Curtain Call

As the end of class looms and final approaches, I thought it only fitting to reflect on what has been a whirlwind of a semester! My initial thought as class began after reading the likes of Othello and The Tempest back in high school, was shock at how we would ever cram seven or eight full plays of Shakespeare into our short sixteen weeks. There were definitely pro's and con's to flying through these great works, but as I found out my initial skepticism did not last.

I had the chance to read plays like Richard III, Julius Caesar, and Hamlet, all of which opened my eyes to works renowned as literary brilliance. I was able to interact with a vast and diverse range of characters: the striking and thought provoking Prince Hamlet, glorious Caesar, amazing collaborate of Petruchio-Lucentio-Katherine-Bianca, unparalleled evil Iago, and Robin "Puck" (which means mischievous) Goodfellow. And of course, I was able to savor his great story telling abilities. Even though we were unable to go into great depth given the time constraints and nature of the class, I ended up learning a tremendous amount about Shakespeare through the sum of his works and their comparisons.

As we went through each work, my previous impression of Shakespeare having just a few great works while most others weren't relative or worth my time - was erased.  What I took away from this class was a new perception of Shakespeare as an unbelievable multi-dimensional writer that was able to translate genres in his time and now translate generations in ours. Every single one of his plays brings so many fascinating attributes - plot, character, theme, symbolism, and many others - that it is difficult to not react or resonate with some aspect of each single work - no matter the individual or audience. More so, as we went through these plays in succession all of the works started to seemingly blur and I began to develop an impression of the puppeteer who masters his stage from above, an impression of Shakespeare as a whole. His plays stress such simple, yet relevant human ideas - love, hate, life, death, friendship, betrayal, fame, beauty, malice, power, struggle, courage, fear, happiness - are just the tip of the iceberg. Shakespeare then uses his literary tools and craftsmanship, particularly the portrayal of theme, to relate such common human experiences to the audience, and in turn the audience to his work.

Having encountered Shakespeare's work before, I really didn't expect much coming into it this class. Looking back now though, I was pleasantly surprised. The way Ewa engaged in the material and encouraged class discussion brought life to the plays. It truly was a joy to come to class each day.  I'm excited to have had my eyes-opened to this literary great and am just beginning to see why Shakespeare has stood the test of time. I know it won't be my last encounter!

Victory in Speech

With only a couple blogs left, I wanted to think back over the course of the semester and pick up on a topic that had really resonated with me. Hamlet was a play and character that had a great impression upon me, especially when reading it for the first time, likewise with Julius Caesar and the characterization from The Taming of the Shrew. However, it was surprisingly easy to make the decision as my mind drifted back to the first play we read, Richard III, and the contrasting battle speeches between Richard and Richmond in Act V.

As I blogged about in an earlier post, Richard III follows the bloody conquest of Richard to his throne, and the destruction of all in his path. At this point in the play, the middle of Act V, Richard is on the verge of battle as forces led by the foiling Richmond press upon England to take back the throne for the people. This battle seems an appropriate metaphor for Richard as all his past actions are coming to a head, and after his nightmare, he is on the precipice of change - death in battle and death to his blood-lust crown in his kingdom. That aside, each leader gives a speech as they march their armies into battle. The differences to me were striking.

As an angry army of his own people prepare to attack him, Richard sums up his speech by distancing himself from his troops, just as he killed anyone close to him throughout the play and left himself in isolation. He mocks the enemy, going as far as calling them "scum" and calls for his troops to defend their country and current kingdom. He attempts to make Richmond out as a foreigner from France, but it felt that this motivation was loosely based and fell lightly. By the end of the speech troops may feel more inclined to fight for the state of England, but not the distanced Richard. On the other hand is Richard's foil, Richmond. His speech takes on a much more dramatic, heartfelt tone. Reminding his troops of England's former beauty and the tyrant leading her, he urges his troop to fight for honor, compassion, and loyalty - all traits Richard lacks. And then in great crescendo Richmond even proclaims that he will die in battle even if faced with defeat, but if they do succeed, he will also share with his soldiers the rewards.

In short, I loved the use of these speeches in Richard III. They are both extremely insightful in their own respects, and are beautiful tools that Shakespeare uses to condense his characterization of Richard for the entire play - into two paragraphs. From all of our texts this small scene captured Shakespeare's magic better than any other.

The Many Populates of Caliban

In my short dealings with William Shakespeare and his work, without a doubt Caliban from The Tempest is one of the most intriguing minor characters. He takes on a distinct image, as the only island native in the entire play, yet it seems at one point or another he takes on or reflects pieces of all the other characters. This subtle connection with all of those around him serves to drive one of Shakespeare's main themes in differing between "man" and "beast," as well as promote the idea of illusion or false perception throughout the play.

Caliban's background stems from his mother Sycorax, a deceased witch of the island. Given her passing Caliban is left as the lone native, yet still Prospero was able to come marooned to the island and take control for over twelve years. This relationship is what sets the dark skinned Caliban to be perceived as somewhat of a savage or "beast,"as it seems Prospero's magical abilities have a "taming" effect over the native. Yet as the relationship makes Prospero seem more a "man" and distant from the animalistic Caliban, it also draws him closer. Back in Milan, Prospero was driven from his dukedom by his brother Antonio, with a similar view of the island it seems that Prospero actually did the same thing to Caliban in driving him from his rightful place as native leader. The parallels are but a small example of how one of Caliban's reflecting relationships serve to drive illusion and man vs. beast themes in The Tempest. He not only does it with Prospero, but Caliban mirrors other characters and ideas in this same manner constantly.

Whether Caliban is cursing his telling Prospero all of his island secrets, or offering them up to Trinculo and Stephano to plot the killing of Prospero, which then mirrors Anotonio and Sebastian across the island considering the killing of Alonso, or even contrasting Ferdinand with their respective "loves" for Miranda - Caliban is a minor character with an extremely MAJOR characterization. Yet personally, I'll always have a tough time neglecting his fantasy of populating the island with little Calibans... its really a shame Shakespeare didn't come out of retirement for a sequel.

Light & Dark Of Othello

In the tragedy Othello, Shakespeare continually uses the concepts of light and dark to emphasize his central themes. Independently each motif brings certain perceptions to the text naturally. Light traditionally represents purity, love, and goodness. Oppositely, darkness  can be interpreted as evil, deceptive, or hateful. The combination of these two elements is essential to this literary work.

The most prominent character to be associated with the "light" is undoubtedly Desdemona. Fair skinned and innocent, she is referenced as an "angel" and exemplifies all of the necessary traits. Even in her death, does Othello compare her passing to "putting out the flame."  The significance of her symbolism is furthered, however, by her connection to Othello, the Moor. Immediately from the beginning of the play a focus is placed on racism and the great distinction of Othello from all other characters, his skin color. As if racist ties and actual dark skin weren't enough to drive this motif, Iago's interactions with Othello are deceitful and treacherous - leading to Othello's murder of his pure-hearted love. 

What we can take away from their relationship, was that Iago and Othello's combined "darkness" eventually over powered Desdemona's "light." Through this interaction Shakespeare asserts his tragedy and main themes of the frailty of love and the drastic power of relationship and their manipulation.

Hell & Demons

Within the play Othello, the motifs of religious and moral judgement have a significant impact on the story line. In the beginning of the play it begins subtly, with mention to jealousy being a "monster" by both Iago and Emilia. As the course of events progresses, however, monster's and subtle mentions of jealousy by supporting characters turn into increasingly frequent and dramatic allusions to hell, damnation, and demons by the most prominent characters in the play. This trend of increasing importance is no coincidence, and thus we the audience should have a keen eye to the words "HELL" and "DEMON" that appear in Othello and Desdemona's names. 

At the outset of the performance, there is absolutely no notice of what's hidden within the two main characters names. But as Shakespeare leads the audience he gradually reveals motives and underlying meanings buried deep within his words. The character of Iago illustrates this perfectly. Most Shakespearian villains have had some cause to become evil or sinister, yet as Othello goes along the motives we expect never come. By plays end we understand that Iago is simply a hateful, antagonist that preys on chaos and manipulation - he was introduced to the audience in this manner and stayed so throughout the play right under our noses. In the same capacity Shakespeare manipulated his audience with the title and names Desdemona and Othello.

As for specific link to their characterization... 

• "Othello" may resonate with his reference to "HELL" given his continual progression to religious and moral judgement. Over the course of the play these concepts gradually weigh on his mind more and more, much like the word "HELL" becomes apparent to the audience. The culmination of his underworld affliction comes with this quote: “Whip me, ye devils, / . . . / . . . roast me in sulphur, / Wash me in steep-down gulfs of liquid fire!” (V.ii.284–287) 
• "Desdemona" within the play takes a supportive role to Othello. Therefore, it seems fitting that her implicative name "DEMON" takes supporting to role to Othello's "HELL". It also plays into the prevailing mention of monsters. Seeing that as monsters grow and become more ferocious/fearsome they would fittingly take on the demon form. 

This was my second time studying Othello, and now I can say without doubt, that as an audience I felt more manipulated by Shakespeare's writing in this play than in any of his other works. The character dynamic, change in setting, and characterization of Iago are all tools Shakespeare used effectively to deceive any preconceptions the audience may have had. Further, in retrospect the hidden meaning within "Othello" and "Desdemona" as simply names is extremely appropriate - and symbolic to the work as a whole. 

Men and Their Female Sons

Taking a step back from the theme centered attributes of Shakespeare's work, I wanted to touch on a subject that still has me in disbelief: the lack of women in theatre during the Elizabethan era and resultant cross-dressing young men. Now to understand why young boys paraded around on stage as pretty woman we have to take into account women's role in society as a whole.

Unlike today, obviously, in the early 1600's women had an extremely minute - if existent - role in the public sector. They did not partake in community officiating, public occupation, or really any major task in recognition, aside from the queen... How's that work? Women were focused upon gaining marriage and subsequently serving their spouse, which most likely would consist of rearing children and taking care of the home. Not too surprising. However, I never actually made the connection, and I would venture to guess I'm not alone, that this included acting in the public theatre. During Shakespeare's time women were not allowed to partake in the theatrical performances, and as we can tell from his work, not all of Shakespeare's characters were male. This produced two distinct outcomes:

1. Men & boys were forced to take on the feminine roles, which lead to a drastic amount of cross-dressing. Yet at the time this was not nearly as culturally conspicuous as we consider it nowadays, people were used to it and the acting did not necessarily detract from the plays. 
2. After reading A Midsummer Night's Dream, I got the sense that Shakespeare actually used this cultural enigma to enhance the humor of his comedies! This feeling was furthered during one of our presentations on A Midsummer Night's Dream when I was actually able to see the "play-within-a-play" in the modern day film. The cross-dressing in the scene very effectively added to the hilarity.

In point, as much as I was stunned by the cross-dressing that took place during the times of William Shakespeare, I was far more impressed after reading several comedies by the way in which it felt he was able to "blow up" distinct characters using this modern day taboo. 

To Seem or To Appear? Reality - That Is The Question

Perhaps one of the greatest constants through all of Shakespeare's writing is the struggle between "seeming" and "being," between appearance and reality. Of the plays we've read thus far, Richard III, The Taming Of the Shrew, Julius Caesar, A Midsummer Night's Dream, and Hamlet, every single play has had elements of what is true reality and what is pure appearance. Shakespeare continually creates tension within his writing contrasting these two motifs, and in turn these comparisons usually have a substantial role in driving the sequence of events. Specifically to Hamlet, Shakespeare displays arguably his most core literary message through the concepts of "seeming" and "being."

In only the second scene of the play, Prince Hamlet snaps back at his mother and Claudius concerning grief for his father's recent passing. He ridicules them both on what is to "seem," that his black attire and melancholy mood are relatively dark and grievous when compared to the wedding party, yet to what lies in his art his appearance may only be a fraction of what he actually feels. This sharp discourse early in the play quickly alerts the play to one of the key points in Hamlet's characterization, and hints at the extensive gap between what "is" and what "seems."

Personally, I find this constant struggle between truth and impression, being and seeming, reality and appearance... FASCINATING! It is likely the most significant reason as to why I've always felt a love for Shakespeare's work, even at a young age. By emphasizing this theme and its connotations through his work, Shakespeare to a degree is evaluating and reflecting the world around us. And to a critical, philosophical mind - there is pure brilliance in that style of writing.