When first reading a play we all start with a clean page in our minds. As we get further into the play that page fills up. The focus on our posts is on all the things which are highlighted and underlined. In a wild, screaming burst these posts are written and looked over. These assignments make good on our raw desire to understand and be satisfied with ourselves, getting answers only from questions.
Each post, if you can believe it, if carefully edited before it's posted. Hazing of intentions is often a problem initially: floating ideas can be a struggle to harden alone; add into hte situation the idea that most people are going to be writing with you (others reading you), there is always that need to make sure the topic you're addressing is interesting enough. Communication is also a huge worry; can someone be sure that they're writing effectively?
Has the nature of these posts changed as class and time have continued? That question is slightly impossible to answer, to anyone's satisfaction anyway. Every post is different, of course. The topics always differ, the writing is still mine. I don't really thing the idea of growth can exist in this situation. The idea motivating this blog is independent enough for me to rely on my own instincts when it comes to what I actually decide to blog on. Class has warmed me enough to Shakespeare's work, allowing me to know a point of interest (out loud, right away) when I see one. As far as the subject actually chosen, I just go by the bones. My only option really. There has to be a lack of something (whether a certain point in the plot just doesn't feel right within the context it's written in, or whether something is just overdone) that makes the mind stop and focus on whatever isn't workin, telling. These choices I make are based on whatever jumps out, things which seem to offer a good about to write about (things that seem to have a life of their own). Besides those which were just mentioned, there is no real connection I'm trying to make between these blogs. If the topics I'm picking ae similar in nature, I'm blind to it (and would have to apologize for the string of boring posts.
These posts usually begin with a broad topic, eventually whittling itself down to a solid post by the end of the post (that's the goal anyway). The rhythm, don't know what else to call it, of my posts come out of the bit of editing that is done. Not much focus on the first run through. This stream of conscious narration is then dried out a little, picking up the key points throughout the original, and every solid bit that supports those points.
These assignments are easy enough. Creating our own jumping off point, and jumping off. The anchor which gives these posts their structure is the tests. Goes without saying, although it is going to be said, that even with something as loose as my brokenly arranged Shakespeare posts need something solid to work off of. This explains my current struggle with THIS assignment.
New Paltz Students Blogging about Shakespeare
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Henry V as king
I already had some familiarity with Henry V. I had not read the entire play, but I studied the scenes at Agincourt in Acting III last semester, so I had some idea of Henry's character in this play, and knew that he came out as a great hero in the end. What I did not realize was how well-regarded he was on the whole throughout.
In 1 Henry IV he made the bold claim in the first act that he would redeem himself in the eyes of the populace, and be the more admired for his apparent reformation of character. Later on he said much the same thing to his father, promising to defeat Hotspur in combat and so exchange Henry Percy's honors for his (Hal's) shame. He seems to have done all this and more.
In the first act of Henry V the nobles cannot expound enough upon how well-rounded he is, and how completely he understands so many aspects of the kingdom. Their mention of his concern for the commoners was what really caught my interest, though; obviously he would have knowledge of the lower classes, having spent so much time among them. The fact that this seems to be worthy of comment only serves to point out how effective Hal's transformation into King Henry V really was. Were he still viewed as the wayward son he used to be, the fact that he understands what goes on in taverns and the like would be seen as a matter of course. The fact that it is so impressive to the nobles proves how completely Prince Harry's plan worked. He is viewed now as exactly what a king should be, and all the more impressive because of how quickly he turned his life around.
In 1 Henry IV he made the bold claim in the first act that he would redeem himself in the eyes of the populace, and be the more admired for his apparent reformation of character. Later on he said much the same thing to his father, promising to defeat Hotspur in combat and so exchange Henry Percy's honors for his (Hal's) shame. He seems to have done all this and more.
In the first act of Henry V the nobles cannot expound enough upon how well-rounded he is, and how completely he understands so many aspects of the kingdom. Their mention of his concern for the commoners was what really caught my interest, though; obviously he would have knowledge of the lower classes, having spent so much time among them. The fact that this seems to be worthy of comment only serves to point out how effective Hal's transformation into King Henry V really was. Were he still viewed as the wayward son he used to be, the fact that he understands what goes on in taverns and the like would be seen as a matter of course. The fact that it is so impressive to the nobles proves how completely Prince Harry's plan worked. He is viewed now as exactly what a king should be, and all the more impressive because of how quickly he turned his life around.
Looking Back
Looking back at my past blog posts, I realized I usually focus on a single character rather than the events of the play. Mostly, I focused on characters who said things that caught my eye and stayed on my mind. Like many other students, this was my first time blogging for a class. I think that my blogs have definitely progressed and have become more focused. For my first blog post, I wrote about three completely different characters and did not really connect them in any way. I believe that my blogs have become more focused because I have really learned to look at the plays more in depth. Lastly, I cannot help but notice that two-thirds of my blogs focused on some aspect of death. Maybe I am drawn to these characters and how they think about death or come to terms with it. I am really not sure.
In general, I think I value that the blogs give me a chance to go off on my own topic or ideas. They do not necessarily need to be focused around a question posed by the professor. I also value the commenting part because we are given the chance to think about other ideas and hear what people think of mine. Perhaps they have something to say relating to my blog topics that I never thought of.
From my second blog post, Claudio's first line still stick out for me: "Ay, but to die, and go we know not where"(3.1.118). This originally stuck out to be because I remember having a professor tell a class that no one really survives death. We can't just walk up to someone and casually ask them how death was. Looking back, I feel as though what Claudio said is still relevant. We still don't know what happens. There is still that great uncertainty I feel that this can also be related to my third post when I wrote about Richard saying "let us sit upon the ground, And tell sad stories of the death of kings- / How some have been deposed, some slain in war, / Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed, / Some poisoned by the wives, some sleeping killed, all murdered"(3.2.151-156). Richard seemed uncertain, not necessarily about death, but seemed to be doubting if he could be a successful king. He's assuming that he'll be killed, but there's an uncertainty of how.
Overall, as I write this, I like how this specific assignment has allowed me to go back and see the subtle connections between each of my blog posts.
In general, I think I value that the blogs give me a chance to go off on my own topic or ideas. They do not necessarily need to be focused around a question posed by the professor. I also value the commenting part because we are given the chance to think about other ideas and hear what people think of mine. Perhaps they have something to say relating to my blog topics that I never thought of.
From my second blog post, Claudio's first line still stick out for me: "Ay, but to die, and go we know not where"(3.1.118). This originally stuck out to be because I remember having a professor tell a class that no one really survives death. We can't just walk up to someone and casually ask them how death was. Looking back, I feel as though what Claudio said is still relevant. We still don't know what happens. There is still that great uncertainty I feel that this can also be related to my third post when I wrote about Richard saying "let us sit upon the ground, And tell sad stories of the death of kings- / How some have been deposed, some slain in war, / Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed, / Some poisoned by the wives, some sleeping killed, all murdered"(3.2.151-156). Richard seemed uncertain, not necessarily about death, but seemed to be doubting if he could be a successful king. He's assuming that he'll be killed, but there's an uncertainty of how.
Overall, as I write this, I like how this specific assignment has allowed me to go back and see the subtle connections between each of my blog posts.
reflection of blogs
A theme that seems to appear repetitively in my posts is the issue of power. When discussing The Merchant of Venice I constantly discussed the issue of power that Shylock has over Antonio and Bassanio in regards to the debt they have to pay him. My second post I spoke about Claudio trying to prove his power in society, when really he is contradicting himself. In my post I stated,” This is ironic because if Claudio wants to make a great impression on the town and show that he is in power and control, he shouldn’t be trying to commit the same act that he is supposedly proving his power for.” And lastly, in my third post, I wrote about Richard the II and his poor leadership and power skills. I stated, “It is clear that inheriting a thrown at the age of twelve, just because of last name and family rights, does not make a good ruling system for any society rd post I spoke about the way Richard rules, which basically, speaks about power.” In all three of these posts, I speak about the issue of power and ruling in Shakespeare’s plays.
Although I have a common theme running through all three posts, I see a lot of difference in my writing of posts. In my first post I do not feel I was as direct with my responses. I was kind of all over the place with my answer. As the second and third post came about, I was more focused in choosing a topic and sticking to that topic throughout my whole posts. I feel as though I have definitely approved in my writing of blog posts throughout the semester so far.
I really enjoy the blog assignment. Not only do I get to express my opinions regarding the Shakespeare plays, but I get read my fellow classmates posts as well. This gives me a greater understanding of the stories because I get to see other people’s analysis of the plays. Also, I can see other student’s confusion as well so I know I am not alone with being confused at times. I also really enjoy being able to comment on other student’s posts because then those people can hear my opinion and analysis. And I enjoy reading what people have to say about my blogs through their comments. Getting feedback is extremely helpful to understand these plays. Even when I am blogging and not responding, I still read through some of the posts so I get a sense of what the class is thinking.
Looking back I definitely see improvement and I also realized that when I write these blogs I get a further understanding of the plays because I have to write down the things I am thinking so I have something to refer back to.
Although I have a common theme running through all three posts, I see a lot of difference in my writing of posts. In my first post I do not feel I was as direct with my responses. I was kind of all over the place with my answer. As the second and third post came about, I was more focused in choosing a topic and sticking to that topic throughout my whole posts. I feel as though I have definitely approved in my writing of blog posts throughout the semester so far.
I really enjoy the blog assignment. Not only do I get to express my opinions regarding the Shakespeare plays, but I get read my fellow classmates posts as well. This gives me a greater understanding of the stories because I get to see other people’s analysis of the plays. Also, I can see other student’s confusion as well so I know I am not alone with being confused at times. I also really enjoy being able to comment on other student’s posts because then those people can hear my opinion and analysis. And I enjoy reading what people have to say about my blogs through their comments. Getting feedback is extremely helpful to understand these plays. Even when I am blogging and not responding, I still read through some of the posts so I get a sense of what the class is thinking.
Looking back I definitely see improvement and I also realized that when I write these blogs I get a further understanding of the plays because I have to write down the things I am thinking so I have something to refer back to.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Finishing Henry V
Having been a doubter of Henry in both King Henry IV and the beginning of this play, I find that I like him better at the end of this play. I thought he was shifty and phony but it seems that he really did grow up. There were a number of situations in which I really believed you could see him evolve. For instance, in Act Four there are a number of scenes in which he really raises the morale of his army. In the prologue, it says that he goes to individual soldiers cloaked in the night and “Bids them good morrow with a modest smile/ And calls them brothers, friends and countrymen.” And later, the chorus refers to him as “A largess universal like the sun” when his soldiers look at him and are hopeful. So Henry accomplished his goal of being “like the sun” in King Henry IV after all and he didn’t even know it! Then, in scene III, when standing on the battle field, the men realize they are outnumbered by the French, but Henry gives a wonderful speech and gets them to stay and fight with gusto.
In Act IV, scene IV, Henry proved his sensitivity when he is being told about the death of his cousins and the way in which they tried to stay together. I thought that this was a sign of maturity, considering that in King Henry IV he hardly seemed to care at all that he had family.
In this same scene we see that Henry has changed, but maybe not entirely. Playing his prank on Williams; giving the glove to Fluellen and then staying to watch the hilarity ensue, shows that Henry has moved on from being silly little Hal playing with Falstaff in the saloons, but he still has his keen sense of humor, and even in bad times, he likes to keep things light. Then, after telling Williams that it was actually him he had a problem with, he gives him money! He appreciates William’s honesty and rewards him for that, which I have to say really pleasantly surprised me. Lastly, I was impressed by Henry’s humble return home.
I find it unfortunate that poor Catherine had to be used as a pawn in order for him to expand his empire, when he was clearly disinterested in her in the beginning of the play. I find myself consistently disappointed in the positions that women end up in in Shakespearian plays. There are some women who use men as well, or don’t allow themselves to be involved with men in order to protect themselves, but Catherine seems like a nice lady who doesn’t deserve to be used. The end was also a little sad because of the knowledge that Henry’s son is unable to maintain the French throne and his hard work went to nothing.
All together, I enjoyed reading this play. I think it was a good mix of fun and seriousness, and it gave the audience a chance to watch Henry prove himself to be a good king.
In Act IV, scene IV, Henry proved his sensitivity when he is being told about the death of his cousins and the way in which they tried to stay together. I thought that this was a sign of maturity, considering that in King Henry IV he hardly seemed to care at all that he had family.
In this same scene we see that Henry has changed, but maybe not entirely. Playing his prank on Williams; giving the glove to Fluellen and then staying to watch the hilarity ensue, shows that Henry has moved on from being silly little Hal playing with Falstaff in the saloons, but he still has his keen sense of humor, and even in bad times, he likes to keep things light. Then, after telling Williams that it was actually him he had a problem with, he gives him money! He appreciates William’s honesty and rewards him for that, which I have to say really pleasantly surprised me. Lastly, I was impressed by Henry’s humble return home.
I find it unfortunate that poor Catherine had to be used as a pawn in order for him to expand his empire, when he was clearly disinterested in her in the beginning of the play. I find myself consistently disappointed in the positions that women end up in in Shakespearian plays. There are some women who use men as well, or don’t allow themselves to be involved with men in order to protect themselves, but Catherine seems like a nice lady who doesn’t deserve to be used. The end was also a little sad because of the knowledge that Henry’s son is unable to maintain the French throne and his hard work went to nothing.
All together, I enjoyed reading this play. I think it was a good mix of fun and seriousness, and it gave the audience a chance to watch Henry prove himself to be a good king.
Blog Babble
After assessing all of my prior blog submissions, I have concluded that I seemed to focus my posts on themes of “power.” If I had to guess which topic I would be prone to writing about, I would have most likely considered my concentration to center around gender issues or something of that nature. In all honesty, before re-reading my works, I had no idea that I was focusing on such a topic. Whether I am talking about fathers and daughters, kings and lords, or nuns and sinners, I have typically built an argument that revolves around the questions of power.
In my first post on Monday, February 1, 2010, my blog reflected on Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. This post focused on Portia’s role in the play and what kind of character she was. I questioned whether or not she was a strong or weak female figure. During my argument, I commented on what seems to be a powerless Portia. Portia’s future husband was to be chosen with the help of her father’s will. With that said, Portia was powerless in her future.
My second post on March 8, 2010, commented on Richard II’s view of a King’s power. My blog specifically questioned whether Richard or Henry would be a better ruler. It asked that questions of who would use their power most effectively in order to make the best king. The post asked the readers to think about which character is the best candidate for king? Who would be the best ruler? Who would successfully use their power for good, instead of for his own motives?
The third post before the half way marked was posted on February 20, 2010, and took a look at power in Measure for Measure. This post specifically focused on the character of Isabella and how the only way in which she had power throughout the play was through her own sexuality. In fact, she was given complete power, but would she give up her own purity and innocence in order to save her brother’s life? This decision was undoubtedly in her hands, and her hands alone. I raised the point that it is significant that her only chance to use her power was when she was asked to use her sexuality.
As one can see, all three of my posts focused on issues of power. Even though each entry commented on power, each was completely different scenario where power played an important role. I suppose that subconsciously, during my readings, I mdrawn to aspects of power and how power plays out in Shakespeare’s works.
In my first post on Monday, February 1, 2010, my blog reflected on Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. This post focused on Portia’s role in the play and what kind of character she was. I questioned whether or not she was a strong or weak female figure. During my argument, I commented on what seems to be a powerless Portia. Portia’s future husband was to be chosen with the help of her father’s will. With that said, Portia was powerless in her future.
My second post on March 8, 2010, commented on Richard II’s view of a King’s power. My blog specifically questioned whether Richard or Henry would be a better ruler. It asked that questions of who would use their power most effectively in order to make the best king. The post asked the readers to think about which character is the best candidate for king? Who would be the best ruler? Who would successfully use their power for good, instead of for his own motives?
The third post before the half way marked was posted on February 20, 2010, and took a look at power in Measure for Measure. This post specifically focused on the character of Isabella and how the only way in which she had power throughout the play was through her own sexuality. In fact, she was given complete power, but would she give up her own purity and innocence in order to save her brother’s life? This decision was undoubtedly in her hands, and her hands alone. I raised the point that it is significant that her only chance to use her power was when she was asked to use her sexuality.
As one can see, all three of my posts focused on issues of power. Even though each entry commented on power, each was completely different scenario where power played an important role. I suppose that subconsciously, during my readings, I mdrawn to aspects of power and how power plays out in Shakespeare’s works.
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.
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.
midterm blog
Out of the three blog posts I have done so far this semester, my focus generally ends up being on the main characters, more specifically the main ruling characters within the plays. Looking back on my first post, “Women Rule,” I really like how I was able to present my idea and support it and even though it was the first one, I still think it was one of my best. Even the title shows my focus being on the power of women at the time and goes on to discuss the power Portia has over the play both as a woman and disguised as a man. My second blog post titled, “Audience’s Reaction,” began to take me away from the more structured, essay like post found in the previous one and more toward a conversational, questioning one. Here, I started by discussing where each play took place and Shakespeare’s hand in editing the actual events. At first he played it safe by keeping the plays off of the country of England, but then all his history plays, many of them controversial, became centered on England, and their royalty. Lately, I’ve been finding that I am very curious as to how the audience would have reacted, or the current royalty would have reacted to the portrayal of one of Shakespeare’s plays. Unfortunately, that is something we can never really know, but to have that insight and other people’s opinions of what happened is also interesting to me. Hence, the reason why in this post I noticed myself beginning to ask more questions hoping to spark a discussion with other people in the class. My last blog, “Prince Harry,” was even less formal than before, and I’m not sure how I feel about that. In that one I kind of feel like I was jabbering on, blurting out ideas just hoping they fit together. At the time, I didn’t know if Harry would become Henry V, a man I had always thought to be this great guy, but even at the start of reading Henry V, I am still waiting to see it happen. Although, I have to say he is really good at covering his back such as in the case of issuing those death warrants. He still has time to redeem himself in my eyes…
Many times, especially in the more recent two blog posts, I asked questions a lot trying to see what others would respond to and what their thoughts were. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always work. I know Professor Mulready responded to two of them, but only one student responded to one other of my posts. Maybe I need to work on my approach, maybe they aren’t interested in what I’m saying, or maybe I just get lost in the quay, it’s not a big deal, just a note to consider.
As Therese mentioned in her blog, I also believe the blogs to be a great way to discuss topics and ideas that we did not get a chance to discuss in class. Sometimes ideas are sparked in class or there is something that either interests or bothers us and by writing informally about it we begin to see where our thoughts are going or gain insight from other classmates. It also gives those who are quieter in class a chance to show off what they know and think. It gives our thoughts some place to go instead of staying dormant in our minds.
Blog about Blogging
The blogging assignment is very helpful to me by it motivates me to read the text closely. My book is loaded with marked passages and notes in the margins, most of which are made before attending class. The aspect I like most about blogging is our posts are due before we begin discussing that section of the text. At the beginning of the year I wasn't sure if I liked this because Shakespeare can be difficult to read, therefore it would make it difficult to write about before hearing class discussion on that particular section of the play. The reason I like having the blogs due before class discussion is I can put my own ideas and interpretations without being scrutinized. I tend to accept other people's interpretations after hearing arguments for it in class. Since I was in junior high or maybe earlier, I always seem to have a not well accepted interpretation or the less accepted interpretation of a text. In junior/senior high I never argued against the teacher's interpretation of a text; now I have the opportunity to do so. In the blogs, opposed to formal papers I am willing to put out some less accepted interpretations. I sometimes do not have a strong enough argument for my ideas or opinion on certain aspects of the text to write an entire formal paper, but these ideas can show up in the blog.
I like this informal aspect of the blog. After re-reading my posts I realized my first two posts were very formal and much like a paper, while my 3rd post is a little less formal. In my 3rd post I make references to modern 21st century culture. I make a reference to Lil Wayne, and the television show 24; both references would not make a formal paper. In my future posts I plan on incorporating modern culture references as well as textual evidence. As a future teacher, I think junior high and high school students need references to modern culture to help them with interpretation of the texts, especially with Shakespeare. Most high school students hate Shakespeare with passion, but by pointing out how much Shakespeare's work relates to today I hope to lessen students hatred for him. If I continue to make references to modern culture in these blogs, it could be a good place to look back to for ideas to incorporate when I'm teaching Shakespeare to my students.
The content of my blogs tend to be all over the place, but with a few commonalities. My blogs tend to focus on specific characters and their characterization. A common theme that reoccurs in different ways is the theme of public perception. In my blogs I discuss the characters Antonio, the Duke (Measure for Measure) and the Henrys. After reading my blogs I found all these characters have one thing in common they all are most concerned about public perception. All these characters' actions are for the most part to make themselves look good and to be positively remembered forever.
My favorite post is my third post mainly because I made a prediction that comes 100% true in the next play. In the post I discuss Prince Hal and his friends. I stated "He (Prince Hal) probably will have to drop the friends he hangs with now to be king." In Henry V, Hal has nothing to do with Falstaff anymore, in which Falstaff never appears in the play and dies offstage from a broken heart caused by King Henry V. My correct prediction shows the more you read Shakespeare, it becomes easier to follow and know what his plays is going to set up for the ending. I feel as a class we can now better answer the question from the first day of class "Why Shakespeare?"
I like this informal aspect of the blog. After re-reading my posts I realized my first two posts were very formal and much like a paper, while my 3rd post is a little less formal. In my 3rd post I make references to modern 21st century culture. I make a reference to Lil Wayne, and the television show 24; both references would not make a formal paper. In my future posts I plan on incorporating modern culture references as well as textual evidence. As a future teacher, I think junior high and high school students need references to modern culture to help them with interpretation of the texts, especially with Shakespeare. Most high school students hate Shakespeare with passion, but by pointing out how much Shakespeare's work relates to today I hope to lessen students hatred for him. If I continue to make references to modern culture in these blogs, it could be a good place to look back to for ideas to incorporate when I'm teaching Shakespeare to my students.
The content of my blogs tend to be all over the place, but with a few commonalities. My blogs tend to focus on specific characters and their characterization. A common theme that reoccurs in different ways is the theme of public perception. In my blogs I discuss the characters Antonio, the Duke (Measure for Measure) and the Henrys. After reading my blogs I found all these characters have one thing in common they all are most concerned about public perception. All these characters' actions are for the most part to make themselves look good and to be positively remembered forever.
My favorite post is my third post mainly because I made a prediction that comes 100% true in the next play. In the post I discuss Prince Hal and his friends. I stated "He (Prince Hal) probably will have to drop the friends he hangs with now to be king." In Henry V, Hal has nothing to do with Falstaff anymore, in which Falstaff never appears in the play and dies offstage from a broken heart caused by King Henry V. My correct prediction shows the more you read Shakespeare, it becomes easier to follow and know what his plays is going to set up for the ending. I feel as a class we can now better answer the question from the first day of class "Why Shakespeare?"
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Blogging
What I like most about the blogging assignments is that they create a space in which we get to express ideas that we aren’t always able to get to in our class discussions. It’s a valuable tool: I kind of use it as a way to gradually tease out ideas that aren’t fully formulated, but that keep popping up in my head as I read each play. What I like most about it, however, is that I get to read about what other people think of the plays. From others’ posts I’ve come across questions that I would never have thought of asking and arguments that supplement my understanding of our readings.
In my blogs I mostly focus on Shakespeare’s depiction of women, how he creates his characters’ identities, and how he represents power relations. When writing the posts I don’t remember feeling that they were particularly political, but reading them all in succession makes me realize that my writing comes from a particular standpoint: it’s mostly influenced by a feminist focus on women, but it is also concerned with the character’s positions within the societies they inhabit. This is a little surprising to me because I usually focus on more methodological aspects of writing and not so much on broader themes; it also makes me realize how much my education has influenced my stance on a variety of subjects. I don’t think 3 blogs is enough for me to recognize a change in my writing, though. Perhaps by the end of the semester I’ll focus more on other aspects of Shakespeare’s writing.
There are two things I think are worth revisiting: the first is the examination of cycles and progress in the second tetralogy. By the end of Henry IV I began to see a recurrence of a central powerful character being surrounded by a group of people who try to influence his actions. In Richard II the king was surrounded by older advisors who didn’t really want to give up the power they had accumulated while Richard had been young; In Henry IV Hal surrounds himself with thieves and liars and members of the lower classes; in Henry V we find that Hal now surrounds himself with religious men. In each case the group determines the identity of the individual: when Hal surrounded himself with rogues, he was seen as a rogue. When he surrounds himself with gentlemen and seeks counsel from an archbishop, he’s a great religious leader. A contrasting example of progress would be how Hal casts Falstaff out in order to assume his role as a serious King. I also notice that each instance of progress is actually an act of manipulation and violence, which makes me question whether the “progress” is really worth it. The second is that I see a parallel between themes in Shakespeare’s comedies and these history plays. In both the characters in power try to make it seem as if they don’t have as much power as they actually do by siphoning responsibilities off to others: the Duke makes Isabella decide not to kill Angelo, and Henry V makes the Archbishop decide to go to war. Also, both Measure for Measure and Richard II illustrate a historical shift in methods of social control: both plays move from punishing through spectacle (Angelo wanting to execute Isabella’s brother; Bolingbroke killing Richard’s associates) to disciplining through surveillance (the Duke disguising himself as a friar in order to effectively manipulate and “direct” Angelo & maybe even his marriage proposal; York insisting on telling the technically illegitimate king that his son is a traitor, which is a kind of internalization of the surveillance.) Hal exemplifies this idea: he goes from using spectacle to legitimate his king-ness (killing Hotspur) to using surveillance (making sure people know that he’s cut himself off from Falstaff.) … Random, but I think I may like the comedies more than the histories.
In my blogs I mostly focus on Shakespeare’s depiction of women, how he creates his characters’ identities, and how he represents power relations. When writing the posts I don’t remember feeling that they were particularly political, but reading them all in succession makes me realize that my writing comes from a particular standpoint: it’s mostly influenced by a feminist focus on women, but it is also concerned with the character’s positions within the societies they inhabit. This is a little surprising to me because I usually focus on more methodological aspects of writing and not so much on broader themes; it also makes me realize how much my education has influenced my stance on a variety of subjects. I don’t think 3 blogs is enough for me to recognize a change in my writing, though. Perhaps by the end of the semester I’ll focus more on other aspects of Shakespeare’s writing.
There are two things I think are worth revisiting: the first is the examination of cycles and progress in the second tetralogy. By the end of Henry IV I began to see a recurrence of a central powerful character being surrounded by a group of people who try to influence his actions. In Richard II the king was surrounded by older advisors who didn’t really want to give up the power they had accumulated while Richard had been young; In Henry IV Hal surrounds himself with thieves and liars and members of the lower classes; in Henry V we find that Hal now surrounds himself with religious men. In each case the group determines the identity of the individual: when Hal surrounded himself with rogues, he was seen as a rogue. When he surrounds himself with gentlemen and seeks counsel from an archbishop, he’s a great religious leader. A contrasting example of progress would be how Hal casts Falstaff out in order to assume his role as a serious King. I also notice that each instance of progress is actually an act of manipulation and violence, which makes me question whether the “progress” is really worth it. The second is that I see a parallel between themes in Shakespeare’s comedies and these history plays. In both the characters in power try to make it seem as if they don’t have as much power as they actually do by siphoning responsibilities off to others: the Duke makes Isabella decide not to kill Angelo, and Henry V makes the Archbishop decide to go to war. Also, both Measure for Measure and Richard II illustrate a historical shift in methods of social control: both plays move from punishing through spectacle (Angelo wanting to execute Isabella’s brother; Bolingbroke killing Richard’s associates) to disciplining through surveillance (the Duke disguising himself as a friar in order to effectively manipulate and “direct” Angelo & maybe even his marriage proposal; York insisting on telling the technically illegitimate king that his son is a traitor, which is a kind of internalization of the surveillance.) Hal exemplifies this idea: he goes from using spectacle to legitimate his king-ness (killing Hotspur) to using surveillance (making sure people know that he’s cut himself off from Falstaff.) … Random, but I think I may like the comedies more than the histories.
Reflection....
Before this class, like many of my classmates, I never had the experience of blogging. So far it has been a pretty fun and rewarding experience. While writing my blogs, I have always tried to stick with a major topic or theme that occurs in the play that I am blogging about. I have noticed that my topics and evidence for the topics have become more solid, as I continue to blog. Although I think this is good, after reading the entire bunch of plays and discussing them in class, there are a few plays that I probably could have talked about a topic or concern that was not mentioned in class or perhaps blogged about a theme or topic that was not as popular in the other blogs. I noticed many of us blog about similar topics, yet we all have different interpretations or things to say about it. I do like my earlier post about the women in, The Merchant of Venice. I feel it was specific and had a good amount of evidence to back up my statement. However, looking back my post on King Henry IV, after discussing the entire play in class, I probably would go back and change my post. After listening to some of the interpretations and ideas in class, I have a slightly different view on the events that took place in the play. After looking at some of my blog posts, or perhaps for future blog posts, I feel like I need to have more quotes from the text to support my main idea(s). While re-reading some of my comments to my peers blogs, I noticed that I usually comment on blogs that I agree with. I probably do this because I do not want to disagree with any person's interpretation of a play, yet I do think that it is important for everybody to express his or her interpretation since we have learned that Shakespeare can be read in a variety of ways. I love reading my classmates blogs and I think I benefit a lot from them. There are topics in some blogs that I would have never even thought of myself. I also love that fact that somebody can take an idea and expand it here on PB works. I think it is great and extremely important that every person gets to express his or her ideas and thoughts on a comfortable workspace. Blogging helps those who have trouble understanding a play, a character's function or action and so on. Other blog posts from a peer in the class, may answer a question somebody else has. Blogging also helps those who have trouble discussing the play out loud in class. It helps those students to be able to participate and also makes those students feel like they are contributing to the learning environment.
About my Blogging
Blogging is something that I’ve never had to do for a class before. The only assignment that I’ve had that was close to blogging is discussion boards for online classes that I’ve taken. When the blogging assignment was first presented to our class, I’ll have to admit I was a bit nervous. Most of the time I have a hard time interpreting Shakespeare’s work, so writing about it before discussing it in class really freaked me out. With that said and done, I think that the blogging has helped me develop my own ideas about the plays that I wouldn’t have necessarily voiced in class after hearing what my peers had to said about the material. I think I am very easily influenced when I feel unsure about material, so I tend to just cling to another peer’s ideas and find textual evidence to support. Blogging allows me to respond with idea that I have developed on my own. This is why I always write and post my blog before reading what anyone else has written.
I believe my blogging has become more focused over the first half of the semester. For the first blogging assignment I was unsure about what was ok to write about, so I found myself writing about multiple ideas and thoughts I was having about The Merchant of Venice. I focused on Antonio, Shylock, and even briefly on Portia’s father. My ideas were all over the place when they should have been more focused on one main idea. I was using the blog to sort out my ideas rather then presenting a main idea I believed to be the most important.
I believe that by the second blog, I was more conscious of having to focus on one main idea that I had picked out in the reading. I focused on the question of approval of Angelo by the Duke, and brought up the actions of the Duke which to the reader made it seem like there was a lack of approval. I believe that in this blog I relied too much on quotes from the text. I realize now that textual evidence is important, but too much of it can just make the point you are trying to make more confusing.
My most recent blog, which really was quite a few weeks ago due to breaks, seems to be my strongest blog I’ve made so far. I believe this is in part because I really enjoyed reading Richard the Second even though it was a bit confusing. I focused on the idea of fairness, and how the characters in the play were not fair at all. I liked writing about this idea because I felt that it was a different way to look at the reading.
For me the blogs seem to be working the right way. I feel my blogs are getting stronger as I am getting more comfortable with writing and posting for the class to read. I think that the blog assignment is a great way to get everyone in the class participating, even the shy people like myself, and contributing their own ideas about the plays we are reading.
I believe my blogging has become more focused over the first half of the semester. For the first blogging assignment I was unsure about what was ok to write about, so I found myself writing about multiple ideas and thoughts I was having about The Merchant of Venice. I focused on Antonio, Shylock, and even briefly on Portia’s father. My ideas were all over the place when they should have been more focused on one main idea. I was using the blog to sort out my ideas rather then presenting a main idea I believed to be the most important.
I believe that by the second blog, I was more conscious of having to focus on one main idea that I had picked out in the reading. I focused on the question of approval of Angelo by the Duke, and brought up the actions of the Duke which to the reader made it seem like there was a lack of approval. I believe that in this blog I relied too much on quotes from the text. I realize now that textual evidence is important, but too much of it can just make the point you are trying to make more confusing.
My most recent blog, which really was quite a few weeks ago due to breaks, seems to be my strongest blog I’ve made so far. I believe this is in part because I really enjoyed reading Richard the Second even though it was a bit confusing. I focused on the idea of fairness, and how the characters in the play were not fair at all. I liked writing about this idea because I felt that it was a different way to look at the reading.
For me the blogs seem to be working the right way. I feel my blogs are getting stronger as I am getting more comfortable with writing and posting for the class to read. I think that the blog assignment is a great way to get everyone in the class participating, even the shy people like myself, and contributing their own ideas about the plays we are reading.
Monday, April 5, 2010
This is How I Blog
This is such a fun little assignment because it allows all of us to sort of unload our feelings on the play in both a creative and organized way. In my blog posts, I seem to focus the most on specific characters and relationships in the plays we're reading. So far, I have discussed the relationship between Antonio and Bassanio, I have compared and contrasted Isabella, Angelo, and the Duke, and I have compared and contrasted Richard and Bolingbroke. The characters are the driving force in Shakespeare's plays and are all so diverse and interesting. Picking them apart and breaking them down to their very core while exposing all of their little idiosyncrasies is just downright fun for me.
I've noticed a definite change of tone in my posts and comments over the semester. My first post was a little strained in its voice and a little too formal. I also focused on plot summary, as if the readers didn't know the story of the play. My first two comments, as well, are very formal. In my next post, I dropped the plot summary and instead mentioned certain parts of the play to show what they said about the characters. I also wrote slightly more casually, adding a joke or two. My third post was less formal but still proper enough for an English class, and I utilized a lot of tropes and humor. I also used an outside source for this post, a first in my Shakespeare blogging career. I think this shows that I've finally become used to this blogging business. My second and third set of comments were also very informal and humorous, which is how I believe the comments should be. Make a point, but don't be too formal about it.
I was actually extremely surprised at how stiff my first post and comments were. My ideas were definitely there but for me, a blog is a somewhat-informal, casual kind of composition. I'm not advocating for a post filled with text speak, mind you. Just one that is not so stiff and formal. To me, blogs are not scholarly essays, but places to make a solid point and discuss it.
I'm very biased when it comes to my topics because I feel that they're all valuable and worth revisiting. I don't mean to toot my own horn but I worked pretty hard on formulating my topics and I like all of them. I believe my favorite topic was the issue of Richard and Bolingbroke's likability. The argument of Bolingbroke's Machiavellian rise to power is quite fascinating and one I never would have thought of. The reader wants to hate Richard and love Bolingbroke so much, but just can't without at least a little apprehension. Throw in this little argument and Bolingbroke becomes worse of a bad guy than Richard.
What I really love about the blogging is the ability to focus on a topic I want to focus on and let out everything I have to say about it. This is also a great way to bring out some talking points. By reading other people's posts, one can discover aspects of and opinions on plays he never would have noticed before. I think the ability to coherently ramble about one little point is so much fun. I love assignments with few constraints. The blogging is a very fun assignment for me and is very helpful in developing ideas and talking points for class.
-Sarah Bras
I've noticed a definite change of tone in my posts and comments over the semester. My first post was a little strained in its voice and a little too formal. I also focused on plot summary, as if the readers didn't know the story of the play. My first two comments, as well, are very formal. In my next post, I dropped the plot summary and instead mentioned certain parts of the play to show what they said about the characters. I also wrote slightly more casually, adding a joke or two. My third post was less formal but still proper enough for an English class, and I utilized a lot of tropes and humor. I also used an outside source for this post, a first in my Shakespeare blogging career. I think this shows that I've finally become used to this blogging business. My second and third set of comments were also very informal and humorous, which is how I believe the comments should be. Make a point, but don't be too formal about it.
I was actually extremely surprised at how stiff my first post and comments were. My ideas were definitely there but for me, a blog is a somewhat-informal, casual kind of composition. I'm not advocating for a post filled with text speak, mind you. Just one that is not so stiff and formal. To me, blogs are not scholarly essays, but places to make a solid point and discuss it.
I'm very biased when it comes to my topics because I feel that they're all valuable and worth revisiting. I don't mean to toot my own horn but I worked pretty hard on formulating my topics and I like all of them. I believe my favorite topic was the issue of Richard and Bolingbroke's likability. The argument of Bolingbroke's Machiavellian rise to power is quite fascinating and one I never would have thought of. The reader wants to hate Richard and love Bolingbroke so much, but just can't without at least a little apprehension. Throw in this little argument and Bolingbroke becomes worse of a bad guy than Richard.
What I really love about the blogging is the ability to focus on a topic I want to focus on and let out everything I have to say about it. This is also a great way to bring out some talking points. By reading other people's posts, one can discover aspects of and opinions on plays he never would have noticed before. I think the ability to coherently ramble about one little point is so much fun. I love assignments with few constraints. The blogging is a very fun assignment for me and is very helpful in developing ideas and talking points for class.
-Sarah Bras
Reflections on Blogging Throughout the Semester
In my earlier posts, it seems as though I was only focusing on events that were happening in relation to the plot. As the semester went on though, I feel like my posts have begun to get a clearer focus and are more specific to a certain few ideas. Maybe I just needed to get the hang of blogging, or maybe I’ve just gotten used to doing it, but it seems as though I’ve been able to find something from the text more specific to think about while reading and in class than I had been previously in the semester.
I think by focusing on the bigger ideas or issues in the play rather then just the events of the plot in my blogging has helped me to better gain a knowledge about the plays as a whole and the themes they encompass, rather than just getting a simple understanding that plot and interactions between characters.
Something I think might be worth revisiting in my post would be the idea of divine right, as well as how kings shape their identity. In a post about Richard II, I wrote “Bolingbroke talks about his banishment in Act 3.1, and says ‘From my own windows torn my household coat,/ Razed out my imprese, leaving me no sign,/ Save men's opinions and my living blood,/ To show the world I am a gentlemen’ (3.1.24-27). These lines show us just how important Bolingbroke's lineage is to him, as well as his honor. This also reveals how these things contribute hugely to constructing his identity” I think that this could be worth revisiting because monarchs and the idea of divine right was an incredibly significant part of life for everyone.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Shakespeare's Considerate Use of Caesuras (And Why King Henry is a Hypocrite)
So for the most part my experience with Shakespeare has been reading it, but there's a whole other side to it, and that's the performance of these plays. What struck me as I was reading was the consideration that Shakespeare has for his actors. When you only read Shakespeare sometimes you forget that actors have to speak these lines. It can get tiring to read long passages of iambic pentameter if there are no breaks in it, and writing in iambic pentameter has the tendency to have long drawn out sentences. Take, for example, Exeter's speech to King Charles in Henry V.
Therefore in fierce tempest is he coming,
In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove,
That if requiring fail, he will compel;
And bids you, in the bowels of the Lord,
Deliver up the crown, and to take mercy
On the poor souls for whom this hungry war
Opens his vasty jaws; and on your head
Turns he the widows' tears, the orphans' cries,
The dead men's blood, the pining maidens' groans,
For husbands, fathers, and betrothed lovers
That shall not be swallowed in this controversy. (Henry V 2.4.99-109)
That sentence is ten lines long, which is what sometimes happens when writing iambic pentameter. There are nine caesuras though, and that's where Shakespeare's consideration for his actors comes in. A caesura gives the actor a break in his speech, which is welcome when they have to read a speech that can be sometimes in excess of a hundred lines. Shakespeare has plenty of endstops and caesuras, which allow the actor a chance to breathe, or to pause for emphasis. That I think shows at least a little consideration and thought on Shakespeare's part.
Shakespeare's formal approach to verse is impeccable. I've noticed something else though, about an earlier point I made about blank verse. In this play King Henry V is acting much more like nobility than in the previous play, right down to the language. He has really come into his own. He's even right on top of who is trying to overthrow him. I think it's important to note, and this little irony was pointed out to me as I was reading the essay accompanying the play (though there's a footnote for it as well), that if you follow King Henry's logic, the Earl of Cambridge has a more legitimate claim to the throne than King Henry, since he married the daughter of Mortimer, who was the supposed rightful heir to Richard II, and King Henry is laying claim to the throne of France because his great-grandfather Edward III was the son of Queen Isabella, the daughter of King Philip IV of France, and the French king only holds his claim through his female ancestors, since his male ancestor had usurped the throne, similar to what King Henry V father had done. So basically King Henry V is saying that he is the rightful heir to the French throne even though he's not really the rightful heir to the English throne, the Earl of Cambridge could be. Really, these lineages are all confusing. I thought I'd just gotten a hold on the English line and now I feel like I need another set of tetralogies to explain the French line.
Therefore in fierce tempest is he coming,
In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove,
That if requiring fail, he will compel;
And bids you, in the bowels of the Lord,
Deliver up the crown, and to take mercy
On the poor souls for whom this hungry war
Opens his vasty jaws; and on your head
Turns he the widows' tears, the orphans' cries,
The dead men's blood, the pining maidens' groans,
For husbands, fathers, and betrothed lovers
That shall not be swallowed in this controversy. (Henry V 2.4.99-109)
That sentence is ten lines long, which is what sometimes happens when writing iambic pentameter. There are nine caesuras though, and that's where Shakespeare's consideration for his actors comes in. A caesura gives the actor a break in his speech, which is welcome when they have to read a speech that can be sometimes in excess of a hundred lines. Shakespeare has plenty of endstops and caesuras, which allow the actor a chance to breathe, or to pause for emphasis. That I think shows at least a little consideration and thought on Shakespeare's part.
Shakespeare's formal approach to verse is impeccable. I've noticed something else though, about an earlier point I made about blank verse. In this play King Henry V is acting much more like nobility than in the previous play, right down to the language. He has really come into his own. He's even right on top of who is trying to overthrow him. I think it's important to note, and this little irony was pointed out to me as I was reading the essay accompanying the play (though there's a footnote for it as well), that if you follow King Henry's logic, the Earl of Cambridge has a more legitimate claim to the throne than King Henry, since he married the daughter of Mortimer, who was the supposed rightful heir to Richard II, and King Henry is laying claim to the throne of France because his great-grandfather Edward III was the son of Queen Isabella, the daughter of King Philip IV of France, and the French king only holds his claim through his female ancestors, since his male ancestor had usurped the throne, similar to what King Henry V father had done. So basically King Henry V is saying that he is the rightful heir to the French throne even though he's not really the rightful heir to the English throne, the Earl of Cambridge could be. Really, these lineages are all confusing. I thought I'd just gotten a hold on the English line and now I feel like I need another set of tetralogies to explain the French line.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Finishing Henry IV
I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed most of this play. I enjoyed the characters of this play and really enjoyed the plot. The characters of Prince Harry and his band of misfit friends were incredibly funny. I even liked the scenes between Hotspur and Lady Percy, which were brutal in some aspects and funny in others.
I was excited in the beginning of this play because I wasn’t King Henry’s biggest fan and I was hoping that by the end of this play, his reign would be overthrown and we would have a new king to adjust to. By the end of the play, however, I liked King Henry slightly more; it was Prince Harry that was the problem.
Unlike most other people, I do not believe that Prince Harry actually wanted to change anything about himself. He wanted people to believe he would. This I find to be incredibly sad and manipulative, and makes me believe that Harry is a bad choice for the future king. Plenty of teenagers hang out with questionable crowds and make bad decisions, and I can certainly find fault with that. My problem is in his plan to “fix” himself. I think the change from boy to man should happen organically, not be meticulously planned in order to “look” better. If he wanted to look better he should have just acted better, gotten rid of his loser friends and behaved himself. He did not do either of these things. Given the chance, Prince Harry is so stuck in his childish ways that he puts his degenerate friends in positions of power! And later he proves that he is not beyond pranks of any kind when he steals Falstaff’s wallet and allows him to blame the bar hostess and generally make a fool of himself.
I don’t think that Prince Harry will make a very good ruler and because of this, the ending of this play made me uneasy. I suppose that after reading King Richard II and III I was expecting that history plays ended with the overthrowing of the government that was in power in the beginning of the play, so by the end of this play, I was almost thrown for a loop. I didn’t know what to do at the end because neither party was particularly desirable as the monarchy. I know that Prince Harry did what he said he would do, kill Hotspur, but I still think he’s all for show.
One other problem I had at the end of this play is that there is no real reconciliation. At the end of the comedies, there is always a marriage. At the end of the tragedies, everyone is dead. At the end of the previous two histories I have read, the governments from the beginning have been overthrown and the end is actually a beginning for the new rulers. This, however, left the monarchy (and me) unresolved. I don’t like the feeling that nothing really NEW happened. Although Hotspur is dead the king still has a number of living adversaries who could potentially attack his crown. Did the action of this whole play really do anything to strengthen or weaken the power of the royal family? I really don’t know.
I was excited in the beginning of this play because I wasn’t King Henry’s biggest fan and I was hoping that by the end of this play, his reign would be overthrown and we would have a new king to adjust to. By the end of the play, however, I liked King Henry slightly more; it was Prince Harry that was the problem.
Unlike most other people, I do not believe that Prince Harry actually wanted to change anything about himself. He wanted people to believe he would. This I find to be incredibly sad and manipulative, and makes me believe that Harry is a bad choice for the future king. Plenty of teenagers hang out with questionable crowds and make bad decisions, and I can certainly find fault with that. My problem is in his plan to “fix” himself. I think the change from boy to man should happen organically, not be meticulously planned in order to “look” better. If he wanted to look better he should have just acted better, gotten rid of his loser friends and behaved himself. He did not do either of these things. Given the chance, Prince Harry is so stuck in his childish ways that he puts his degenerate friends in positions of power! And later he proves that he is not beyond pranks of any kind when he steals Falstaff’s wallet and allows him to blame the bar hostess and generally make a fool of himself.
I don’t think that Prince Harry will make a very good ruler and because of this, the ending of this play made me uneasy. I suppose that after reading King Richard II and III I was expecting that history plays ended with the overthrowing of the government that was in power in the beginning of the play, so by the end of this play, I was almost thrown for a loop. I didn’t know what to do at the end because neither party was particularly desirable as the monarchy. I know that Prince Harry did what he said he would do, kill Hotspur, but I still think he’s all for show.
One other problem I had at the end of this play is that there is no real reconciliation. At the end of the comedies, there is always a marriage. At the end of the tragedies, everyone is dead. At the end of the previous two histories I have read, the governments from the beginning have been overthrown and the end is actually a beginning for the new rulers. This, however, left the monarchy (and me) unresolved. I don’t like the feeling that nothing really NEW happened. Although Hotspur is dead the king still has a number of living adversaries who could potentially attack his crown. Did the action of this whole play really do anything to strengthen or weaken the power of the royal family? I really don’t know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)