(After a series of
computer related mishaps, including crashes, improper shutdowns, Google
refusing to let me sign out of my hawkmail account, refusing to recognize
my non-hawkmail account, and very possibly a
temporary deletion of said account. This eventful journey finally culminated in
several choruses of profanity, head-banging-on-desk stomp numbers, and a now working
Google account from which I submit this Blog Post):
Going back
and rereading my own blogs makes the old blog seem like a foreign language, a
different person in a different time and tongue carving out ideas that seem to
have once mirrored my own. The mind alters; new ideas and interpretations come
and merge, meld, or even erase old conceptions. What is worse, I look back at
the blogs and see a theme I hadn’t meant to express, and wish beyond all reason
that I could go back and rewrite what I had said. For example, my first two
blogs, when read from a new time and different perspective, can easily be read
as “In Defense of Shakespeare” posts. I argue that Taming of the Shrew is not anti-feminist, and The Merchant of Venice is not anti-Semitic. This was not, of
course, my intent, but now I hear myself as a childish Shakespeare nerd,
shaking my head in defiance when someone insults my bard.
Something
else I notice while rereading the relics of blogs past was that I tend to focus
on specific characters; first Kate and Petruchio, then Shylock, and then Richard
II. I suppose I am influenced by my theatrical background, specifically that of
an actor, and imagine the different ways these characters could be interpreted
and my writing draws from those ethereal imaginings. I know that, especially in
the first two blogs, my work is heavily based on the idea of interpretation.
Each company and cast imagines the text differently, and that is what changes
Shylock from a cold-heart villain to an oppressed and bullied man of revenge,
and what changes a mean, cold, brutish Petruchio (like John Cleese), into a
playful, acrobatic clown with a massive codpiece (you remember the clip).
My blog on
Richard II is the most different from the three piece cannon of my blogs. Instead
of focusing on interpretation of a character, I focus on the words of a
specific speech of Richard. I approached the text as something closer to a
poetry explication rather than an actor’s analysis. Despite remaining closer to
the text, my “King of Discontent” blog does not completely separate from the
performance field because I still talk of Richard as a character, his words
defending, describing, and justifying his own actions, or condemning those of
others. I cannot account for the shift to a more textual analysis other than
that at the same time I wrote that, I was also working on a poetry explication
for another class. It is interesting how one paper can influence another work.
What I
value the most in blogging is the freedom to write about anything I want to
write about. Although I am an English major as well, much of my interest in
Shakespeare comes from a theatrical background rather than a literature one,
and having the ability to approach a text and write about it from a theatrical
angle is not only quite satisfying, it links my two majors together in a way
that many other classes would not and even cannot allow.
No comments:
Post a Comment