Last Post

When I first entered this class, I was a bit hesitant about this subject. However, it also seemed the best option out of the British Literature classes, so I would like to believe fate brought me here (ha).

After working with fate as a concept this semester, I realize how this concept can really make you examine a work of literature more closely. For instance, when I read Romeo and Juliet in the past, the story always seemed more ridiculous than a legitimate tragedy. However, after thinking through the story and how the character's fates were intertwined in such a way that they could not be properly judged, whose to say their fates and their sacrifices did not mean something? Whose to say their fates are not necessarily tied together and that separating them is a violation of the rights that we as humans are guaranteed?

One part of Shakespeare's works that has always fascinated me was the fates of the fallen kings. The plays that interested me the most (Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, Richard II) were those involving tragic story-lines for those who were at one point such high in power. When looking at the fate of these kings, there was a sense that even though they were all very influential (and seen as divine), their fates roles could not prevent them from mortal falls. This idea lends itself to contradiction; although the characters should have more stability in their outcomes, wanting too much of the role causes greed that complicates matters. This is most evident in Richard II, when he points out the, while in prison, how foolish he was in dealing with his kingdom.

The fragility of roles was brought up also, which is another important concept to examine with fate. The kings in these stories saw themselves as being more than they actually are. Kingly powers can exalt one into believing they are invincible, but in reality there is not much else separating them from common people that they rule over. In Richard's soliloquy, he also brought this up, and examined how his role as a king could so easily be switched out for a role that was seem as inferior. In the end everyone is still a mortal human with their faults.

Last post on desire

A wrap up on desire.


First entering the class, I was completely out of my element. Shakespeare always seemed very daunting and it was in the beginning. By having one theme, instead of summing up the plays or finding something new to write about in each post, it allowed for overarching parallels within early Shakespeare. I was glad that I chose desire because it has a lot of plasticity. I liked that I grew comfortable with Shakespeare due to looking at one or two characters and finding the real meaning behind the many, many words and the rampant symbolism.

 I liked how desire in the comedy plays was about a desire for identity in sometimes aggressive or trickster methods-- with Comedy of Errors and Taming of the Shrew. Then how desire shifted into a form of sexual identity and the need for reproduction and desire for another body, especially in Romeo and Juliet. Then, and what made most sense to me, was desire in the historical plays. Taking a  wider look at the plays in general Shakespeare's desire for writing the plays was for historical consciousness and the desire that people had to remember their past. Within the play form, desire can take a very strong and violent manifestation. The rulers are constantly vying for power and leadership while leaving corruption and the people under or plotting against these rulers like in Titus, Richard II and Henry IV, all desire a good leader and one who will not damage or fault against their homeland. The desire of keeping with a strong sense of nationalism. I liked the historical plays the best because they seemed to have more substance-- but this is coming from someone who knew nothing about Shakespeare (or even where he was born which was probably a freebee on the test).

I enjoyed the class and learned a lot more than I expected. I am glad about this blog posting and enjoyed doing this because writing is the mind working through ideas and processing and how my mind works best. I am glad there was one theme to look at and discover and make very intimate throughout the class. I definitely have a better grasp on different forms of desire in Shakespeare, so the next challenge will be the final exam!

Farewell Post on Rank and Status

At the start of the semester I wrote that I understood the terms rank and status referred almost exclusively to an individual's position in society. With that idea rank and status rely on the amount of money a person makes  or the job they possess. For example a garbage man may make a large amount of money however he would not hold a high rank in society due to the nature of his job.

I was particularly interested in tracking this concept throughout the semester because I believed it was important to understand the role that the society-created concepts of rank and status have on the way we interact with other people and how Shakespeare addressed the concept in his era.

I thought that the concept could prove important to Shakespeare's early works because of his use of the stock characters from commedia and how he often portrays lower class characters or those who are not in the highest rank among the other characters. He often portrays these characters as the more intelligent or enlightened of the cast even though they are rarely listened to or laughed away.

I really looked forward to tracking the concept over the semester because during my time in World Theatre I with Dr. Laura Hope I wrote my research paper comparing Shakespeare's use of the wise fool in As You Like It, with Touchstone, and Twelfth Night, with Feste. I would like to expand my understanding to see how rank and status in general can be seen throughout Shakespeare's early works.

The lens that this theme put on my reading was fascinating. I was able to see how social status then vs now informs your reading of characters of both high and low rank in addition to how certain characters are given added license to critique society's attitude towards the societal rankings of characters.

Not only was I able to see how the concepts of rank and status applied to Shakespeare's world but as the semester progressed I was more attuned to how these concepts were impacting MY everyday life. As I mentioned in the second cluster convo, as a graduating senior I have had the stressful and tedious task of applying for post grad jobs. It was interesting to see how in many aspects I consider myself of a higher status as a near college graduate and as a senior I am technically ranked highest within the terms of educated students. However, while that may be true within the small bubble that I have lived my life, as I applied to job after job after job after job and the applied to a few more jobs, my status in the "real world" is less than dirt.

Final Post - Identity

At the beginning of the semester, I possessed only the vaguest notion of what identity truly is, with an equally vague OED definition to confirm my uncertainties about such a simultaneously vast and daunting word. Several blog posts and a good deal of meditative thought later, I am perhaps even more uncertain about what identity truly means – to me, or Shakespeare, or anyone.

While reflecting on the term and applying it to Shakespeare’s early works has in some ways left me grappling, it has lead me to better understand a few things about this concept that we use so often to describe ourselves. Time and time again this semester I have revisited and reaffirmed the notion that identity is not something that is constant and preexisting, but rather it is almost entirely fluid and malleable. It is also largely performative, not only in the theatrical context of Shakespeare’s works but in the way that individuals perform aspects of their identity such as gender and class on a daily basis. As a writer of dynamic characters experiencing larger-than-life situations and emotions, Shakespeare writes many characters that experience identity shifts and make conscious choices to perform themselves differently – whether by choice like Prince Hal having drinks with his friends, or by necessity like Kate being forced into the role of Petruchio’s submissive wife.

Much of what Shakespeare implies about the nature of identity is very much applicable to real-world folk outside of the theatre, both in Elizabethan England and today. That being said, because Shakespeare writes such high-stakes plots and strong characters, he comments on identity in a way that is both highly effective and perhaps somewhat exaggerated.  Excluding perhaps The Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare abandons the Aristotelean unities of time, place, and action in his works – this means that characters often age or experience significant life events over the course of a play, which provides a wider view of the shifting nature of identity while also being somewhat removed from the way these shifts work in real life. What particularly astounds me, though, is that though Shakespeare wrote in England in the 16^th Century, his thoughts on identity that emerge through his characterization are as relevant today as they were to his contemporary audiences. Though I am still uncertain of a concrete definition of identity, I do know that whether I want to or not I will continue to search for my own definition and clues about identity when I read the works of Shakespeare or simply go about my day to day life. 

Final Post - Memory

In my first blog post, I offered a confused and somewhat cynical interpretation of memory. At that point, memory seemed like a lofty idea that got thrown around in English classes too much--something more theoretical than practical, too elusive to spend time parsing out. At the beginning, memory also seemed entirely subjective. What is the point of discussing memory if it exists differently for every individual? I wondered how and why one would engage in academic discourse about this subject, as it seemed entirely tied up in emotion and conjecture. That, perhaps, was what drew me to this concept the most. In writing these blogs, I proved myself wrong. It wasn't until I began truly delving into this critical concept that I discovered its richness and its usefulness in discussing Shakespeare.

For Shakespeare, memory is a tool not unlike poetic meter or rhetorical structure. Shakespeare uses memory in his characterization and as a method for establishing conflict. Though I may have only seen memory as a lofty, ineffective concept in literature, for Shakespeare it is entirely productive. By way of memory, Shakespeare can construct the disillusioned England of Henry IV or the kingly expectations that befall Richard II. He orchestrates the raucousness of Comedy of Errors through the use (or misuse) of memory. Memory is the weapon the soldiers wield in Henry IV. Memory is partly responsible for Romeo and Juliet's love affair. Memory perforates Shakespeare on all fronts, and in many different capacities.

Perhaps I struggled to understand memory's significance because it functions differently for Shakespeare than it does for me. Memory for the general public is often unruly and unpredictable. Sometimes memory makes itself known (or disappears momentarily) in the most inconvenient of circumstances. Memory is one of many things in my life that I feel I have no control over. That lack of control can, at times, make me resent my memory. Shakespeare, however, uses memory as an artistic tool and a catalyst for conflict. He manipulates memory in beautiful ways and, through that manipulation, is able to use memory as a tool to create art.

These realizations about memory have inspired me to rethink the term and appreciate its significance as a critical concept in my own life. There are moments when I, too, use memory as a weapon against others. There are also instances when memory brings me immense joy. Memory, too, has inspired my writing innumerable times. Aside from my own life, I also find it interesting to apply this analytical lens to other texts, especially in the contemporary moment. I have so enjoyed analyzing this concept in tandem with my Magical Realism class. Memory is crucial in defining a nation and its subjects. Memory motivates people to do both terrible and wonderful things. And, most important of all, memory is always operating. As I continue to experience things in my daily life, I am also always storing those experiences in my memory to be used later on--oftentimes in very unpredictable ways. After studying Shakespeare's use of memory, I have begun to understand the significance of this concept both in literature and in my daily life.

A Wrap-Up on Fate/Fortune

So, last post.  I honestly thought this would be easy going into it; yet reflecting upon virtually everything I have learned and contended with on my topic throughout the semester is has proven to be relatively difficult. 

So what have I learned? 

As the title of this post indicates, my topic(s) was fate/fortune.  I chose it due to my fascination with Richard III’s statement in (as you might guess) Richard III that he is “determined to be the villain.” Did “determined” indicate that he was steadfast and resolute in being one of the most evil individuals in the history of England, or did it suggest that he was preordained by some entity to perform the deeds he would eventually carry out.  I tended to believe the latter, and was interested in fate in Shakespeare from that point forward.

With that in mind, I had fully expected fate to be closely associated with religion.  While this was true in some instances, namely in The Merchant of Venice with Shylock’s inability to overcome the obstacles of a Christian society in the trial scene, I found that various sociopolitical conventions factored into its operation within each play as well.  My posts identified and analyzed many of these.  Gender, for example, made Petruchio’s “taming” of Kate inevitable, as his wit was able to match that which she gained through education by his simply being born a man.  The violence and dismemberment of bodies in the “revenge cycle” plot of Titus Andronicus created a sense of ambivalence regarding the possibility of peace and stabilization to the Roman body politic, making imminent Rome’s eventual destruction.  The wheel of fortune then emerged in virtually every history play, determining eventual rise and fall of English kings. 

To put it simply, fate entrenched itself into Shakespeare’s plays on a much larger scale than I had expected, ironically creating a high degree of certainty in a society historically perceived to be rooted in uncertainty. 

This notion made me consider how it might work in modern times, particularly in an American society that prides itself on its ability to offer the opportunity of advancement to any individual who seizes it.  Is this true, though?  Or do we live under the same illusion of social agency and mobility that existed during Shakespeare’s time? 

The answer, I think, lay somewhere in the middle.  One can certainly transcend barriers of gender, class, or religion, yet some certainly have more opportunities to do this than others.  One born into a family with more financial flexibility, for instance, will have a greater opportunity to receive an excellent education than one who does not. 

This is a particular example I constantly think about myself, as I did not make enough of a commitment to my education in high school due to the fact that I knew I only needed a partial scholarship to attend college (just a quick disclaimer: I am certainly not at all proud of this, and would like to think I have reorganized my priorities since).  If my family did not possess the financial means to pay for my education, there is a chance I would not be in the position I am now.  Instead of writing a blog post at my conference track meet, I could be working multiple jobs in order to pay for it myself or not attend altogether.  My “fate” may have been sealed.  Maybe it still is.  I don’t know.  That is a question for one writing about our society four hundred years from now, but I would like to think as we have progressed the element of individual agency has as well.

I guess that’s it, thank you to everybody who has been keeping up with my posts this semester and I hope they could help you have a better understanding of both the plays and the class!

So Long, And Thanks For All the Analysis

S E X U A L I T Y

As the ostentatious marquee suggests, I chose to follow sexuality through the works of William Shakespeare. In my exact words, "my main question for this Critical Concepts blog is to examine and track how Shakespeare allows his characters to discuss their sexuality, how sex appears and is used in both his comedic and tragic (and historical) plays, and compare the pre-Victorian, Early Modern era's "possession [and] expression" of sexuality with our own "modern" conceptions" (from my first blog post). For my final blog post, I will examine my posts leading up to this point to see how I attempted (and hopefully succeeded in) accomplishing this goal. 

First, let me remind you what we are talking about: the OED definition I cited in my first post defined "sexuality" as 

1. Biol. The quality of being sexual or possessing sex. Opposed to asexuality.  

2. Sexual nature, instinct, or feelings; the possession or expression of these.

Well, alright. These definitions were certainly straight forward, but I chose instead to assemble a definition of "sexuality" elsewhere, namely in The History of Sexuality by French philosopher Michel Foucault. I read this text over the course of the semester as a worked with "sexuality" in Shakespeare's plays, and my conception of "sexuality" shifted irrevocably toward the posits in THoS. In his influential work, Foucault stressed the idea that "sexuality" as a unified concept did not exist before the early nineteenth century. Foucault traces the use of sex and sexuality back through the ostensibly repressive Victorian era to discover that, in its earliest usages, "to express" sexuality was not indicated that one "possessed" anything at all (beside, perhaps, a hefty libido); it was not until the later modern decades that sexuality became this "thing" that is intrinsically "possessed."

As I went into battle against the early work of Shakespeare, new definitions and conceptions in hand, one of the first problems I had to first combat was the inevitable anachronism that will emerge when looking for "sexuality" in the 1500-1600s, where it did not exist then as it does for us now. I attempted to mitigate this problem in one of two ways:

a) Whenever possible, I would try to relate the work of Shakespeare back to a modern adaptation or, if there was no pertinent adaptation, to a similar scene or exchange of dialogue to highlight the anachronism rather than attempting to obscure it. One example of this technique is in my second post, "Shakespeare and Film Noir," where I used a scene from The Taming of the Shrew and from Double Indemnity, the archetypal 1950s film noir, to talk about concupiscent exchanges between characters, and the differences found between Shakespeare's characters' sexes and the more "modern" sexualities of the twentieth century. As it turns out, the libidinous exchanges were more alike than different; one could even argue that the Shakespeare dialogue was more explicitly sexual.

b) Another technique I used was to toss out comparison completely and to read the work of Shakespeare solely through a modern, critical eye. Any questions that would arise from this anachronistic reading would be then examined to find out exact why the question arose in first place. Two examples of this (and, I would argue, two of my stronger posts) are my third post, "A Queer Reading of Romeo and Juliet," and my fourth, "Venus as a Boy." These two posts were important not just in the way they deepened my understanding of sexuality, queerness, and the performance of gender, but also for how they deepened my understanding of how Shakespeare might have used, talked about, and written sexuality for his characters. The connection I argued between the tragic story of Romeo and Juliet became important for its modern resonance and potential application, while Venus and Adonis became a gold mine for sexual reference and suggestion straight from the pen of the Bard. These two posts can also be viewed together to provide a holistic image of what sexuality could have meant to Shakespeare, and what his deployment of sexuality can mean to us.

To break down this last posit for the ending note: "a holistic image of what sexuality could have meant to Shakespeare"—Shakespeare would not have seen sexuality in the same ways that we see it now; telling the Bard that you are straight, gay, bisexual would have literally no meaning to him whatsoever. How, then, did Shakespeare construct his characters? Around what central locus? His characters were simply allowed to use sex without the daunting task to possess it, and perhaps this allowed for sex to appear in myriad, eclectic ways.

Finally, "what his deployment of sexuality can mean to us"—in my reading of Romeo and Juliet, I connected the story of the two youths, with their love forbidden by societal regulations and their resulting suicides, to the recent suicides of LGBT youth who, like the two lovers, find themselves hopelessly unable to "fit in." Obviously, Shakespeare had no intent of writing a tragedy to show (and maybe critique) the terrible, even deadly, burden of societal stigmas and expectations. He had no idea of what his plays could come to mean, and so perhaps it is up to us to figure it out for him. 

History plays & Sonnets. final post, dietze

Shakespeare’s history plays often raise the question: who is really at power? With the complex construction of the body politic and the pull seen in Henry V of Hal’s struggle with the balance of kingship coupled with personal desire, reveals the topic of impermanence. Kings come and kings go. War is sieged and ended. Friends turn to enemies. But within all of this lingers the shadow of change. Sonnet 114 reflects this transforming nature, “it make of monsters and things indigest such cherubins as your sweet self resemble, creating every bad a perfect best.” One thing that Shakespeare appears to be aiming at within these is the desire for eternity or permanence in an impermanent world. Sonnet 15 finds this through keeping a person alive or youthful in poems entangled with the metaphor of nature’s endurance. In Sonnet 51, a horse-riding metaphor depicts the racing to keep up with desire of perfect love, but ultimately is metaphysical “then can no horse with my desire keep pace; therefore desire, of perfec’st love being made, Shall neigh no dull flesh in his fiery race, but love, for love.” Sonnet 4, reflects on life and the possibility of unused beauty or regret. Lugging around the big red book of Shakespeare, I can feel the weight of this longing and feel the remnants from it. What ultimately results from these plays and sonnets are their extraordinary longevity. 

Final Post - Identity

In the course of reflecting on the critical concept of identity when it comes to the works of William Shakespeare, I have learned that it is not a concept that is all the easy to pinpoint, as I had first assumed it would be. Before, I would have considered identity as something that is constant, and if it undergoes any change it would do so gradually.

In reading the plays I have this semester and analyzing the theme of identity there within, my understanding of the concept has changed. I now see that identity is something that is malleable; it can be manipulated to fit certain purposes, as Prince Hal uses it, or it can be subject to rapid and substantial transformation in given situations, like if it is something that is forced as in The Taming of the Shrew or The Merchant of Venice. I now understand that identity is not a concept that is always so easily understood or clear, for example in The Comedy of Errors.

Identity in the world of Shakespeare operates differently than it does in our own world because it is functioning with the purpose of moving plot along and creating rich characterizations that keep the action of the play intriguing. Having the puzzle of identity and seeing how it is laid out within various plays was interesting because it allowed for the analysis of the sheer broadness of the concept and how it can be taken on in a multitude of ways.

In reality identity isn’t really telescoped or broken down in such a manner, but is rather something that exists. Behaviors are more so at the forefront perhaps than motivations, and at that core is the basis of identity. Identity is a concept that is somewhat overwritten in the world with its fast-paced change, because what composes identity is constantly subject to being shifted. Considering the state of the world and some of its biggest issues that are being debated, perhaps what shapes identity by today’s standards is still being worked out, and its function cannot be fully determined until later reflected upon.

The manner in which Shakespeare treats the concept of identity within his plays has informed the way in which I apply identity today thusly: I no longer consider identity to be something that, when applied to one individual, must remain static. Identity, even that of a single person is something that is multifaceted and shaped by events and others in the world around them and may be a result of circumstance. Identity is quite similar to having to play a role – there is the outward appearance and action but there is also that internal reflection happening in order to determine how identity is conveyed. Which can be likened to the experience of composing this blog on the singular critical concept across an array of works in one semester. It was certainly a growing experience to have to take up with one subject and see how it appeared and develops in different arenas and definitely aided my ability to look at works contextually and abstractly.

 

Special Post--Fate/Fortune

With shifting historical circumstances playing such an immense role in tracing fate and fortune throughout Shakespeare this semester, I have chosen to discuss Norman Jones’ historical essay, “Shakespeare’s England,” in which he outlines and analyzes England’s history during the rules of the Tudors and James I.

Jones begins his essay by addressing the tumultuous state of English culture in 1564, the year in which Shakespeare was born, noting that he “was born into a dying culture…still reeling from the massive social dislocation known as the Reformation.  The religious and social world his parents knew as children had been destroyed by new ideas and government actions” (25).  He goes on to explain that the “Reformation” to which he refers constituted the almost thirty year transition from English Catholicism to Protestantism, a period of mass persecution coinciding with the assembling and disassembling of various religious institutions, with Shakespeare and his contemporaries being “handed the job of building a new, Protestant culture on the ruins of the old religion” after the Elizabethan Settlement was ratified in the late 1550’s.  This notion of uncertainty regarding the state of England and English culture during Shakespeare’s life becomes central to Jones’ essay as he remarks upon the new religious, social, political, and economic developments of the time:  

“The younger generation of Elizabethans had come of age with a heightened sense of personal choice.  The religious change, the social shifts, the changing economy, all confirmed the possibilities from which they might choose.  But this was not entirely a pretty picture.  One still had to make the right choices. God still ran the world, demanding obedience.  But obedience to which theology? Which Church? Which economic order? Which master? (39).

Jones offers numerous historical examples to bolster his arguments regarding these uncertainties.  My last two posts have discussed the role of the Wheel of Fortune in Shakespeare’s history and tragedy plays, and this literary trope was just as much a reality in sixteenth century England as it had been during the periods depicted in them.   Jones best reflects this in his discussion on religious change during the period.  Religion, still the foundation of European society, was wielded by those in power to expel their enemies: “The great lesson of the period between 1532 and 1559 was that religion was undependable.  It was a toy of the state, a game played by religious fanatics and crafty politicians” (27).  Henry VIII’s secession in from the Catholic Church in 1532 brought about the dissolution of monasteries as well as the persecution of Protestants with the Act of Six Articles, essentially a set of rules that were remarkably Catholic and known as “the whip with six strings.” After the young Edward IV’s rule brought about the beginning of true Protestantism and allowed Protestants such as Thomas Cranmer to assume more prominent roles in policymaking, Queen Mary immediately uninstalled and executed many of these individuals, including Cranmer himself, in her restoration of Catholicism.  During her rule, “Protestants fled abroad or were captured, tried, and burned for heresy…Protestant bishops were deposed and…were often executed for heresy” (26).   By the end of this “game,” as Jones calls it, thousands of individuals saw their fortunes change with each succession, including Elizabeth’s, as “the new monasteries and chantries were closed, masses were stopped once again, altars were again removed from the churches, and saints, roods, and stained glass windows depicting superstitions were again destroyed, and Catholic bishops [were] replaced by Protestant bishops—but not killed” (27). 

The inconstancy of this period is echoed most clearly, perhaps, in the events of Titus Andronicus with the Roman Lord’s lamentation:

          

            “Let Rome herself be bane unto herself,

             And she whom mighty kingdoms curtsy to,

             Like a forlorn and desperate castaway,

             Do shameful execution on herself” (V.3.73-76).

Stated in the immediate aftermath of Titus’ assassination of the Empress Tamora, the Goth queen “incorporate in Rome” (I.1.465) and arguably an allusion to Queen Mary (the violent queen of the different Catholic culture), Rome’s future looks relatively bleak.  Hope, however, resides in Titus’ son Lucius “To heal Rome’s harms and wipe away her woe” (V.3.148).  If read as a parallel to English history, England’s tumultuous periods of succession have led it to “be bane unto herself.” An argument, however, can be made for Lucius being similar to Elizabeth regarding his ability to “heal” his country’s “harms,” actually pronounced as “arms”—an reference to the fractured body politic of both the play and England at the time of Elizabeth’s ascension.  Yet, what certainty do the people of these countries have that this period of stability will possess any continuity given their histories?  Though James proves to be a relatively able king, during the period we are studying a peaceful succession after Elizabeth’s death was the issue, and the circumstances Jones illustrates regarding constant religious upheaval accompanying each kingship helps to better understand precisely why this was such a concern. 

That being said, I was disappointed to find virtually no reference to or analysis of any of Shakespeare’s plays.  The essay is rather short (14 pages), and I feel that since the book titled A Companion to Shakespeare is constantly discussing Shakespeare, there was certainly some room to offer some textual evidence from the plays to support some of his points.  How does, for example, Shakespeare address this issue of “building a new, Protestant culture” in one of his plays?  I enjoyed the work he did with his summary and analysis of English history, though, that I tried as hard as I could to look past this and sought to find a way in which it led back to my concept anyway.  With religious and cultural change being at the center of it, the historical context played well into the Wheel of Fortune trope that has been so impactful in the history plays we have discussed.  So, despite that rather glaring weakness (or inconvenience, which may actually be more appropriate), Jones offered much to write about.

Special post on desire

Emily Lagarde

Vanrigh, Anny. Crunelle. "Henry V as a Royal Entry." SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900 47.2 (2007): 355-77. Print


While undergoing a critical look at desire in Shakespeare the outcome from this semester's worth of reading and blogging has been a profoundly better understanding of the play's content. Taking a closer look at our last play, Henry V, I will examine Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh's writing, "Henry V as a Royal Entity," to tie together my last blog post on Henry playing that part of the much needed leader the English needed, while also serving as the scapegoat for all of England's problems.

"Henry V as a Royal Entity," goes into depth about the roles of England's kings and queens. Henry V fits into this category of being, "while impressing the power of the ruler of the crowds, the discourse of civic shows also emphasized the king's obligations to his subjects. The city engaged in a give-and-take relation with the sovereign, reaffirming its loyalty to his line of descent, while holding a mirror up to its magistrate" (358). This in depth look at the duties of the king/queen shows a much higher comprehension than the people seeing their ruler as a dictator or all powerful, all knowing being. Instead, this idea of a solid representation of England and its faults or strengths means there is one person behind it and therefore is the person for the people to stand behind or stab from behind.

Then there is the look at the role of the chorus, "the dramatic Chorus controls sight and and insight, inviting the audience to "behold" and "see," "[s]uppose," "think" and "work" [their] thoughts" (360). This shows how Shakespeare used the audience of his day in the Chorus to sway his audiences and make it more realistic and approachable.
Another function of "Henry V" was his use of blending old English identity with the modern Elizabethan era, "Harry's multivalent procession, both military triumph and royal entry, definitely appears to be modeled after Elizabeth's" (364).

Anny Crunelle-Vanrigh goes into depth about leadership and monarchy in England. She takes a close look at how Shakespeare mixed the roles of previous monarchs with present day in order to show the role and job of a monarch. His audience was well aware of England's history and Shakespeare's use of this as well as making it relevant was key in his history plays being so well received. Vanrigh uses textual evidence from Henry V and relates it to England's past. She has a well composed essay based on much fact and very little to interpretation.
 

I found this extremely interesting and a relevant article in order to relate this to my previous blog on desire of kingship. In reading a well written and factually strong that reiterates my understanding of general desire for a leader, I can get a firmer grasp on how this will relate to my final paper. I also am pleased that I am on the right track to deepening my approach and understanding to Shakespeare's history plays.

In a much larger scope, I think that the experience of blogging about one theme, one significant subject in Shakespeare's plays allow for greater appreciation of  the plays and what messages they are sending out or what implications they want to make about society. I never fully understood the importance of Shakespeare before this class but now-- getting past the gritty wording and such-- I am starting to understand the importance of the plays as the concrete source of society and expectations. By reading this essay, "Henry V as a Royal Entity," I realize that I am comprehending the subject matter of his play since I can understand what the author is saying and relate it back to my last blog post. I finally get Shakespeare!

Special Post - Memory

In my discussion of memory, I have chosen to reference Lina Perkins Wilder's essay "Toward a Shakespearean 'Memory Theater': Romeo, the Apothecary, and the Performance of Memory." Wilder's essay was published in Shakespeare Quarterly in 2005.

Wilder frames her essay with a passage from Act V Scene I of Romeo and Juliet--right after Romeo learns of Juliet's supposed death. In this scene, Romeo transitions rather quickly from a declaration of grief, "Well, Juliet, I will lie with thee tonight," to a seemingly random mention of an apothecary, "I do remember an apothecary..." (34, 37). To many critics, this reaction seems inappropriate for the circumstances Romeo is in during the scene. This, like many other Shakespearean acts of remembrance, is a moment in which "one character's seemingly digressive recollection momentarily displaces the dramatic action" (157). The body of Wilder's essay seeks to address this claim. While not necessarily refuting the argument entirely, Wilder's objective is to showcase how instances of recollection actually heighten dramaturgy by inspiring the characters (and audience members) to make certain narrative connections.

To support her argument, Wilder first takes up the lofty task of explaining the "memory arts" that were popular in the period--and how Shakespeare's performance of memory both draws on and upends that tradition. According to her explanation, the memory arts aimed to create tangible, physical constructs for the representation of memory. She offers an example regarding the way in which a memory artist would order their memories: "Johannes Romberch recommends constructing in one's mind a town composed of a series of memory loci...In many cases, the memory locus is not an imaginary space: some memory artists advise their readers to memorize a real room, preferably empty, in which they can then imagine arranging memory objects" (160). Shakespeare, in turn, builds on this orderly tradition by conceptualizing memory as a product of the disorderly--it is "no longer a tool for retaining information, but a means by which forgotten or overlooked information is unexpectedly recovered or even 'discovered'" (159). For Wilder, Shakespeare is still drawing on elements of memory theater, but also pushing its boundaries with experimentation through his work.

After the rather lengthy historical description of memory theater, Wilder returns to the opening passage for a close reading. Wilder claims that the clearest examples of memory theater occur in the apothecary scene (5.1) and the Nurse's remembrance of Juliet's weaning (1.3). In both instances, the character disrupts dramatic action to recall objects or experiences unseen by the audience. Each is an extended performance of memory. The Nurse's scene introduces performed remembering as a device. The concrete images she remembers--the earthquake, shaking dovehouse, pratfall, etc--gesture to the memory artists' methodology for remembering. Wilder also finds these similarities in the apothecary scene. Romeo remembers the apothecary who is always surrounded by the objects in his shop. Romeo cites these objects ("And in his needy shop a tortoise hung, / An alligator stuff'd, and other skins / Of ill-shap'd fishes..." 42-44) and uses them to place himself in the scene once again. The argument continues in this manner, with more historical background also thrown in.

The article discusses memory in an interesting and unpredictable way. I was expecting this to be mostly close reading of certain passages in Romeo and Juliet. Situating Shakespeare's use of memory in the conventions of the period is extremely useful. It helps me to understand that memory has been understood as a construct for much longer than I thought previously. However, I think Wilder fails to support the first claim she makes, that the performance of memory adds drama rather than diminishing it. The article loses focus in many areas and I was unsure of what to take away from it by the time I finished.

Special Post - Identity

Critical Concepts Special Blog Post Focusing on Identity

by Rosalind Seidel

Marks Sicherman, Carol. "King Hal: The Integrity of Shakespeare's Portrait." Texas

            Studies in Literature and Language 21.4 (1979): 503-21. JSTOR. Web.             <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40754588>.

            In her article “King Hal: The Integrity of Shakespeare’s Portrait,” Carol Marks Sicherman introduces a lot of interesting and insightful discussion points on one of William Shakespeare’s characters, Prince Hal from the history plays Henry IV and Henry V. Sicherman begins her exposition of Prince Hal by stating that ultimately, by the time he reaches and assumes the role of king, Hal faces a reconciliation of his multiple selves. Hal, explains Sicherman, took up these selves in an effort to penetrate the role of royalty foisted upon him with elements of other realities he creates. Hal carries out a variety of parts that make him seem more so like “a series of figures in a kaleidoscope” than one individual. However, Sicherman argues that despite all the different forms of identity Hal adopts, the array of personalities he assumes are indeed assisting him in his development towards becoming one individual person.

            I found Sicherman’s ideas on the character of Hal and the identities he personates particularly interesting because for me, I saw all of Hal’s different identifies as just that – different. They were not something that I believed to be encompassing or characteristic of one individual person. To my understanding the way that Hal functioned in terms of identity was with extreme plasticity. Instead of considering Hal’s identities as part of him, I distanced them and regarded them as something outside of Hal himself that he simply assumed to serve as a means to an end in which he himself could benefit from disguising the truth of the station to which he was born. In Sicherman’s article she brings up a point that I had not even considered important to identity, which is the manner in which Hal talks depending on his identities. Also, the manner in which people refer to Hal and address him shifts accordingly. The manner in address and language alike signifies who Hal appears to be.

            Not only does language serve to reveal who Hal is, Sicherman argues, but it also unmasks who it is he is becoming because of his multifaceted identities. Going back to Sicherman’s concept of Hal’s many identities fostering the development of a singular person, she discusses Hal’s taking on of identities in a manner of evolution. Hal is first seen shaping identity for imitation, then later persuasion. After some time is Hal at a point at which the extensions of his identity become idealized characters and his portrayals of them. They are not who Hal is per se, but at the same time are because they are because they are what has allowed for the shaping and growth of his character. Through his use of disguise, Hal has established values that are rooted in his own personal integrity which are present even through they may seem submerged beneath artifice. I find Sicherman’s ideas particularly fascinating because I had not considered the depths to the identities Hal adopts beyond their surface value and how they served to his benefit in someway. I considered his assumed identities to be something ephemeral rather than substantial.

            All in all, I consider Sicherman’s article incredibly helpful as a student trying to grasp the critical concept of identity. I found Sicherman’s arguments well founded and her evidence and explanations extremely constructive in terms in assisting the comprehension of her reader. As a student of Shakespeare, Sicherman’s article introduced me to new ideas that perhaps were possible for me to see in my periphery while reading the text, but weren’t truly brought to the forefront or concepts I would have been able to completely grasp before Sicherman presented them. I thoroughly enjoyed Sicherman’s work because it exposed me to a broader spectrum of thought when regarding identity and the ways in which it can function.

Special Post, Dietze

In Shakespeare,Our Digital Native, English teachers Christopher Shaburg and Cari Craighead describe a learning experiment on reading Shakespeare between two groups of high school students. The first group of 9^th graders filmed and reenacted the performance of Romeo & Juliet. The second group did an audio only play of Macbeth where they worked with these limitations by evoking character voice and sound props. The purpose of these assignments was to introduce the students to critical concepts found in Shakespeare’s works. The process allowed the students to become active participants in the narrative and engage with the characters. This allowed them to form a connection with the readings and also probably quelled some fears about reading the plays. Besides, Shakespeare’s plays were originally not to be read, but heard and seen. They were to be shared. This technological and creative engagement not only incorporated the traditions of Shakespeare, but also molded them with today’s modern habit. This formation of old style and new, referred to as remix, was after-all one of Shakespeare most successful tactics in writing. The author believed the assignment “extended thoughts and feelings from [the students] lives” that provided a “toolset to live in situations they never could and to express language they did not craft.”

When students are able to see the plays less as lofty long words on a page, and are able to live out literature and embody the characters, they are able to create a connection with Shakespeare’s works: “when students see themselves as participants in culture and literature, they develop habits of mind that can help them for a lifetime.” This connection, or participatory culture, will stick with them much longer than memorization would. Our critical concepts blogs and the service-learning component, also requires our active participation. We are reading and discussing in ways that allow us to engage with the text that brings the works in a relative context of our own. I had some trouble choosing which concept I would base my blogs on off of the four columns of words. Each concept out of the list can all be found within Shakespeare’s works. There are many layers and many ways to interpret Shakespeare, but the method that has worked most effectively is finding a way to engage with the works that make them come alive in any era.

I wrote all the above before our cluster convo, which completely solidified all the points I had made. The adaptation of the King Lear play in the Zaatari Refugee Camp embodies this sort of active participation as the above experiment did. Even if it was not conscious of it. It doesn’t matter that it was a Shakespeare play, what matters is that it embodied all of the elements Shakespeare wanted to evoke: relation, theatrics, connections, and all to be seen/heard by the common people. An audience without ranking or status, just an audience of people. The American film society has a tendency to over-produce and under-inspire.

Although I chose to do the critical concepts blog, I have done service learning in the past and have an experience I’m reminded of. I worked at the Freret Street Neighborhood Center, a space that opened its doors to anyone who needs it, from children’s art classes to health information to community events to the computer lab where I worked. On the three big brown boxy computers I helped jobless, sometimes homeless, individuals to create a resume, job search, etc. One day Henry came in. He looked in his 60s. He told me he wanted to learn how to read and had some online texts, I think it might’ve been a class, and that day we went word for word on that big computer screen for hours. We’d take breaks and Henry would tell me how he was a truck driver that traveled cross-country by wheel. Henry told me the feeling of waking up in a new place each day was the most exhilarating feeling. He said it made him feel alive, a feeling he never took for granted after discovering he had a brain tumor. After our day together, he told me he felt that God had sent me to help him. I’m not sure if I’ve ever been so inspired by such a genuine human being since. The experience taught me how valuable life is and how many different ways there are to interpret it. And, this is cheesy, but I think that Shakespeare’s ability to ingrain experiences of humanity in his stories are what make them so lasting.