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.

The Beyond

Hamlet. The name itself is infamous to the English language, not to mention the vast depths of literature that lay behind the play and prince. Perhaps the most recognized character of all time, Prince Hamlet, has blossomed for hundreds of year, somehow managing to resonate with every new generation he comes in contact with. Why is this? He's certainly not the most likable character, with stints of great sorrow and flashes of madness. He's not the most comic, as his feigned madness at times becomes dark and rage filled. He's not the most heroic, although admirably he seeks to avenge his father there are equally as many times when he self-loathes and becomes entrenched in himself. What, besides "To be or not to be," could have launched this prince into literature stardom? The answer in most simplistic forms, is that Hamlet has a level of similarity with any reader that comes across his tale. ANYONE. This is due to Hamlet's primary fascination: death.

All humans have one great thing in common, they exist in life and will inevitably meet their end in death. There's no way around it. The play Hamlet acknowledges this, and Shakespeare created a character driven by this great bond. The entire plot of the play is spurred by Hamlet encountering the ghost of his father, who was allegedly murdered by Claudius, and King Hamlet's request for revenge. This supernatural dialogue ignites in Hamlet his struggled passion with the unknown of what lays beyond death. His greatest soliloquy, "To be or not to be," centers around his torture of living in a world of great pain combatted with the possibility of suicide and perceived ease of suffering. Never is he able to set him self free of his living world, as his fear and uncertainty of what waits beyond death always trumps his temptation.

This struggle with death and the difficulty of uncertainty produces a universal character that appeals to all, and solidified Shakespeare as one of the greatest English writers to ever live.

The Ides Of March

Beware! Perhaps the most memorable figment out of the great tragedy Julius Caesar, in the streets of a Rome a soothsayer warned of the 15th of March and thrust forward a prominent theme of fate vs. free will. As Caesar is welcomed back into the city by great celebration and festivity, Shakespeare quickly foreshadows the play's destination as the fortune teller shouts out at Caesar to "beware the Ides of March." However, the magnificent leader takes no heed and continues upon his course through the city and story line. This event is absolutely essential to the play and its plot. Right here in the streets of Rome, Caesar is given the opportunity to observe fates and change his course, yet he does not. It shows both a great strength of character to not run from fate, but at the same time may reveal an underlying sense of arrogance or invincibility to ignore such "omens." In the end, Caesar will be hailed by the reading of his will as a courageous leader that had naught but the best of Rome at his heart. This "Ides of March" is the first point at which Shakespeare shows this ideal to the audience. 


Further into the play we are presented with a different scenario of fate, as Brutus and Cassius deliberate Caesar's power. Cassius seeking to gain Brutus in aid of the conspiracy, blames their own lack of will for Caesar's dominance, as he assures no man could reach such heights by the way of fate. This comparison of destiny by Cassius creates an atmosphere of superiority in free choice. By saying that if they were to act, they COULD HAVE TRUMPED FATE. For such bold statements, I had to go back through a few times to really get the meaning of what Cassius was saying.


The last substantial portrayal of fate comes ironically through Caesar's will to go to the Senate. In this setting his wife, Calpurnia, begs him not to go, describing her recent nightmares of a Caesar statue streamed with blood and smiling men bathing their hands in it. Again Caesar elects to ignore premonition, with a little sway from a Senate member, yet this time goes forth to a fate of more certainty. The tension in the play has risen, especially since it is the 15th of March, and Caesar boldly goes out into a world of treachery. This action asserts Caesar's appeal to free will over fate and seals his characterization. Perhaps Shakespeare was also trying to send his own message, as Caesar is hailed for his free will, while all his peers believing in fade are shamed into exile and subsequently extinguished on battlefields opposing Rome. A justifiable end?

Taming Character Duality and a Shrew

Taming of the Shrew without question is a play of masterful characterization. As I read the play, I was struck far more by the characters within it than any semblance of the simple plot. In general the play fulfills our modern romantic comedy genre where young suitors set upon a quest for marriage and come across a few bumps and laughs in their journey, all leading to a happy ending. Awesome! I couldn't care less. However, I found that the character dynamic over the course of the play is what took a simple romantic comedy and elevated it to Shakespearian classic.

The characterization between the focal four - Petruchio, Lucentio, Katherine, and Bianca - make Taming of the Shrew an enjoyable written work and comedic success given the vast amount of personalities that can relate to it. By foiling these four prominent personas Shakespeare somehow gave me the impression that the work was focused upon comparing and contrasting two ideals. These ideals were represented through this square character dynamic.

• Petruchio/Lucentio: Petruchio is a brash, forward man commanding of attention. Meanwhile Lucentio is a gentle, warm man. Both characters offset one another as suitors to the women.
• Katherine/Bianca: Much like their male suitors, Katherine and Bianca are split between dominant and passive personalities. Katherine is characterized as a difficult, bitter woman while Bianca a sweet, obedient younger sister. Personalities lead to their respective relationships. 
• Petruchio/Katherine: This relationship takes a much more vivacious cycle, from Katherine's stubbornness to Petruchio's authoritative relationship presence, the two make for a dominant couple. Much like their independent personalities. 
• Lucientio/Bianca: In this same manner, Luciento and Bianca pair their respectively soft personalities to make a gentle, mild marriage. The mildness complements Petruchio and Katherine's relationship much like individual personalities also have their complements.

Given the character relationships and independent personality qualities, it's very clear that the duality of contrasting features was extremely important to Shakespeare in crafting The Taming Of The Shrew.

Power of Richard III

After reading Shakespeare's Richard III for the first time, I was left rather shocked. After such a bloodbath I came away from the text somewhat dazed. All my other encounters with Shakespeare's work had imposed a central vein to which the work revolved. Of course, however, the first play we read diverged from this impression. Now in no way am I saying that the play is lacking of theme, but rather it took more time resonate with me than turning the last page and having my "ah-ha" moment!

At the outset of the play, we the audience, witness Richard (The Duke of Gloucester) lament his deformities and ugly appearance, setting the stage for an emphatic rage within the English kingdom. This initial allusion, to his appearance, was one of the first events that toys with the audiences mind and led me to struggle with the essence of the play. Is Richard legitimately vengeful because of his proposed appearance? Or is this yet another act of manipulation with the audience? As the play progresses Richard continually butchers any opposition between him and the crown. He kills his own brother, wife, husband, court nobleman, countrymen, and even goes so far as to murder the youthful princes, heirs to the throne. Time and again however, the villain lures back his fellow characters and the audience itself with passionate monologues and manipulative dialogue. In Act I , not even Lady Anne can resist his hand in marriage after Richard has just murdered her husband. This is not by coincidence.

When taken independently, Richard proves throughout the play that he is able to manipulate and deceive out of any situation. It is only at the end of the play when his numerous bloody deeds have been recognized that valiant Richard meets his downfall. This pattern is what led me to perhaps the greater message of the work. The allure of power. Even in our modern day and age, if presented with the opportunity to make more money, expand our business, or grow our wealth in whatever respect, we would take it. Incrementally Richard sets out and boldly does the same thing, but through murder. Ignoring any offense we may take with the killing, much of what Richard does in the play may not be that far off from a piece of ourselves. It is only when we look back and see the people we hurt in pursuit of our ambitions, that perhaps the lure of power is dissipated. In the end manipulative, blood thirsty Richard draws fellow characters to him, while also driving the play forward, all through a lust for power.

Themes Of Shakespeare

Time for my first blog! Not going to lie, this seems like one of the more creative and fascinating assignments that I've had in my first couple years of college. The class, Shakespeare For Non-Majors, issued the task of organizing twelve responses to our various Shakespeare material discussed over the course of the semester. In general these posts are going to focus on the specific plays and their significant themes, what Shakespeare may have meant or sought to imply by them, and of course my reflections to all of the subject matter! This post however, is more of an outline of what's to come and overview of my perspective. 


In creating my responses I was especially tickled with the freedom given to us by Prof. Nowak, thus I'll do my best to ride somewhat of a colloquial tone through all of my posts. I haven't had the opportunity to write like this in years and the personality behind the assignment should be great fun. As for the topics themselves, I thought back to some of my first encounters with Shakespeare and what made his writing stick out for me personally. What first came to mind was predominately his variety in character and the impacts they left upon me even at a young age... But how? And that's when my young philosophical mind crashed into what my blog should be about. Shakespeare's fantastic characterization always seemed to have a greater calling; each persona always playing to a story weave greater than themselves. That greater weave, at least to this bright-eyed youth, resonated in the themes of Shakespeare's work. Whether morality disputes, relationship fluctuations, or power struggles, Shakespeare's motifs and themes always seem to draw back into my own life and the real world. Which is the great motivator in my infatuation with his beautiful work. 


So - without further ado - let the blogging begin!