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!
No comments:
Post a Comment