Tuesday, October 30, 2012

What's a hero without a villain?

Awesome! This took me forever to figure out! I am not much of a blogger but I am excited to learn more about it. Anyway, I have been putting some serious thought into this paper. I am going to be applying for Grad School next year so I want to start getting some good stuff out there.
As you all know, I am rather fascinated by the concepts of villainy in drama and cinema. I think that a good villain makes a good hero. I have been trying to think how I could make Shakespeare more fun and interesting for people who...er...can't quite swallow him. I think that a paper exploring Shakespeare's influence on modern popular film might snag some peoples interest.

These are my proto-papers. I think, however, I may end up writing a hybrid of all three. I wonder if that would have an appropriate scope, or if it would collapse on itself.



Textual
The villains of Shakespeare are self-assertive, aspiring, calculating, and clever individuals. They push hard against the society that often pushes them first. It is this rugged determination to fight against all odds that we as the audience find so fascinating. We become their confidants and often co-conspirators. Though we dread their success we long to see them exercise their intelligence against societal norms. As characters they almost always undergo a transformative moment during a soliloquy as they conceive an image of who they are. The Shakespearean soliloquy is vital to the power and draw of his most famous villains. 

This “proto-paper” would delve deep into the soliloquys of some of Shakespeare’s most compelling villains. Special attention would be paid to figures of speech, rhetorical strategies, and other methods used in presenting the character. The real interest would be that it is the rhetorical essence of these soliloquys that causes Shakespeare’s villains to be so fascinating, not necessarily the plot alone.

Contextual

Shakespeare created villains who exemplified all the classic tropes of villainy that abounded in sixteenth century England. Marauders, border thieves, murderers, and assassins were not uncommon. A few of the most famous brigands of the Renaissance are Geordie Bourne and Guy Fawkes, both of whom had gained a certain level of notoriety. The characters and crimes of these men are of such audacity that they too could have been villains of drama. This suggests that Shakespeare drew from actual criminals of his time to create his most dastardly villains.

Exploring the most famous criminals of the 16th century reveals a great deal about likely sources of Shakespeare’s villains. There are a few records of wardens and other government officials that describe the crimes and punishments of the era’s most notorious bad guys. By comparing these actual criminals with those of Shakespeare’s drama, I hope to indicate how Shakespeare managed to create such lasting villains. His plots were not entirely original, they were based on history, folk lore, or other plays. Why should his villains be any different? This does not demean his accomplishment. On the contrary, it further exemplifies his skills as an artist.

Critical Engagement

Villains represent the fears and dangers of society. Often times we create villains in art to express what we are truly afraid of. Shakespearean villains are often a conglomeration of what society truly feared. Usurpers, murderers, and schemers, they form a wicked community. It is the realism and accessibility of villains such as Iago and Edmund that brings them their appeal. This is what set Shakespeare apart. His villains expressed Machiavellian ideologies, pushed limits, and were anything but simple. These agents of evil gave birth to our modern concepts of villainy in cinema, literature, and drama. Today, we too express our fears through terrifyingly real and potent villains. The Joker of The Dark Knight is a modern descendant of Shakespeare’s Iago and Edmund.

This prospective paper would involve contextual as well as critical sources. The previous prompts might even fit inside of it. I found an interesting book titled, “Villains and villainy : embodiments of evil in literature, popular culture and media”. I have also found countless other sources that discuss and critique the villains of Shakespeare on an individual basis from multiple different angles of interpretation. I plan on fusing these two themes to explore the impact Shakespeare had on our modern concepts of villainy in modern culture.

All in all, I really am leaning toward all three. I just wonder if that is too much material. A really interesting source on modern day villains was this,  
 Villains and Villainy : Embodiments of Evil in Literature, Popular Culture and Media. Eds. Anna Fahraeus, Dikmen Yakalı Çamoğlu, and Global Villains and Villainy Conference (1st : 2009 : Oxford). Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2011. Print

2 comments:

  1. I really like the angle you are going with your paper. Your probably right to worry about trying to use all ideas. It might be better to focus in more deeply on just one point, but that doesn't mean you need to abandon the rest of your material. It is better to have too much and pull back than to have not enough and try to make up the length. Keep up the good work, your doing great.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I found your third point really interesting, I think because you tied it into a modern day villain. I feel you could tie your second and third ideas in together, but the third might be harder to incorporate.

    ReplyDelete