Monday, November 30, 2015

Annotated Bibliography: Mental Illness in the Tragedies

Title:  Overcoming the Stigma:  Mental Illness in Shakespeare’s Day and Ours

Thesis: Although there is a great mental illness stigma present in today’s society, deconstructing Shakespeare’s characters will allow us to see how ordinary individuals develop mental illness and the necessity of getting medical attention.
Annotated Bibliography:
Arboleda-Flórez, Julio and Norman Sartorius eds. Understanding the Stigma of Mental Illness: Theory and Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Web. 30 November 2015.  <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470997642>

This article talks about how the stigma of mental illness came about historically.  This is going to help me to explain how the stigma exists and prove in a way that it truly does exist.  Then from there I will be able to jump into my thesis and how Shakespeare is related to that.

Somerville, H. Madness In Shakespearian Tragedy. London: The Richards Press LTD., 1969. Print.

This is a book that goes through several of the tragedies talking about how madness developed in key characters.  This book is going to help me look at the characters’ development of mental illness so that I can show how they were normal people with many internal conflicts that would have been fine if they would have had the necessary mental health services available to them.  Ultimately teaching us that we don’t have to be worried about a stigma to get the help we need, instead we should be worried about not getting help.

Chan, K.K.S. and W.W.S Mak. "The Prevalence of Stereotype Self-concurrence and Habitual Self-stigma in a Community Sample of People with Mental Illness." European Psychiatry 28-31 March 2015: 1375. Web. 30 November 2015.  <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092493381531066X>

This is a report of a survey that was taken which basically says that people with mental illness put the stereotype on themselves making the mental illness more difficult.  This goes along the lines of one of my claims with King Lear in which he dreaded going mad and that was one of the reasons why he went mad.  So it can back up that point and show how a stigma whether self-imposed or imposed by the public can lead people to not get the help they need and the condition can worsen.


Freidl, M., T. Lang and M. Scherer. "How psychiatric patients perceive the public's stereotype of mental illness." Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 38.5 (2003-05): 269-75. Web. 30 November 2015.  <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-003-0626-3#>

This journal article draws on several surveys talking about the mental illness stigma and how it affects the public and the mentally ill.  I think it will help me not only further establish my thesis, but it will also give my paper a so-what.  The so-what being that all people are affected by this whether mentally ill or not, and so we need to overcome this mental illness stigma issue.


Hom, Melanie A., Ian H. Stanley and Thomas E. Joiner Jr. "Evaluating factors and interventions that influence help-seeking and mental health service utilization among suicidal individuals: A review of the literature." Clinical Psychology Review 27 May 2015: 28-39. Web. 30 November 2015. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735815000768>

This talks about the factors that cause people to not take advantage of mental health services.  By seeing all of the factors determined through several surveys it will better support my thesis in that people don’t take advantage of the mental health services.  It also suggests that the stigma of mental illness can be the cause to all of the other supposed causes of not taking advantage of mental health services.

Thiher, Allen. Revels in Madness: Insanity in Medicine and Literature. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. Print.


This book talks about how insanity was treated in Shakespeare’s time or in better words, how it wasn’t treated.  This is going to help me in my argument by showing that the characters in Shakespeare’s plays had tragic endings because the help was not available.  In contrast, people do not need to be like that today because of all the help that is available to us.


Schomerus, Georg, Herbert Matschinger and Matthias C. Angermeyer. "Traces of Freud - The Unconscious Conflict as a Cause of Mental Disorders in the Eyes of the General Public." Psychopathology (2008): 173-178. Web. 23 November 2015.

This is a survey that is based off of Freud's philosophy that mental disorders are caused by unconscious conflict.  The survey shows that it is.  This is going to help me to be able to show how the characters of King Lear, Othello, and Macbeth were normal people with conflicts that led them to developing a mental illness.  Therefore demonstrating that there should not be a stigma against people who develop a mental illness because anyone can.  I also am going to use this to do more research on Freud's philosophy on the subject.

Mini Paper/ Rough Draft

Kamber Joy Alldredge

Virtues of Villains and Vices of Heroes in Shakespeare

In Shakespeare, we read and view things from the protagonist’s perspective which can blind us to their vices and the parallels they share with an antagonist who often has virtues of his own.
Aristotle defines a virtue as a habit that establishes a state of mind characterized by fitness and moderation that conforms to a reasonable standard and a vice as a habit characterized by irregularity and lack of measure. A virtue lies between two extremes; however, measuring where exactly that lies is the difficult part as it is dependent on each situation, person, and quality in question. The Pythagoreans say that wrong is infinite, and right is law, and that all we can really do is try to avoid the least of all evils when trying to find that law. An excess of anything leads to sin, extremes are wrong, and the right lies in moderation where reason tells us it is. Using this standard it is easier to see how a protagonist can take something that would seem righteous and good to the reader, and then escalate it to an extreme where the morals become more blurred, all with that first face of good intent. Once a protagonist embraces the extreme, they become parallel with the antagonist.
An excellent example of this is the character Isabella in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure. Our first dealings with Isabella establish her as a virtuous young woman who aspires to be a nun and be closer to Christ. There can be no vices found with her in these first encounters, until she encounters Angelo, her parallel, a man who also preached strict virtue. And here we also see the difference in severity and clemency. Both characters uphold the same value, virtue, abstinence outside of marriage, but disagree on what is an appropriate punishment. It is Isabella’s similar strict virtue that draws Angelo to her and causes him to face temptation for the first time, and it is Angelo’s proposition that causes Isabella to reveal the coldness and selfishness of her own character. They both are tempted and fall by what they thought was their virtue. If Isabella had simply refused to sleep with Angelo then she would have retained her pure visage, but she goes so far as to say that she would rather her brother be tortured to death, to die twenty times over, then to sleep with Angelo. She places the value of her chastity over her brother, and in her pleas for mercy reveals her own aggression as she talks about gouging Angelo’s eyes out. She has taken Chastity out of moderation and has placed it in an extreme above life and humanity, just as Angelo first did by sentencing her brother to death.
Reading Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, we might assume Isabella is the hero, the maiden who follows Christ and protects her virtue and Angelo as the malicious villain who threatens her brother with death. Angelo has his own virtues though; the intention behind this sentence is good. He hopes that by setting a severe example with Claudio, he can protect the woman of the city and their virtue, uphold the family, and tear down the brothels and exploitation. Angelo has a righteous cause but he is blinded himself by his own arrogance that he could never be tempted, and so his own identity falls into chaos when he realizes otherwise. He prays to God to give him strength, and forgive him of his sins, similar to Claudius in Hamlet, but just as Claudius finds this cannot sway his thoughts. And just as in Hamlet, he seeks the death of the one he has wronged so that they might not seek revenge on him.

         The other character in Measure for Measure who might fill the role of hero is the Duke, who seemingly goes undercover to protect his people and then swoops in at the last second to save everyone. In reality, the Duke knew that he had led the city in debauchery and so put the task of disciplining them to someone else to save face. He also knowingly left someone in charge who he knew would be too severe on the people, manipulating Angelo into the situation where he gives out his troublesome sentence. The Duke takes on the guise of a friar, which on its own would be innocent but then  uses his appearance as a holy man to hear confession and pardon when he does not actually have the authority to do so and thus uses his appearance of righteousness to get people to trust him and reveal their secrets. In his act of saving the life of Claudio, he stoops to the same level as Angelo, manipulating and tricking someone into sleeping with another, in this case, Angelo with an old lover of his, and then forces him to marry her as was the usual practice for sex outside of marriage. He never looks inward as Angelo does to question himself and his actions, and then proposes marriage to Isabella, the woman who just wanted to be a nun, out from under the control of man, who now owes a debt of gratitude for her brother’s life and her chastity to the Duke. The Duke might be the lesser of two evils, but he still is not practicing virtue in moderation.

Works Cited

Hillard, Richard. Edited by Kinney, Arthur F. William Shakespeare: The Problem Plays. Twayne Publishers, New York. 1993. P. 92

Vyvyan, John. The Shakespearean Ethic. Chattos and Windus Ltd, London. 1959. P. 62.

Sears, Lloyd C. Shakespeare’s Philosophy of Evil. Christopher Publishing House. North Quincy, Mass. 1974. P.123

Beauregard, David N. Virtues Own Feature: Shakespeare and the Virtue Ethics Tradition. Associated University Press. Deleware. 1995. P. 139

Mrs. Griffith. The Morality of Shakespeare Drama. AMS Press Inc. New York. 1971. P.35

Monday, November 23, 2015

Mental Illness and Shakespeare

Kimmy Martin
Shakespeare
Mini Paper
11/23/15

            According to a survey taken by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 43.8 million adults in the United States were estimated to have mental illness in the year 2013.  Among those adults, there were only 19.6 million that received mental health services.  This suggests a 24.2 million gap in which adults are not receiving the help that they need to deal with their mental health.  Some may suggest that it is their income or insurance coverage that keeps them from receiving this help, but I suggest that a great part of it is the fear of a mental illness stereotype that may accompany getting the help that they need.  Serious mental illnesses are the results of mental illness cases that do not receive the necessary medical attention.  Although fictional, the cases found in Shakespeare’s King Lear, Othello, and Macbeth demonstrate the effects that result from a lack of necessary medical attention in the face of mental illness. 
            King Lear is an important character to look at when it comes to the discussion of mental illnesses.  In the beginning of the play, it is not evident that King Lear has already developed his mental disabilities.  Instead, we see him as an older man who begins to see his own weaknesses in a new sort of reality because of his old age.  Shakespearean H. Somerville further describes King Lear in this light saying, “Always an over-generous man, he became more generous than ever.  Always a rash and hasty man, he became more rash and hasty.  His reasoning powers and judgement, never very good, had deteriorated; and his fiery temper, never under proper control, had become almost ungovernable” (100).  This is something we could say of almost any grandparent.  The older they get, they become more “stuck in their ways” and their personality is only solidified.  There is also evidence the King Lear recognized that he was getting old for the pleas, “O, let me not be mad, not mad, sweet heaven!  Keep me in temper: I would not be mad!”  Although this is his desire, we see that he does develop mental illness, but not simply by cause of old age. 
The first reason comes from the fear that he has of becoming insane.  I like to think that he maybe had a close relative, friend, or even his spouse that we know nothing about who had a sort of mental illness.  Because of what he has seen and experienced in accordance with mental illness, he is desperate to not become like that.  This is may be one of the main sources of the mental illness stereotyping today.  We may know someone who is close to us, or even someone who isn’t, who suffers from a serious mental illness.  It is one of our first reactions to tell ourselves that we are not like that and that we will never become like that.  When in reality, that may be one of our deepest fears – the possibility of becoming the person we use to describe mental illness. 
The other thing that may have driven him to his mental state at the end of the play is the recurring events that led him to anger, dissatisfaction, and loneliness.  Not only did events take place to arouse these emotions, but they came from his reactions to his daughters’ choices which makes the emotions even greater and even more hurtful.  This is something that has commonly been an attack on a healthy mind as a synopsis of mental illness written from a medical perspective states, “How much greater would be his danger, if instead of a faithful wife, devoted children, and a placid existence, the last few years of his life had witnessed the wreck of all his domestic joys, the rise of enemies and the success of the harassing measures they had undertaken against him” (McFarland).  When the people closest to us do things that hurt us or that we may interpret as hurting us, it is easy for us to develop strong emotions inside of us like anger, loneliness, and mistrust.  The more that we dwell on the relationships that evoke these feelings, the more we will push our minds to feel like we always have these feelings and we can’t break away from them.
By looking at what drove him to develop mental illness, we cannot blame him for having developed it.  If any one of us were to be so mentally divided between the heightened emotions and imperfections of old age, fear of going insane, and the emotional rollercoaster that hits King Lear one after another throughout the play, we too would probably have at least a temporary mental illness.  This suggests that mental illness is not far from the realms in which the mass majority of people live. 
The point that seems to have driven him to his worst is when he believes that he has finally gone mad.  Again, this comes about by the association of another person who is believed to be mad.  Tom of Bedlam enters talking as if a spirit is following him and what is King Lear’s reaction?  He says, “Hast thou given all to thy two daughters?  And art thou come to this?” (Lear 3.1.1850).  When King Lear sees Tom, he immediately projects himself on the qualities of madness and believes that he, himself, is no different from the mad man in front of him.  From this point, we see Lear become the mad man that he believes he is.
When people believe they are something, they develop themselves to be that image that they have in their mind.  In a positive light, this is how people are counseled to reach their goals.  How many times have we heard that if you want to be a doctor, you have to imagine yourself as a doctor?  This principle applies to mental illness as well and shows how easy it is to submit to an image that you believe you fit into.  So King Lear began to see himself as the stereotype that he struggled so long against, but even with all of the mental struggle he had been going through, he gives up and allows himself to become what he sees.  This is where the mental health services would do King Lear a lot of good because they are meant to help people to not be defined by their mental condition.  If Lear continued to struggle against his fear of going insane and his overly emotional reactions, and had help in doing so, he would have been able to continue living a normal life.  Yes, he would still feel all of these emotions, but the emotions wouldn’t drown everything else out and he would have been able to reason and perhaps change the end of the story.

This is the section of my paper where I have ideas but they haven't been developed into paragraphs yet.

            Macbeth – the struggle between whether he should do something or whether he shouldn’t do it.  Fear for himself is the cause for him to kill as a defensive response.  He uses the word fear frequently and that supports the idea that fear is the leading cause to his mental illness
Becomes paranoid which causes delusions and thus amplifies his paranoia.  Spends so much energy mentally trying to conceal that fear that it makes it even harder
Banquet scene really shows his explosion.
            “Some say he’s mad; others, that less hate him, /Do call it valiant fury; but, for certain, /He cannot buckle his distemper’d cause /Within the belt rule.”
“His mental conflicts previous to the murder and the tortures of remorse for having done the deed determine his insanity.  His insanity, once established (delusions of persecution), is responsible for his subsequent career of bloodshed” (Somerville).
So it is the internal conflicts before the murder that are the mental illness.  If at this point he would have received counseling or medication that aided with the hallucinations then the first murder could have been avoided as well as the murders that followed
            Othello - Has to adjust himself to the society in Venice which he knows very little about while in his own mind he is trying to withstand his own feelings of inferiority because he is of a completely different race.  This comes to a peak within the marriage because if he is already feeling inferior in the rest of his life it is easy for him to feel inferior in his marriage as well.  This is why Iago could so easily get to him, he was already shaken up mentally on his own personal value.
“Nor from mine own weak merits will I draw /The smallest fear, or doubt of her revolt; /For she had eyes, and chose me.”  Trying to suppress his thoughts, but it demonstrates how slowly this seed of doubt and inferiority is growing in his mind
The Handkerchief scene shows his explosion and how he is over-analyzing everything and making it a bigger deal so that it fits in with what he thinks is going on; what his mind wants him to prove so that he can stop going back and forth between this two-sided conflict.
“O, now, forever /Farewell the tranquil mind!  Farewell content! /Farewell the plumed troop, and the big wars…”  This is him absolutely giving up in the one area in his life that he had confidence.
Medical care wasn’t really an option for them
Whipping, Bedlam (confinement), tried various herbs – which demonstrates that the necessary health services were not available mostly due to lack of education.
See Shakespeare dictionary of quotations and (Thiher) “Revels in Madness Insanity in Medicine and Literature”
From Macbeth “Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased; /Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow; /Raze out the written troubles of the brain; /And, with some sweet oblivious antidote, /Cleanse the stuff’d bosom of that perilous stuff /Which weighs upon the heart?”
Du Lauren a doctor of the seventeenth century said, “Consider the action of a frenetic or a maniac, you'll find nothing human there; he bites, he screams, he bellows with a savage voice, rolls burning eyes, his hair stands on end, he throws himself about and often kills himself so. Look at a melancholic and how he lowers himself so that he becomes a com-panion of beasts and only likes solitary places” (Thiher)
Medical care is an option today that isn’t being taken advantage of
Need research on this…


Other ideas I came across:
Freud – taught that mental illness was caused by internal conflicts of the conscious
One resource shows how this was proved correct in modern society
Internal conflicts are the causes to the mental illnesses in King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello 


Works Cited

Brown. "Insanity in Shakespeare". Boston: Little Brown Books, 1978. Web.
Jackson, Ken. Separate Theaters. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005. Print.
Kellogg, A. O. Shakespeare's Delineation of Insanity, Imbecility, and Suicide. New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1866. Print.
McFarland. The Trial of Daniel McFarland for the Shooting of Albert D. Richardson the Alleged Seducer of His Wife. Buffalo: William S. Hein & Co., 2007. Web. 19 November 2015.
Peat, Derek. Mad for Shakespeare: a Reconsideration of the Importance of Bedlam. Vol. 21:1. Australian and New Zealand Association of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, 2004. Web. 18 November 2015.
Robin, P. Ansell. The Old Physiology in English Literature. London: J. M. Dent & Sons LTD., 1911. Print.
Somerville, H. Madness In Shakespearian Tragedy. London: The Richards Press LTD., 1969. Print.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2013 Nation Survey on Drug Use and Health: Mental Health Findings. NSDUH Series H-49, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4887. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Servey Administration, 2014. Web. 21 November 2015.
Thiher, Allen. Revels in Madness: Insanity in Medicine and Literature. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1999. Print.



Millennial Shakespeare Mini Paper!

Shakespeare’s plays have been adapted thousands of times from generation to generation, each with updated settings, plot points, and concepts to mirror the values of the current society and critique social issues, as Shakespeare’s works did with Elizabethan England— setting Romeo and Juliet in Verona, California with mobsters; reversing the racial roles of Othello into an all-black cast with a white Othello; transforming Twelfth Night’s Viola from a shipwrecked girl working for a duke into a high school soccer player. While these updated adaptations offer unique insights into the cultures that produce them, they often draw their lines solely from the original text. Therefore, the changes these adaptations make to Shakespeare’s work focus on changing settings, music, and costumes; the emphasis is on the spectacle of theatre and film rather than on the text itself. However, there is a growing niche of Shakespeare adaptations in a variety of mediums that toy not just with elements of staging and production, but with the text as well. Because the text is considered as some of the finest English work, changes to the text are widely discouraged. Modernizing the text is recent trend that has been growing as the millennial generation has begun discovering Shakespeare. When changes to the text with the intent of modernizing it occur, they are often critiqued as simplifying timeless classics for the lazy readers of today. However, I argue that 21st century adaptations of Shakespeare that translate the text into modern terms include our changing, growing millennial vocabulary, similar to Shakespeare’s invention and inclusion of many then-new words and phrases.
First, I will examine Shakespeare’s infamous wordplay. He prolifically generated new words, compound words, and phrases that have become commonplace, traditional-sounding English words. We rarely trace them back to their origins nor realize how untoward the caliber and frequency of his new words. Understanding how Shakespeare “simultaneously mauled and energized [the English language] with such brilliance and such brio” allows us to the revolutionary aspect of such wordplay— never before had words been combined in such innovative ways (Prose 1).
Then I will explore the changing language of Shakespearean adaptations, both formal and informal. I plan on drawing parallels between current modernizing of the texts and Shakespeare’s original remixing of the English language and explaining that doing so is a tribute to Shakespeare’s wordplay rather than a desecration of the best English writing.
From there, I plan on explaining the impact of modernizing Shakespeare’s language and how it used in schools to make his works more interesting, accessible, and enjoyable for young adults. I plan on looking at Twitter and Facebook posts in the style of Shakespeare (particularly exchanges between Romeo and Juliet characters written by students as part of their high school projects), the YOLO Juliet project, Sassy Gay Friend, and Oregon’s Shakespeare Festival project to modernize five plays texts’ and perform them in 2016. As Aaron Scott explains about modernizing the text, “Playwright Kenneth Cavandar says that people came up to him after the world premiere of ‘Timon of Athens’ at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival in 2014 to say this was the first time they’d fully understood the Bard” (Scott 4).
Bibliography
Benet, William Rose. “William Shakespeare.” Benét's Reader's Encyclopedia. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. Print.
Mabillard, Amanda. “Why Study Shakespeare? The Reasons Behind Shakespeare's Influence and Popularity.” Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.
Prose, Francine. “‘Everything Is Illuminated’: Back in the Totally Awesome U.S.S.R.” New York Times. The New York Times Company, 14 Apr. 2002. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.

Scott, Aaron. “Oregon Shakespeare Festival To Modernize Shakespeare's Canon.” OPB News. Oregon Public Broadcasting, 28 Sept. 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2015.

Half-baked Mini Paper - Henry V


This is a very rough draft, and it is still missing many of the resources that I have collected. I set it up more as an outline, especially in the latter paragraphs... but I'm hoping it make sense, even with all the resources and evidence not typed in! 

In most societies and cultures, hypocrisy has negative connotations. Those accused of being two-faced are generally looked down on and their hypocritical actions are reproved. However, the ever-brilliant Shakespeare demonstrates how just such a double-value system was, in fact, beneficial to one man (Henry V) in his play of the same name. Although King Henry V is portrayed as the ideal king because of his ready assumption of the moral mantle that accompanies his divinely appointed kingship, given his childhood this is ultimately an act of hypocrisy. However, this admittedly un-idealistic character flaw is what made Shakespeare’s King Henry such a capable king.
            Throughout history, King Henry has been rightly acknowledged as one of the great English monarchs, often held up next to bastions such as Alfred the Great, Edward I, Queen Elizabeth, Queen Victoria, and more (O’Connor). Despite this credit given him for his success, however, very few truly appreciate the effort that this man put into his kingship – because they overlook one fundamental part of his character, his initial hypocrisy. For anyone who is remotely familiar with Henry V’s young life, they know that he was less than morally upright and was, we might say, rather the opposite of the king he grew into. The shift from one to the other is seen almost immediately upon his ascension to the throne. Some critics suggest that this is a, “satirical exposure of vicious hypocrisy (Boyce and White, 261).” What these critics neglect, however, is the effort and sacrifice that such change – such “vicious hypocrisy” – cost the still-young man. He gave up his previous life and actions in order to become not the man but the king that his country needed.
            Evidence of this is clearly seen in Shakespeare’s portrayal of Henry’s character. The sacrifice and sense of loss that the young Henry felt are poignantly expressed in his soliloquy on the role of a king in Scene 1 of Act V. In it, he cries out loud, “What infinite heart's-ease / Must kings neglect, that private men enjoy! / And what have kings, that privates have not too, / Save ceremony, save general ceremony?” (Shakespeare). He here laments all that he has forgone (and must forego) in order to live up to the ceremony, to the role, of king. The fact that he chose to take that mantle upon himself and was so effective in doing so is commendable – and knowing that he did it in direct violation of his past (an almost hypocritical act) shows just how much of an understanding he must have had of this “ceremony” and what would be required of him. Just as with any man, to act in direct opposition to one’s nature would require incredible thought, self-control, and motivation – all traits that one would want in a leader, in a king. His actions, then, must be more the result of calculation than simple charisma, more diligence than luck.
            Indeed, as one examines his life (as we will here do through the medium of Shakespeare) the evidence of such commitment is clearly visible. His clear effort to link himself with God and make his divine right unquestionable is one example, and is both visible throughout the play and very effectively managed. [expound]
Another of the benefits of his ‘hypocrisy’ is the ability to shift roles, to empathize even. The first time we see this in Shakespeare’s play is in Act II Scene II when he deals with the traitorous nobles. It also seen when he goes undercover among his solders. [expound on situations here]
            His ability to act in favor of state over his own personal desires is also shown in how he deals with some of his previous friends. One such friend, previously very close to the young king, was one of the nobles mentioned above. Two more of his friends – Bardolph and Nym – are also found guilty of crossing the state in the form of looting during wartime. In each of these instances, the king upholds the law and sentences each of these dear friends to execution despite his own feelings because that is what the law (the ceremony and responsibility of his station) requires. [expound]
            Another instance of his understanding and calculated efforts at work is in the forced surrender of the town of Harfleur. This speech is often a discordant moment for one who has not accepted the king’s layered personality. Here, the ‘charismatic leader’ of the previous few acts suddenly becomes scathingly brutal in Act III Scene III as he addresses the governor of the soon-to-be-surrendered town. Some readers have expressed their shock [find that one quote again] at his callousness here. However, if one accepts the premise that King Henry is cognizant and intelligently committed to his cause, one realizes the mastery of this speech. It is so much better to speak of rape and massacre and to so frighten the governor of the obstinate town into submission than to lose actual lives in less effective struggle. The king is intentionally using such harsh rhetoric to avoid further loss of life. 
            Even the king’s famous and moving speeches are demonstrative of his mental capabilities. To be able to not only understand the situation, but to capitalize on it and turn that into such rousing and eloquent verses – and all under extreme pressure (i.e. in the midst of battle), is a noteworthy feat. [expound]
            The wooing of Katherine, prince of France, is further evidence of his assumption of a role for the sake of his kingdom. [expound]

            In each of the situations and Henry’s actions shown above, the image of a simply idealistic and larger-than-life character increasingly give way to a clearer image of a man with understanding, intelligence, and love for his nation who made sacrifices to achieve success. As Shakespeare’s Henry says of himself and his “hard condition, twin-born with greatness (his kingship), he “must bear all” (Shakespeare) that is asked of him, and so he does, lifting the ceremonious mantle in such as way as to become one of the greatest kings that England has ever known.

Works Cited

Boyce, Charles, and David Allen White. Shakespeare A to Z: The Essential Reference to His Plays, His Poems, His Life and Times, and More. New York: Facts on File, 1990. Print.

O'Connor, Gus Lubin and Liz. "The 10 Greatest British Monarchs In History."Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 30 July 2013. Web. 23 Nov. 2015. <http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-greatest-british-monarchs-in-history-2013-7>.


Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. N.p. : Latus ePublising, n.d. Print. Kindle Books.

"And at times, the fool"

Rosemary Larkin
Professor Gideon Burton
English 382
23 November 2015
“And at times the fool”: Shakespeare’s Fool in Modern Media
The trope of the Fool is consistently used throughout Shakespeare’s work to fill many roles: comedian, counselor, commentator. Scholarship regarding the Fool is further complicated by the agreed upon divisions within the trope, specifically differentiating between a “natural fool” and a “professional fool.” The professional fool specifically has developed into a rhetorical device integral to the audience’s interpretation of themes, characters, and particularly moral systems within the story. “Most of these figures, including Feste in Twelfth Night and Lavatch in All's Well That Ends Well, are professionals who are consciously wiser than the jesting roles they adopt[. . . .] All of them see and describe the plays' events in meaningful ways that are not available in normal social discourse” (Wiggins). Although superficially different from its Shakespearean origins, the professional fool’s manifestations in modern media have exploded into a cross-genre trope which interfaces with the audience in order to accommodate disparate social spheres and resolve conflicts arising from clashing moral systems.
Defining a Fool
Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies distinguish between two general roles for the Fool exists, and each tends to be accentuated the respective genres. Tragedies use the fool as a moral foil for the self-centric and poor judgment of title characters. Comedies fixate on the social classes as does their Fool: rather than latching to a specific character, the Fool can step in and out of the social order, interact with any character, be accepted in any venue. Additionally, the Fool exempt from social niceties, making their commentaries and explanations objective and trustworthy. A Fool is fundamentally defined by being trustworthy. In moral situations, the Fool advocates for the audience. Not that the Fool imposes the audience’s moral system onto the story, but that the Fool acts as intermediary for the audience to accept without condoning the morality of the protagonist. Especially in modern media, inherent moral systems vary wildly and often conflict with the accepted social contract or regional morality. The Fool is then responsible for expressing those concerns in any number of ways, the most consistent and common being truthfulness. Genuine honest reaction to things anchors the audience to the worldview of the protagonist. Fundamentally, the Fool is defined by its relation to the protagonist, although modern media does develop the character of and stories for the Fool in order to evolve the trope with the evolution of characters, especially since serialized media in particular is slow to develop primary plot elements and as such compensates with a well developed supporting cast. Still, there are core characteristics that contemporary fools share with Shakespearean ones.
I will break down the prevailing attributes all Fools share, focusing on 5 that are consistently supported in Shakespeare’s professional fools (hopefully being able to reconcile with natural fools as well).
Next, I wish to focus on attributes that are common but not necessarily mandatory. Ideally, the versatility of these characteristics will lead into a sketch of the modern fool.
Since so many modern interpretations meld professionals and naturals, mental illness is often used to exempt potential fools from social niceties and account for often superhuman exaggerations to their social standing, their breadth of knowledge, and their often unique sense of humor. Humor is possibly the most problematic aspect of defining a modern fool as “foolishness” does not necessarily overlap with the purpose of a fool within the story and world. We need to be careful of combining the fool with a sidekick, especially when comedic characters and generally clueless ones tend to be audience favorites.


Shakespearean Fools
Mercutio from Romeo and Juliet
Puck vs. Bottom from A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Feste from Twelfth Night
Touchstone from As You Like It
Clown from King Lear
Polonius from Hamlet


Contemporary Fools
Cordelia/Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Comedian from Watchmen
Wit from The Stormlight Archive
Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother
Charlie Young from The West Wing
Parker from Leverage
Jayne/River from Firefly
Hoenheim from Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood
The Doctor from Doctor Who
Marty from Cabin in the Woods
Kiskue Urahara from Bleach
Kramer from Seinfeld


Works Cited
  1. Wiggins, Martin. "Fools." The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. 21 November 2015. Web.
  2. Astington, John H. “Three Shakespearean prints.” Shakespeare Quarterly: Summer 1996: 47, 2: ProQuest Research Library. 178. Web.