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.

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:)

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...