Making Connections

I was intrigued when I read the “prompt” for this week’s blog post.  After I reviewed my old blogs, I realized that I seem to enjoy reflecting on Shakespeare’s use of characterization.   Furthermore, comparing my old blog posts to the more recent ones illustrates how I’ve grown as a critical thinker throughout this course so far.  I now do not only reflect on how I analyze Shakespeare’s pieces, but also consider how Shakespeare’s audience may have interpreted his work.  Thus, specific concerns in my writing relate to how his original spectators would have viewed his plays.  For instance, in my first post, I write, “Perhaps developing and emphasizing the child-like nature of his characters was one way that he intensified the comedic nature of the play.”  While I do make an insightful comment regarding Shakespeare’s creation of “foolish” characters, I fail to ponder how his original audience may have viewed these people in the play.  However, an examination of my two most recent reflections exhibits my ongoing maturity as a critical thinker.  I note in my October 1, 2012 post, “I am guessing that the women in the audience probably did not view her (Hero) as a feminine hero who rebels against patriarchal authority.  Nevertheless, perhaps women did view her as heroic because she is intelligent, and strong, since she keeps her mouth shut?  Since our society today is so different in terms of equality between men and women, it is hard to determine the reaction of Shakespeare’s female audience.”  Clearly, in this post, I make a much more judicious comparison regarding the way in which Shakespeare’s audience would have construed Hero’s behavior. 

While on the subject of Hero’s character, I would like to mention that one major topic that is present throughout all of my posts involves the characterization of different characters (especially females) throughout the plays.  I also make frequent comparisons between characters, and contemplate the role/status of women in Shakespeare’s society.  In particular, I found my evaluation of Hero and Desdemona extremely interesting.  In my October 13, 2012 entry, I ask, “Is Desdemona’s character intentionally a mirror of Hero?  What is Shakespeare trying to convey through his thoughtful, comparable characterizations of these females?”  After having a wonderful class discussion the following class, I came to the conclusion that Shakespeare probably did purposefully make both characters similar.  I think Shakespeare was interested in exploring the effects of a patriarchal society.  Additionally, I feel as though he may be questioning his society’s status quo in his plays.

Overall, I think that my blogging has tremendously helped me make connections and reflect on what I have read during this course.  It is a way in which I can explore a topic that interests me as I read Shakespeare.  Of course, it also facilitates the growth of my critical thinking skills.  As a future English teacher, I plan to have my students participate in some type of blogging activity, since I have experienced its positive effects.        

Childish Characters

This might sound strange, but many of the characters in Acts I and II remind me of children.  Before you assume that I am simply an education major whose mind is constantly focused on the behavior of kids, give me a chance to illustrate this idea. 

Egeus acts like a “tattle-tale” when he runs to Theseus to complain about his daughter, Hermia.  He is not happy that she refuses to marry Demetrius, and runs to the higher authority instead of taking matters into his own hands.  I think he resembles a sibling running to his or her parent after he or she has been in a quarrel.  Additionally, Hermia and Lysander both exhibit the behavior of adolescents.  Hermia rebels against her Egeus’s order.  She proclaims that she is madly in love with Lysander, and refuses to give in to her father’s demand.  Hermia’s feelings are mutual, for Lysander adores her, too.  He mocks Demetrius by stating, “You have her father’s love, Demetrius; Let me have Hermia’s.  Do you marry him” (1.1.93-94).  These lines are certainly witty and sarcastic.  Besides increasing the comical tone, they sound like something a juvenile would say.

On another note, Titania and Oberon’s argument makes them comparable to younger children.  They are fighting over the possession of a boy.  In a way, it resembles youngsters arguing over a toy.  Oberon becomes jealous, and angrily argues with Titania.  He even develops a mischievous plan to drop magical juice into her eyes while she is sleeping, for he knows it will make her fall in love with something once she awakes.  He exclaims, "Be it on lion, bear, or wolf, or bull, On meddling monkey, or on busy ape - She shall pursue it with the soul of love" (2.1.180-82).  He thinks he is so clever coming up with a naughty plan in order to get what he wants - the boy.  Her attention will be focused on chasing her new foolish love that he will be able to snatch his "charm."  Does this sound like a child creating a sneaky plan to get to the cookie jar?

Nick Bottom is especially infantile.  First of all, he misspells and incorrectly pronounces words.  Furthermore, he wants everybody else’s part in the play that the artisans are preparing for the wedding.  When Quince assigns roles, Bottom immaturely interferes.  He is asked to play Pyramus, but attempts to snatch the parts of Thisbe and the Lion as well.  Bottom’s actions mirror what many children would do in that situation.  They always want what others have.           
              
Could this all have been part of Shakespeare’s strategy as a playwright?  In other words, perhaps developing and emphasizing the child-like nature of his characters was one way that he intensified the comedic nature of the play.  His goal was to appeal to the audience, and I am guessing that many people watching his plays were parents.  Parents probably find the conduct of his characters especially comical – and even relatable – since they witness such actions on a daily basis.  On the other hand, maybe Shakespeare did not do it in order to appeal to the parents of his audience.  His writing might simply be making a statement regarding our human nature:  we can never completely grow out of childish behavior.  Every one of us will act silly or foolish at certain times, whether it is intentional or not.   

Challenges of interpretation

What is King Lear’s darker purpose? If there’s one thing Shakespeare readers can depend on, it’s Lear’s totally undependable characterization. Is he insane? Is he senile? Is he fragile? Is he wicked? Is he sympathetic? One can interpret just a single line of Lear’s dialogue in a squabillion ways.

In 1.1, Lear divides his kingdom among two of his three daughters by way of a diabolical test of their love – “Which of you shall we say doth love us [me] most?” (Lear, 1.1.49). Trying to picture the delivery of his lines and his physical comportment in act one is like trying to explain to a child why Van Gogh cut his own ear off. It doesn’t help that stage directions are scarce. But the challenge is kind of fun, and I’m sure play directors and filmmakers who have adapted the play would agree.

I could picture the delivery of Lear’s lines during the test in 1.1 a few different ways. Lear says to Cordelia, after she says she has no answer to his test (but more specifically—and perplexingly—she really says, “nothing”), “How, how, Cordelia! mend your speech a little,/Lest it may mar your fortunes” (1.1.2495). First, I thought, he totally says this line with a wink and a nudging elbow. Totally. But he also says it with clenched teeth and narrow eyes. Or maybe he says it with a little chuckle, like a self-conscious Santa Claus. Actually, he says it as a calm scolding, raising his voice but not shouting. You get the idea. It’s open to interpretation.

I don’t know if making stage directions sparse was a standard theatrical convention in Shakespeare’s time, but it works in this play. Really, all of Shakespeare’s plays are more compelling because of the scarcity of stage directions. Aside from encouraging the reader to feel confident in their capability of interpreting Shakespeare, the scarcity of stage directions packs a thematic punch. Less is more. The thematic implications of the stage directions, whether they are absent or (strategically) present, are wonderfully perplexing.

Of course, these revelations don’t get me much closer to figuring out Lear’s characterization. The dude is still massively complex and mysterious. The play is still massively complex and mysterious. Shakespeare is still massively complex and mysterious! I think that’s the point.

I guess the challenge of reading this play is settling on one or two interpretations of the characters and themes and then seeing those interpretations through to the end. As I’m still not sure what my idea of Lear is right now, it’s hard to say how consistent I’ll be in forming and maintaining a cohesive idea of him later on in my reading. But is trying to define an "idea" of Lear even the right approach to understanding him? 

All I can say is, Shakespeare knows what’s up. It’s not easy to understand people at all. They’re not cardboard cutouts and they don’t come with an instruction manual. Lear really does deliver his lines in all of the ways I can think of, because he has all of the qualities I can think of.  

Richard & Water

I’m interested in the way Richard uses water images in his deposition towards the end of 4.1. First, from 172-179, Richard describes the “golden crown,” or the throne, as “like a deep well/That owes two buckets filling one another,/the emptier ever dancing in the air,/The other down, unseen, and full of water./That bucket down and full of tears am I,/Drinking my griefs, whilst you mount up on high.” This image took me by surprise—I assumed the “emptier ever dancing” bucket was supposed to be a representation of Richard, because he is losing his control and has nothing to keep him grounded. By my logic, Bolingbroke would be the full bucket, weighed down with the burden of being a king, and of being a part of Richard’s dubious legacy. Reversed, the way Richard intends it, the images do make sense—Bolingbroke now holds the highest rank possible in his country and has a great deal of freedom along with it (“the emptier ever dancing in the air,” again), and Richard is weighed down with disappointment, guilt, and any other emotions to which he ambiguously pretends.

To me, the two images are interchangeable. I think this is indicative of Richard’s ambiguous characterization. I should preface: I am pretty suspicious of Richard at this point (maybe because I’m looking for some excitement in this play!). Is he remorseful? Is he deceptive? The interchangeability, and I would argue, instability, of Richard’s language in this passage is open to interpretation. I have two guesses: his language is contrived, because his expression of emotion lacks truth or hides truth, or his language is the result of just not having a way with words.

Northumberland interrupts Richard’s speech three times, to ask him to read aloud the articles about his crimes. Richard responds with water images in lines 227-231, 233-236, and 247-252: (1) “…Though some of you, with Pilate, wash your hands,/Showing an outward pity, yet you Pilates/Have here delivered me to my sour cross,/And water cannot wash away your sin.” (2) “Mine eyes are full of tears; I cannot see./And yet salt water blinds them not so much/But they can see a sort of traitors here….” (3) “…But ‘tis usurped. Alack the heavy day,/That I have worn so many winters out/And know not now what name to call myself/O, that I were a mockery of snow,/Standing before the sun of Bolingbroke/To melt myself away in water-drops!...”

In these three passages, Richard is using water images to: compare the act of washing one’s hands to being a (his) traitor; describe the clarity with which he see his traitors despite his tears; and express a desire—that he be “a mockery of snow,” able to melt away. Richard is using water images rather arbitrarily in these passages, and they lack the emotive, sympathetic effect that Richard intends for them. Water can be used to paint Richard’s comrades in a poor light and to paint Richard in a sympathetic light. But since its meaning is inconsistent in these passages, the water image means nothing at all. Richard’s use of the water image is more important, because it is consistent with his character: he makes everything, even language, work for him—or, at least, he tries.

Characterization in Taming of the Shrew

I found the characterization of those in The Taming of the Shrew by William Shakespeare to be extremely fascinating. Katherine, the shrew who must be tamed, is described with extremely negative characteristics. Katherine is seen as an insulting, abrasive, and miserable woman. Her overall unpleasant attitude is also matched with a great amount of wit, one that is only challenged by Petruccio. It is particularly interesting to compare the sisters, Bianca and Katherine. It is obvious that Bianca serves as a foil to Katherine. Where Katherine is seen as aggressive and almost vicious individual, Bianca is seen as the exact opposite. She is characterized as a peaceful, kind, and even-tempered woman. Shakespeare’s technique as portraying the sisters as foil characters to one another only strengthens their very different personalities. 

One of the most interesting pairings, in my opinion, seen in Shakespeare’s texts is the relationship between Katherine and Petruccio. It seems that among all of the men in Padua, Petruccio is the only person who is able to conquer the challenge of wooing Baptista’s eldest daughter, Katherine. Other men who were forced to interact with Katherine, were very much intimated by her aggressive attitude. This can be seen particularly when Katherine strikes Hortensio when he is attempting to teach her to play the lute. Despite her reputation, Petruccio takes it upon himself to convince Katherine to marry him. Petruccio and Katherine’s fascinating interaction can be first seen in scene 2.1 of the play. Where other men have been emasculated when conversing with Katherine, Petruccio does not suffer the same fate. Immediately, Petruccio takes Katherine completely off guard when calling her “Kate”. Although Katherine responds to Petruccio by informing him that this is not her name, he continues to call her a number of names involving “Kate”. This passage can be seen when Petruccio says: “You lie, in faith, for you are called plain Kate, and bonny Kate, and sometimes Kate the curst, but Kate, the prettiest Kate in Christendom, Kate of Kate Hall, my super-dainty Kate- fofr dainties are all cates...” (2.1 184-87). This passage immediately starts of the witty banter that Petruccio and Katherine converse in. It seems that nearly every statement that is uttered by Katherine, is completely contradicted by Petruccio. The interaction seen in this scene between Petruccio and Katherine was very humorous. It is very clear that none of the other men in The Taming of the Shrew would have been brave enough to dare to converse with Katherine in such a way. However, possibly this is what Katherine needed. Perhaps, the reason for Katherine acting the way she does could be a result of feelings of jealousy of her sister, Bianca. It is clear from the amount of suitors that Bianca had, contrasted with the one suitor that Katherine had. Therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion to believe that Katherine’s negative attitude could be a result of sibling rivalry and animosity!