In the first blog post, I focused on Helena, analyzing her character flaws and motives behind her actions throughout the play. I seem to have continued to analyze specific characters and their roles in the play as a whole for my other posts. I seem to be interested in the female characters Shakespeare creates and how strong of a presence the women have in terms of the interactions made with other characters. My post on A Midsummer Night’s Dream compared Beatrice and Hero and the differences in their abilities to speak their mind versus following the will of others. I notice that I am very critical of the women who are weaker than their counterparts, which in most cases is understandable considering the time period, and the authority that men had over women in this culture. My closing comments on the character of Hero only reflected on how she did not stand up for herself in front of her father.
“She's innocent and quiet, but also slightly shallow so far. Her character is bland, not solely due to Beatrice's strong, opinionated presence, but because she lacks a redeemable character so far throughout the play.”
In truth, Hero was innocent and quiet and followed the orders of her father, like women were expected to do. Beatrice was the character who was the one women doing what was not proper, which was speak for yourself. Hero’s temperament and her father’s presence simply did not allow for her to be anything but submissive.
As for my post on Richard III, I discussed Richard’s pursuit of Anne, and may have been too quick to judge Anne and too harsh a critic on her true feelings towards Richard. I immediately condemned her as being “a weak woman who will easily fall into Richard’s trap because of the over-the-top flattering he constantly throws at her.” It seems that throughout my posts I choose to argue about the female characters’ abilities to represent themselves as strong-willed and confident, even in the face of intimidation, betrayal, and even death.