Meta-Post (modern)

My blog-posts thus far have varied in their topic in tone, but seem to be mostly concerned with identity. By identity I mean both self identity, what one sees oneself as, and the public identity (or persona), how one is seen by others. The first post was a discussion of demographic identity revolving around Shylock's daughter Jessica, whom does not identify as a Jew nor is she identified as a Jew (at least in the pejorative sense). In the second post the theme of identity is politicized through the authoritative trappings of Angelo and the Friar's garb of the Duke, suggesting that the public identifies clothing with power and legitimacy rather than the ability to rule effectively. As for Henry IV the discussion of identity turns to Bolingbroke's scramble to maintain his crown, noting that Prince Harry does not view his "common" lifestyle as tarnishing his identity as heir-apparent.
I have noticed that my posts run close to being mere summaries of certain favorite scenes, which, I admit, is evidence of my anxiety over going on tangents about identity politics and forgetting to actually cite any lines of the plays themselves.
Where there are opinions of my own they tend to be about the idea of surface reality vs. "de facto" reality. For example, I mentioned that Prince Harry was much better at governing the people than his father in my third post despite his appearance of irresponsible behavior. In the first post I discuss how Jessica will "become a Christian" although she is not treated (or really depicted) as anything else.
The blog is a great forum for exploring Shakespeare in a more relaxed context, without the confines of academic writing. It helps me think about the plays when I don't have to write bone-dry structured essays about them. My posts have progressed, in my opinion, from surface analysis of plot to deeper interpretation of the performances and shows of everyday politic. I believe this topic will continue to run through my posts as seeming seems to be an important
I've noticed that my academic language still permeates these posts as much as I abhor it. I'd like it to be more witty and enjoyable, but perhaps when it concerns the histories they must be political to glean the best understanding. Staying on topic is of course a main concern still. This post itself has jumped around with bad transitions.
One thing about Shakespeare that has caught my interest is his tendency to include comic subplots, often with a bunch of idiots or a fool who is wiser than the major players such as the king. I'd like to have my next post examine these minor characters and what they add to the plays.