings threw at them. Literally, the girl next to me threw a piece of bread at Macbeth... And he ate it.

Going to see the Tempest at the Pioneer Theater was a completely different experience. Not better or worse, just different. The stage felt so disconnected and far away(because it was). And the actors seemed like they were pretending the audience wasn't there. If anything had happened in the audience, I get the feeling the actors would have just plowed on and pretended nothing happened. It felt like I was observing events through a window, rather than being a part of them. Of course there's nothing wrong with a serious, formal play, but after being yelled at and spit on the night before, I had a hard time staying awake in a dark room with the stage a football field away.

Both productions were extremely well done and did what they intended to do. I just tend to lean towards the informal, Shakespearean way of doing things: "Let's throw stuff at the groundlings and get people involved." After all, we learn from doing, not seeing. For example, my war cry improved tenfold this weekend.

A. Learning Outcomes:

1. How have I gained Shakespeare literacy?
   The breadth of my Shakespeare literacy has increased quite a bit since the beginning of this semester. Of the five plays that I have studied so far(four with the class and one individually), I had only read one of them before, and I had never even heard of some of them. Now I have a general knowledge of the plot and major themes of Hamlet, Winter's Tale, Love's Labor's Lost, The Tempest, and The Merchant of Venice. I have also found that I have greater depth in my understanding of Shakespeare. I am completely comfortable with the language now, and have had a lot of fun digging deeper into the text and applying theme's to my own life. I also experienced going to my first Shakespeare production this semester. I have now been to four total(three if you don't count going to Macbeth twice) and am excited to see more throughout my life. I've learned a lot about the different media Shakespeare can be shared in, such as film vs. theatre, and the emotions and messages that can be in portrayed through different methods. I also spent time viewing the movie for The Merchant of Venice and am excited for the day when I get to do the same for The Tempest.
2. How have I analyzed Shakespeare critically?
   I have actually spent a good amount of time analyzing Shakespeare's text critically. It's my favorite kind of blog post, because it's the most straightforward. Earlier in the semester I talked about possible ulterior motives of Gertrude, criticized contradictions between plays and reality, compared Winter's Tale to Greek mythology, and explored the use of costume in staging a production. I also analyzed a passage of Love's Labor's Lost and compared the relationships to those of Much Ado About Nothing. More recently, I looked at several sections of The Tempest and talked about the role of ambition in decision making. I also spent a lot of time critically analyzing my individual play and a production of it and going back and forth on the idea of Shylock as a victim or villain.
3. How have I engaged Shakespeare creatively?
   I am planning on fulfilling this learning objective much more than I already have through the final project. This focus is the hardest for me, because I tend to spend more time listening and observing, and less time actually doing. I really admire people who are super creative, but I've always had a hard time with it. However, I am trying to be better! Just recently I did a blog post where I explored possible staging and costuming in The Tempest before we went to see the production. I talked about one particular scene, the feast, and how I thought it could be staged and the need for creative costumes. Unfortunately, a lot of what I had hoped to see was cut from the production we went to.
4. How have I shared Shakespeare meaningfully?
   Sharing Shakespeare meaningfully was a huge part of the individual play assignment, and I feel like I fulfilled the objectives pretty well. I shared in the community by asking people to fill out a short survey and attempting to discuss the answers with them, and I shared globally by chiming in on a Boston cycling blog about the Merchant of Venice's theme of tolerance. I also had a neat sharing experience this last weekend with the Grassroots Shakespeare Company production of Macbeth. I went to see it Friday night with some of my classmates and was so excited about it when I got back to my apartment and talked to my roommate that I ended up taking my roommate and her friend back on Monday. I thought it was really neat that my enthusiasm transferred over to my roommate and just by being excited about what I had seen, it prompted her to want to go. It was a blast going back a second time and seeing her reactions. (She loved it, by the way.)

B. Self-directed Learning

• I tend to learn best in very structured settings with clear purposes and steps to reach a goal. So some of my self-directed learning has been creating that organization for myself in a class that is not quite so rigid. As part of that, I have stuck very closely to the blogging schedule and the days that I chose to post on. I have also made sure to always do the assigned readings before class. I like to mark in my copy of the play when I come across interesting lines or as I am noticing motifs. That way, when I am looking for blogging ideas I can flip through the text and revisit the things that interested me. Originally a lot of my self-directed learning through blogging was done with a "what can I blog about today to get this assignment done" attitude. But lately I have been thinking, reading, and watching Shakespeare more in terms of sharing, and in a day I now think of more ideas to write about then I will ever have the time or means for. Now the "what am I going to blog about today?" question is more one of narrowing down choices than searching for them. These days I am excited to learn and to share, and I feel like that's a good sign.

C. Collaborative and Social Learning

• I am really enjoying working and talking with my learning group in class and through the internet. It's really nice to have the group of people I share ideas with in class be the same ones who read my posts later, when the thoughts are more fully formed. I also really enjoy watching my group members' thoughts grow and expand. The only issue I have with the group learning has been with these last few weeks. More of the posting has been to fulfill individual assignments and it has been harder to meaningfully comment on posts about plays and productions that I am not familiar with. I feel like the blogging groups work better when we blog about the plays we all read. I am more comfortable with social collaborating of ideas through blogs than I am with trying to understand something I'm not familiar with. Having said that, my group members have done a fantastic job. I feel like we are all doing well with making informed and constructive comments. I learn a lot from their opinions and view points that they share on my posts. I have also been learning from my interactions. Within class that interaction comes mostly from group discussion and comments people in other groups make. Outside of class I have found myself applying Shakespeare to the world. When I see couples now I wonder if they are "Perdita and Florizel couple" or a "Beatrice and Benedick couple." (At BYU the first is probably more common.)

D. Looking Ahead

• With the remainder of the semester, I hope to be as familiar with King Lear as I have been with the past plays we studied, if not more so. I am going to keep up with my scheduled reading and posting and maybe do some more sporadic posting as I think of things to share, rather than only when I'm scheduled. I'm also hoping to put a lot more work into engaging Shakespeare creatively, and I feel like I'll be able to accomplish that with the final project. I am planning on joining Averill in her production. I think it will be a really good learning experience for me. I have always been on the audience side of the stage and am excited to get up there and experience Shakespeare from a performer's point of view.

With the global sharing objective in mind, I did a search on Icerocket for anything new or interesting concerning my individual play, The Merchant of Venice. And I stumbled across something really interesting! There's a Boston cycling blog that did a piece less that two weeks ago about drivers' actions towards cyclists and sharing the road. It's called The Bard and the Bike: A Plea for Tolerance. In the post, the author takes Shylock's famous speech about tolerance and antisemitism and rewrites it about having tolerance for cyclists. It's actually pretty good. 

This is Shylock's speech, done by Al Pacino:

And here is the blog's speech:

I am a Cyclist. Don’t Cyclists have places to be? Don’t Cyclists have friends, families,
engagements, jobs, appointments, obligations; aren’t we entitled to
the same rights, injured by the same collisions, subject
to the same laws, ticketed by the same police,
enduring the same weather and road conditions
as Drivers? If you cut us off, do we not seethe?
If you yield to us, do we not wave? If you run us over,
do we not die? And if you do not respect us on the road, shall we respect you?
If we are alike in all these other ways, we are alike in this way too.
If a Cyclist takes the lane, how do Drivers react?
With anger and aggression. If a Driver cuts off a Cyclist, what is
the driving force behind the Cyclist’s response? Aggression.
I will emulate the irresponsibility and indifference you teach me,
and take it to a whole new level – regardless of the consequences for you.

The whole post is really interesting. You can read it at the link above.

And since I recently made the car to bike transition (not by choice, my car died right before I moved up to Provo this summer) I felt like I could give some insights in the driver/cyclist relationship. If you go to the blog and scroll all the way down you can read my comment. It was essentially aimed at explaining how this speech fit into the rest of the play, with Shylock, the intolerant man, asking for tolerance. I simply encouraged them not to make Shylock and Antonio's mistakes, and to be a little more tolerant yourself before asking for other people to make way. 

There hasn't been a response yet, but I'll post about it as soon as I hear anything. Hopefully it'll be productive, I felt like I tried pretty hard to be considerate in my comment. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

For my local sharing objective, I decided to come up with a brief survey on some common misconceptions about Shakespeare and use it as a talking point. The questions are vague and can be argued either way, so my hope was that some of the people I harassed would challenge the questions and/or what I told them were the "right" answers. It worked pretty well. And I tried to work in my individual play as examples for why questions were true or false. The people who didn't care didn't ask for the answers, but those that did led to some good discussion.

So don't judge my flaky questions, they were conversation starters. Here's the survey and a tally of answers I got:

1. T / F Shakespeare wrote original masterpieces
   True:6  False:3
2. T / F Shakespeare was more concerned with crowd pleasing than making deep comments on society
   True:3  False:6
3. T / F Shakespeare’s plays tend to have a clear protagonist and antagonist
   True:6  False:3
4. T / F The best way to study a Shakespeare play is by renting the movie
   True:0  False:9
5. T / F Shakespeare was subject to the cultural views of his day, including racism and elitism
   True:5  False:4

And, when asked, here's the answers I gave:

1. False. In the Renaissance there was no such thing as copyright. Writers borrowed ideas and stories from each other and whoever wrote it best got credit. For obvious reasons, that tended to be Shakespeare. ex. Hamlet is based off an ancient Scandinavian tale, "The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet" by Arthur Brooke was Romeo and Juliet's direct source.
2. True. There's not really a way to know his motives, but I lean towards true. All Shakespeare's play are comments on society, but his main audience was the common man. He brought his plays down to the groundling's level with cheap jokes.
3. False. I used Shylock from my play, The Merchant of Venice, as an example for this. His character's are always more complex than just good or bad. The ones who may seem to be the antagonist tend to have bad motives and there's always that moment where you sympathize with the bad guy.
4. True. Shakespeare never meant for his plays to be read. They weren't published for the first time until 7 years after his death. He intended for his plays to be performed, and it is much easier to get the theme and feel of a play from experiencing it than reading it.
5. False. While Shakespeare included the racial and elitist stereotypes of the day in his plays, he almost always goes against expectations. The clowns and low men always seem to know what's going on while the royalty run around with their heads cut off and kill each other. In Merchant of Venice his Christian audience would have instinctually disliked the Jew. But Shakespeare gives Shylock a famous speech that speaks strongly prejudice. "Hath not a Jew eyes?" "If you prick me I will bleed."

Obviously there are some faults in my questioning. And all the arguments are true, but they don't exactly match up with the questions. The funnest part of this assignment was seeing how many people just took my word for it, and who thought about it a little more and challenged what I told them. There was one guy I met, let's call him Joe, who seemed pretty interested in what I had to say and came up with some awesome comments. I guess I should have seen it coming when I interrupted him reading The Aeneid in the CougarEat. Here's as close as I can remember of what Joe said to my answers:

1. Every author has sources and influences.  The way they put the work together makes it their own original. (A good point, although I would argue that most authors today don't use plagiarism as a literary tool)
2. There are specific things in plays meant for royalty, so it wasn't all for commoners (He did, however, consent that I was right on more general terms)
3. Many of them do, but not all (More of a comment on my questioning skills I guess..)
4. When I explained my reasoning to Joe, he agreed that, other than actually going to a play, watching a movie is the best way to go. (I, in turn, argued that movies are much more convenient and easily available than a production of whatever play you happen to be studying.)
5. He had to be subject to them in some degree because he wrote about them (On this one I think we ended up agreeing that Shakespeare was subject to these views in the sense that he understood them, but was able to look past them enough to invert stereotypes and make a point.)

So there you go! I shared Shakespeare with my community! Talking to people about what I'm learning was actually pretty fun. I got the chance to see just how well I could articulate the ideas that have been forming in my head all semester, and I got to see some other people's perspectives as well. Although I have to say, the hardest part about this was probably just sucking it up and walking up to a stranger to ask for their opinion. But it feels like a good learning experience. And somebody out there knows just a little bit more about Shakespeare because of me.

I haven't done this before, so I figure I'd give it a try..

In our group discussion during class I brought up the idea of costuming and staging in The Tempest, especially the feast scene where a table full of food disappears from before Alonso and company and there are misshapen spirits and fantastical beings. I was wondering how they would have accomplished these things in the Renaissance and how the production we are going to see this weekend might do it differently. I didn't do much research because I wanted to use this blog a bit creatively and focus more on how I think it could be done.

The stage directions for the banquet read:
Thunder and lightning. Enter Ariel like a harpy, claps his wings upon the table, and, with a quaint device, the banquet vanishes.
In class, we talked about possibly having the table full of food lifted up into the air and out of view. That's possible for a production today, but in the Renaissance the typical place for these performances was the Globe Theatre, which is outdoors, and has no roof to hoist a table up to. For Shakespeare's time I picture someone out of sight making loud banging noises for thunder as shadows were made in whatever lighting they had to represent lightning. There could have been a long, thin table, so that the feast could appear large and appetizing. The table could be stationed over the trapdoor so that when Ariel hits it with his wings it folds in the middle and falls down through the trapdoor and out of sight.
There are many other ways it could have been done. The only thing we get from the text is that a "quaint device" was used. My footnotes indicate that the word quaint meant something different in those days, and that it was some sort of mechanism or person designed to make the banquet disappear with a blend of "imagination, skill, and elegance."

When the spirits and strange beings perform, we get these descriptions from the text:
Enter several strange shapes.
"Who would believe that there were mountaineers,
Dewlapped like bulls, whose throats had hanging at 'em
Wallets of flesh, or that there were such men
Whose heads stood in their breasts" -Gonzalo
There's more description here than there are with many other fantastical things in The Tempest, which potentially makes it harder for productions to live up the Gonzalo's words and Shakespeare's original plan for this play. With this I am mostly curious to see if the production we go to this weekend will include these people with heads in their breasts and fleshy throats, or if they will simplify the spirits for convenience's sake. I hope they keep it in, because I am really curious to see how it would be done.

I know I don't have much experience in planning and creating things like this, I've always been on the observer side of things. So I could use your input. How do you think people from the Renaissance could have pulled this off and made it a thing of spectacle without any kind of modern special effects? And what are you hoping to see this weekend?

I searched the vast expanse of knowledge and truth known as the internet and came up with some pretty interesting things people were saying about the two focuses I ended up taking with Merchant of Venice: is Shylock the villain or victim?, and animal imagery.  On the topic of Shylock, I stumbled across a "Yahoo!Answers" question which posed the same idea. Although the questioner there seems to come to the conclusion that he is the victim, the commenters all have good points. Specifically, one answer suggests that Shakespeare is a product of his time and we should not try to impose our moral views on him. I also found a discussion board where one user suggests that he is simply both. After making a case for both sides, he says:

"You can make a case either way. For me, I'd argue that he's both at once: though like the Wittgenstein duck/rabbit, at any one moment he seems one or the other."

For animal imagery, a blog post gave me a little better perspective of Shakespeare's using animals as every day images by comparing it to things we say today such as:

"Like a deer caught in headlights"-Surprised look.

"There is more than two ways to skin a catfish"-There is more than two ways to do something.

I also found reference to animal imagery in Macbeth, Othello, and King Lear. So it seems like I was correct in assuming that Shakespeare relies heavily on it in many of his works.

So what does any of this have to do with me? 

Well like I said before, I'm newly exploring the idea of working with wildlife for the rest of my life. So my mind has been on animals for a while now. The idea of how animals and humans relate to each other and animals can portray human emotions and actions is fascinating to me. And for Shylock.. at the beginning of the year I posted about needing to find my self, and looking for characters with unsure identities. Shylock seems to fit this better than any other Shakespeare character. It is unsure on what side of our emotions he should be, whether pitied or hated, and his identity as a Jew is taken away from him when Antonio says he must become Christian or lose everything he owns. I don't think anyone could feel more confused with their identity than that..

Until next time, Hakuna Mutata:)

While I was unsure before about whether or not Shylock is villain or victim in The Merchant of Venice, upon closer inspection, the BBC "Theatre in Video" production seemed to be leaning towards villain. Shylock's character is dressed in all black, and the actor chosen was shorter than any other. Whether intentional or not, the visual difference between Shylock and other men sets him apart from them, and the black clothing suggest evil or darkness. Maybe even a 'black heart'. In the climax of the play, the court scene, Shylock and Antonio are placed much more closely on stage than I would have pictured them. The producers seem to be saying, "look at this man, he can stand a foot away from a good man like Antonio and demand his life." Villain. The physical closeness of the characters, and Antonio's friends intense pleadings with Shylock, reveal a heartless and unforgiving man.

The themes of mercy and justice were also extremely emphasized in the film. Shylock refuses to have mercy on Antonio, saying he wants justice to be fulfilled. Portia(disguised as the lawyer Balthazar) tries to convice Shylock to take his money and leave. The actress helped me to better understand the theme in the way she softly, almost pleadingly, encouraged Shylock to show mercy. But when the tables were turned and Shylock was the one in need of mercy, the judge spared his life before Shylock could even ask. The judge said it was "the see the difference in our spirit." So once again Shylock is the villain, the one who showed no mercy and asked for justice. It was the judge, by Antonio's request, who portrayed the Christian concept of mercy when he could have dealt Shylock with justice.

So there you go, Shylock is the villain and he got what he deserved. Right?

Oh.. poor guy..

Some other things that I noticed about the production:

Antonio(right) saying goodbye to Bassanio(left) with
Portia(disguised as lawyer) listening in.

• It was set up like a stage production, but obviously for a movie viewing audience. The actors talked too softly for a play, moved around too much, and interacted with the camera.
• I like that all the [asides] that weren't to another character were directed at the camera. It formed a connection between me and the character, like they were confiding in me as a viewer.
• The setting was very minimalistic, but the costumes were extravagant. Called attention and focus to the actor.
• Camera angles usually focused on speaker, but sometimes captured powerful emotions in listeners
• Shylock's daughter, Jessica, didn't have a Hebrew accent. This is a foreshadow of her running away with a Christian and not identifying herself with the Jews.
• The women in the court scene were not very well disguised as men. It emphasized the gullibility and ignorance of the men for not recognizing them.

So as I was looking at the individual learning objectives for this week, I realized that one post fulfilling all the requirements would be quite a beastly post, and there's a good chance even my eyes would glaze over trying to read it. So here is the first of three, maybe four, posts on my individual play: The Merchant of Venice.

There's something similar in all these lines. Can you spot it?:

"I am Sir Oracle, and when I ope my lips let no dog bark!"

"You call me misbeliever, cutthroat dog, and spit on my Jewish gaberdine... Should I not say, "Hath a dog money? is it possible a cut can lend three thousand ducats?"... you spurned me such a day; another time you called me dog-and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys."

"The patch is kind enough, but a huge feeder, snail-slow in profit, and he sleeps by day more than the wildcat. Drones hive not with me."

"I have never heard a passion so confused, so strange, outrageous, and so variable as the dog Jew did utter in the streets"

"Thou called'st me dog before thou hadst cause, but since I am a dog beware my fangs."

"Oh, be though damned, inexecrable dog... Souls of animals infuse themselves into the trunks of men... for thy desires are wolvish, bloody, starved, and ravenous."

"For do but note a wild and wanton herd or race of youthful and unhandled colts fetching mad bounds, bellowing and neighing loud."

Yes! You got it. Shakespeare uses a lot of animal imagery. And in this particular play, lots of dogs. Maybe I'm hypersensitive to the subject because I'm still on the fence with my newest idea for a major (Wildlife and Wildlands Conservation), but as I was reading through the text I couldn't help but notice the motif. I almost focused only on the dogs, because there are a lot of them, and, for the most part, they  all focus on Shylock. But I though it was important to recognize that he uses animals generally for comparisons, as well as to make a repeated point about one character.

Shylock is compared to a dog over and over again. Sometimes by others, sometimes by himself. With today's attitude of dogs as man's best friend, this might not be much worse of a comparison than to say that Shylock was inferior, but loved. However, in Shakespeare's time the idea of keeping dogs as pets was frowned upon. They were used for hunting and gaurding, and not much more. One special troupe of dogs used was trained to preform, do tricks, and jig as part of Elizabethan entertainment. Another form of entertainment, dog fighting, dates back thousands of years. But their value as companions was not appreciated. 

So as Shylock is repeatedly being called a dog, there is a sort of dehumanization going on. They are saying he is inhuman and less than them. He claims they call him dog without cause, and then warns them to beware his fangs. I think images of violence are easier for people to imagine when they are linked to animals rather than people. We like to think of people as rational, and animals as driven by instinct. With Shylock acting as the animal, his anger with Antonio seems much more real and dangerous. And Shylock seems more inhuman and less capable of mercy. The other characters dehumanize Shylock by comparing him with a dog, and he retaliates by showing anger and intolerance characteristic of an animal. Still not sure if he's the villain of not...

As we're getting into The Tempest, there is a storm and a shipwreck and there are at least three separate groups (that I know of so far) that are stranded on the island. It seems odd to me that the very first thing someone in each group did was assume that everyone else was dead, and then look to see what they could gain from the situation.

Commonality of wrecking a ship
"Every day some sailor's wife, the masters of some merchant, and the merchant have just our theme of woe. But for the miracle-I mean our preservation-few in millions can speak like us." -Gonzalo
This quote suggests to me that shipwreck, and death and loss resulting from shipwreck, was very common in Shakespeare's day. In a brief history of Bermuda, there are four historic shipwrecks documented from 1500-1699. Which means there were many more that were not written about, obvious from the map here. So it seems like the characters of The Tempest were somewhat justified in thinking that anyone not with them must have perished. But there does seem to be some other reason why many of them gave up hope so quickly.


Let's all assume everyone's dead
Ferdinand: 
"The ditty doth remember my drowned father."
Alonso:
"My son is lost."
Sebastian:
"Milan and Naples have more widows in them of this business' making than we bring men to comfort them."
Antonio:
"'Tis as impossible that he's undrowned as he that sleeps here swims"
Trinculo:
"I should know that voice. It should be-but he is drowned, and these are devils."


What do we stand to gain?
Ferdinand:
"I am the best (highest ranking) of them that speak this speech (Italian)."
Ferdinand assumes the king, his father, is dead. And therefore assumes that he is now king.
Gonzalo:
"Had I plantation of this isle... and were the king on 't... I would with such perfection govern, sir, to excel the Golden Age."
Antonio (to Sebastian):
"My strong imagination sees a crown dropping upon thy head."
Sebastian (to Antonio): 
"As thou got'st Milan, I'll come by Naples. Draw thy sword. One stroke shall free the from the tribute which thou payest, and I the King shall love thee."
If the king, his son, and any witnesses are dead, Sebastian becomes king and Antonio gains his love and freedom from tribute.
Stephano:
"Trinculo, the King and all our company else being drowned, we will inherit here."
This quote pretty much sums up all the others. Stephano, a butler, believes that everyone higher ranking than him is dead, and plans on inheriting what would otherwise go to men above him.

The coat of the King of Naples.
 (What all these men were after)

Can't get any higher than the top
It's interesting to note that, though he believes his son to be dead at first, the king, Alonso, eventually finds hope and goes out to "search for [his] poor son." He is the only character who doesn't have anything to gain from the death of another. Since Alonso is already king, no one else's death would be beneficial to him, so he hopes his son lives. All the other characters have something to gain from the death of others, and so give up hope much more quickly. Sebastian and Antonio even go so far as to try and kill the King and Gonzalo so that they can be in higher positions of power when they return home. I'm sensing some Macbeth parallels here...




If I only had a brain.. or a conscience.
The case of Antonio and Sebastian stands out from the others. While all the other ambitions of characters rely on fortune, or misfortune, granting them the death of a superior, Antonio and Sebastian's ambitions must be taken by force. It is easy to justify taking power when the men before you were killed by nature, but it should not be so easy to justify killing for gain. Shakespeare's characters, however, seem to be burdened very little by their consciences. When speaking of murder Sebastian asks, "But for your conscience?" To which Antonio basically replies, 'I haven't got one. Nothing bothers me.' His justifications for the murder of the king are reminiscent of Berowne of Love's Labour's Lost justifying his pursuit of women. If they can put enough words together, then they can justify their actions to themselves. Sebastian's conscience seems to be won over, as he replies, "Thy case, dear friend, shall be my precedent." So these two men, who seemed so lighthearted and upright, justify murder and treason in less than five minutes.


Is Shakespeare's comment here that ambition is more powerful than moral conscience? That man will kill to get gain? And that those who don't bring themselves to murder are just as ready to accept the death of another if it benefits them? If so, who's death do you stand to gain from? Ever thought about it?

The actor who plays Shylock in the BBC adaptation (and apparently the radio voice).

So when I first started reading Merchant of Venice it was pretty black and white who was who. Shylock's the villain, and Antonio and Bassanio the good guys. Then as I got a little farther into it, my perception flipped. I actually felt bad for Shylock. His daughter ran away with a Christian and took all his money, Antonio humiliates him in public, and his servant runs away to work for Bassanio. Antonio starts to look like the guys who gets whatever he wants, and no one likes that. But then there was a court scene, and Shylock is demanding a pound of Antonio's flesh to repay a debt and refuses to have mercy, which kinda heads back towards the villain status, and Antonio is so sad, just wanting to see his best friend before he has to die. So then I thought, ah-ha!, Shylock is the bad guy, and this court scene proves it. But by the end of that same scene Bassanio's wife, disguised as a lawyer, has tricked Shylock out of demanding Antonio's death and Shylock pretty much loses everything. They take away all that he owns and give back half on the conditions that he turn from Jew to Christian and, when he dies, give everything to his daughter who has run away with a gentile. I feel so bad for him. I mean sure, he wanted to kill the protagonist, but "Nay, take my life and all" is the line of a pretty beaten down man.

So the moral of the story is I don't know who I'm supposed to be happy or sad for in this comedy of sorts. Sure, I know Shakespeare intended for his crowd to hate the Jew and be glad he got such a harsh punishment, but I just don't know that he deserved it. And the movie didn't help, he was such a cute little, old Jewish guy with his Jewish hat and thick Hebrew accent. And all the other guys seemed kind of pompous to me.. Perhaps the BBC production wanted to be more open about who's side to be on. Anyway.... If you're still reading this long rant, thank you. I guess the point is that I really loved this play, but loving something doesn't mean I completely understand it. So maybe next week my thoughts will be a little more coherent. Until then, Hakuna Mutata:)

Just as a side note, I'm writing this post Thursday night and setting it to post tomorrow morning in order to blog on time for this week, in hopes that I can get some sleep and get better before I get more sick. Also, the BBC production of my individual play has to pause every 2 minutes to buffer and I will never get through it tonight.. But I do promise I'll still have my individual play finished and a post about it by the end of the day Friday. Cross my heart, hope to die.


Now you may or may not be aware, but there may or may not have been a sequel to Love's Labour's Lost... It would be fitting. The final act ended pretty lamely. The whole love story aspect of it kind of failed, and there wasn't even a real fight between Armado and Costard over Jacquenette. The Princess' father's death reminded me of the Greek deus ex machina, which was essentially some outside source swooping in to save the day when it looks like the plot won't be able to resolve itself. Because no audience would be okay with girls who made fools of the boys all pairing up with hecklers and living happily ever after, there had to be some good reason for the french ladies to go their way, leaving the men with a year to put their nose in the corner and think about what they've done.

So the question is, was Shakespeare okay with this unresolved ending? Or did he write a sequel which somehow didn't survive the years? I first came across the theory of there being a sequel in an episode of Doctor Who. The time-traveling humanoid alien takes his human companion Martha Jones back to Shakespeare's day at the Globe Theatre. At the end of a Love's Labour's Lost performance William himself takes the stage and promises a sequel the very next day. Somewhere along the way he hits on Martha, someone gets killed via voodoo doll, and an alien in the form of a witch tampers with the script of the sequel in an attempt to, go figure, free her alien family and take over the world. You can read more about it here, but the point is that at the end the only transcript of the Love's Labour's Won is lost and Shakespeare decides to move on to bigger and better things.

I remembered that episode of Doctor Who as I was reading Love's Labour's Lost and decided to see if BBC did their research. It turns out, there is a very good possibility that there WAS a sequel, titled Love's Labour's Won, in which the King and his lords return after a year and get a second chance at a happy ending with the French Princess and her ladies. There have been references to the play title found in written documents, and lots of other reasons for scholars to believe in the existence of the play that I don't really want to get into here. You can read the wiki page linked above if you're interested. Also, there's a facebook page, so it must be true. Facebook never lies. The real question is, do you think the plot needs a sequel? I do.. And if there was a sequel, what kinds of themes or plot lines would you like to have been continued? Should there be a happy ending between the sassy ladies and immature boys? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Last Friday my roommate had a boy over at our apartment and they were doing homework together. He started humming a song I vaguely recognized but couldn't quite place. Of course, I couldn't rest until I figured out what it was. Turn's out it was the song "When You Believe" from The Prince of Egypt. So of course that dang boy got the song stuck in my head and I had to go listen to it. Then I had to listen to it again, and again, and again. Needless to say, I've been listening to the Moses and the Hebrews leave Egypt since last Friday. I ended up finding an awesome video with the song put to a compilation of the movie. As I watched this video again and again (and was overheard singing it in the shower), I started thinking about the power of song, and how a well acted (or animated) scene and a good song can elicit emotions from us and make an experience more memorable. As you watch this video, pay attention to how it makes you feel, and maybe consider how different it would be if you were simply reading the words.

It's also pretty cool in context...

So why in the the world am I talking about this on my Shakespeare blog? Well, I've been thinking as I read Love's Labour's Lost about the production of Winter's Tale we went to and the fact that Shakespeare is meant to be seen, not read. That play was so different on stage than it was in my book. I was more connected to the characters, more invested in the plot, and better able to understand the humor. And the songs were awesome. There's a line in the beginning of Act 3 of Love's Labour's Lost that says:

BOY[sings] Concolinel


My footnote says that the word "Concolinel" is unknown, but is perhaps the first word or title of a song. So you're probably saying "so what?". Well, I don't know. I can't know, because all it is, is a word, not even lyrics to a song. What if the song sung by that boy is something as important to the plot as the song above was to its movie? Shakespeare wrote this boy to sing a song and I will never know what it sounded like. What else are we missing out on by simply reading the text? Moses's animated sister and wife singing about their faith in miracles had a real impact on me, now this boy singing Concolinel will never have the chance to do that.

So, answer me this: What are we missing out on when we only read the text of Shakespeare's plays? And, conversely, what are we gaining from experiencing the greatest literature of all time in a way it was not meant to be experienced?