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.