Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label violence. Show all posts
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Finding Connections: The Winter's Tale
I have been looking at The Winter's Tale for the last two days for close reading. While I am not finding much, I am finding a few interesting parallels between Acts I-III and Anne Boylen's fall. From my studies of the Tudors, as Henry VIII gets closer to removing a wife that is giving him a lot of trouble there seems to be an increase in tension in the royal court. I sense that Shakespeare is trying to construct a similar rising tension as Leontes' obsession with Hermione's supposed infidelity increases. In Act I Scene II, Leontes asks Camillo a series of rhetorical questions about the queen's supposed behavior:
Is whispering nothing? Is leaning cheek to cheek? is meeting noses? Kissing with inside lip? stopping the career Of laughing with a sigh?—a note infallible Of breaking honesty—horsing foot on foot? Skulking in corners? wishing clocks more swift? Hours, minutes? noon, midnight? and all eyes Blind with the pin and web but theirs, theirs only, That would unseen be wicked? is this nothing?
Shakespeare, William (2011-09-07). The Complete Works of Shakespeare (Kindle Locations 40812-40819). Latus ePublishing. Kindle Edition.
I looked up some terms on the Silvia Rhetoricae website. This type of rhetorical behavior is called excusiato, or stirring others to anger by one's own vehement feeling. This also demonstrates amplification, or the arrangement of words or clauses in order of increasing force. Notice how Leontes goes from "whispering" to touching to kissing to secret meetings, increasing the severity of his accusations by increasing the severity of Hermione's supposed behavior. We've heard about the steps leading to from smaller sins to bigger ones. This small passage by itself is a symbol of Leontes' increasing obsession.
The chief cause of Anne Boylen's fall from failure was her inability to produce a son after the birth of Elizabeth. Over Christmas Break I read The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir, which went into detail on this issue. Henry was already apparently in a relationship with Jane Seymour during one of Anne's later pregnancies. At eight months, Anne miscarried, and the fetus was developed enough that they could tell it would have been a boy. Henry increasingly lost interest in Anne and decided to remove her. Weir's description--as well as other descriptions I've read of Henry VIII when he was in one of these moods--describe Henry as a brooding and obsessive, willing to believe anything he convinced himself, and once he was set on doing something nothing could stop him.
Having taken years to depose of Katherine of Aragon. According to Weir, Henry wanted Anne out of the way quickly. He trumped-up charges that she was having affairs with other men (Leontes deposed Hermione for the same reason) and that Elizabeth and her miscarried children were not his. Anne was sent to the Tower of London, put on trial (much like Hermione, although neither trial could hardly be called "just"), and she was executed.
There are one or two small connections to the Tudors I have found in this play that I also believe support my case, but it would take up a lot of writing. I am thinking about narrowing down my topic to The Winter's Tale and Anne Boylen. Thoughts?
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
A More Macabre Turn
It might be just that it's late at night and I've read one too many dark short stories, but I can't stop thinking about Gloucester's eyes.
When I saw the 2008 PBS adaptation of King Lear starring Ian McKellen, I was shocked at how graphically they portrayed the removal of Gloucester's eyes. And now, whether I want to or not, I have the image of his eyeless face seared into my soul.
My question, though, is how much of this representation is necessary? Certainly this is a scene in the play with the potential to deal in spectacle, letting the audience see Gloucester blinded in a way they never saw Oedipus do to himself, for instance. How much do we need this particular spectacle to evince the feelings we have when Gloucester says in act IV, "I have no way, and therefore want no eyes"? More importantly, what do we think of choices in adaptation of this scene considering how unflinchingly visual our culture has become? Does our current cultural emphasis on vision make this scene all the more painful for us to the watch?
Basically, this particular strain of thought has taken me from adaptation theory to reader response, to disability studies in one very tiring night. This topic kind of gives me the willies, but I'm still drawn to it. I don't know if it'll be my final paper, but it's something I've been exploring tonight.
![]() |
| Photo Credit: goto10 under cc license |
My question, though, is how much of this representation is necessary? Certainly this is a scene in the play with the potential to deal in spectacle, letting the audience see Gloucester blinded in a way they never saw Oedipus do to himself, for instance. How much do we need this particular spectacle to evince the feelings we have when Gloucester says in act IV, "I have no way, and therefore want no eyes"? More importantly, what do we think of choices in adaptation of this scene considering how unflinchingly visual our culture has become? Does our current cultural emphasis on vision make this scene all the more painful for us to the watch?
Basically, this particular strain of thought has taken me from adaptation theory to reader response, to disability studies in one very tiring night. This topic kind of gives me the willies, but I'm still drawn to it. I don't know if it'll be my final paper, but it's something I've been exploring tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

