Meta-blog

I've definitely grown more comfortable with the blogging medium since Merchant of Venice. I feel my first blog post was a bit of a reach and definitely deserved its two disagreeing comments. And I also managed to say something very shallow and possibly offensive about organized religion being little more than the favoring of one spiritual path over another, and if I upset anyone with that comment, I sincerely apologize. Merchant was a challenging play to begin blogging on because it is so controversial, but it certainly prepared me for forthcoming debates.

As Scabbed Wings noted, Shakespeare's characters are indeed the driving force behind his dramas, and I believe that's why the latter two of my posts focus on specific characters. (My Merchant post was more about antisemitism than either Shylock or Graziano.) I love picking apart key characters and delving into their psychologies, idiosyncrasies, and import. I like how I linked both Richard II and Henry IV to Richard III because it helped draw the whole tetralogy together. And even if you can compare one villain to another or one clown to another, no two Shakespearean characters are the same!

I especially liked predicting endings and seeing if I'm right. In my first post, I predicted that Shylock would either become better or worse for his conversion to Christianity, and I was surprised that he didn't appear in Act V at all. I actually felt a little cheated, as if Shakespeare had just dodged the issue. In my Richard II post, I predicted that readers would soon have reason to pity King Richard, as pathetic as he seems in the first couple of acts, and I was right! I figured that if we could feel in the least bit sorry for Richard III that ol' Shakespeare would find a way to make Richard II sympathetic as well, which just goes to show how important it is to have sympathetic protagonists, no matter how lowly they are. I also predicted that Gaunt would haunt the rest of the play, and, sadly, he doesn't. I guess it would have been to predictable.

My favorite post, by far was on Prince Hal being a "player." (Hee hee. I love puns.) I predicted that he would eventually sell out Falstaff--but who didn't see that one coming? Hal doesn't seem to be much of a central character until the second half of the play. At first, he comes across as moody, apathetic, and juvenile, but then he baffles the audience along with English court when he all of a sudden makes all these valiant oaths. I wasn't sure if he would actually follow through on that whole "seeming the sun" thing. I enjoy watching seemingly minor characters evolve and step into the foreground.

Before this class, I'd never blogged before. I must say: I do enjoy it. I like the informality and that anyone can access the blog. It's exciting to read the comments people leave and to know that I've prompted a reaction in someone.