Learning: A Lifelong and Social Experience

Learning Outcomes

1. Gain Shakespeare Literacy

Over the course of this semester I have read and watched various Shakespeare plays and sonnets including: The Taming of the Shrew, The Winter’s Tale, Henry V, King Lear, and Love’s Labour’s Lost. I was introduced to more Shakespeare works than I had previously been exposed to. The breadth of my study included plays from the main Shakespearean genres: comedy, tragedy, history, and romance. I was able to gain a wider picture of Shakespeare’s works through the various genres. Henry V and my individually assigned play, Love’s Labour’s Lost were two plays that I studied more in depth. Through this process, I learned more about rhetoric and how powerful it can be. I also learned that pretty much EVERYONE has their own opinion about it. During this time, I was also able to watch various plays on film and stage. Some film/stage adaptations were certainly better than others. Certain artistic and theatrical features determined the quality of the performance. For example, the Henry V stage production chose not only to cast Henry as a female but also adapted much of the play for a children’s audience. This greatly changed the way Henry is viewed as a character. Sometimes these changes worked, and sometimes they didn’t. However, all the changes revealed something different about the play and emphasized its applicability to our day. In addition, over the course of the semester I have read countless sources about background information about Shakespeare, peer-reviewed articles, and found numerous blogs and modern-day adaptations of his plays.

SUCCESS!!

I have successfully submitted my paper to the Scholar’s Archive at BYU. I am also planning on submitting my paper to Criterion. The requirements for submitting to Criterion are much the same as the actual paper requirements. Hopefully, they’ll accept me. :)

Life is a Highway

Don't judge me about the title. I was feeling sentimental when I wrote it. Anyway, let’s start from the beginning. My paper began after reviewing digital dialog posts and talking with classmates. I was really intrigued by both the rhetorical and linguistic aspects of Love’s Labour’s Lost and Henry V, and I couldn’t decide which one to do. However, after doing my literary analysis, I decided that Henry was the way to go. It seemed like nearly everyone disagreed with me in thinking that Henry was an overall good guy, and to be honest, they had some really good points. The comments discouraged me, but they also helped me realize that I really did want to show that Henry is a good person. My friend also helped me realize that Henry is not as black and white as I was making him out to be.

And now I feel like this baby! :)

            Here’s the part where I go around in circles for a couple of weeks. I went from lying and attachment theory to who knows what else. Along the way, I did research, returned to the primary text, and did research again. I was even able to come up with some sort of draft. I tried to be an altruistic scholar and help out others here and there, and I was even able to get some social proof feedback, but as the saying goes, all good things must come to an end. At this point, I realized that my thesis was generic and overdone. I had hit a wall. A really big wall. I had to revise my whole thesis and thought process and come up with something that I could be proud to put my name to. Ultimately, I used an idea from another class about sympathy and how it works. I claimed that sympathy is the foundation of rhetoric, and because of this, perhaps Henry’s rhetoric was not as manipulative as many claim it to be. Finally, I have a finished product. It was hard. It was rough, and there may or may not have been some tears along the way, but I learned and I tried. 

Kaylee Ficklin: “The Role of Sympathy in Henry V’s Rhetoric”

          In Shakespeare’s Henry V, Henry is often seen as a manipulative figure who uses his powerful rhetoric in order to accomplish a self-serving political agenda. Arguably, Henry’s greatest power is his rhetoric, and critics often cite this as his most manipulative tool-the means though which he accomplishes his own selfish desires. Rather than praising his rhetorical abilities, critics question Henry’s motives and point to his rhetoric as the proof of his manipulation. However, “The Role of Sympathy in Henry V’s Rhetoric” provides a different view of Henry. I argue that because Adam Smith’s concept of sympathy contributes a great deal to the foundation of rhetoric, Henry’s character changes. The role that sympathy plays in Henry’s rhetoric changes Henry from a solely manipulative individual to a character able to feel and identify with his audiences. Understanding the role sympathy plays in rhetoric is crucial to understanding Henry.

One rough, rough draft

So this is an incomplete draft. It doesn't even have an introduction or thesis statement, but my thesis is: traditionally, Henry V is seen as manipulative and conniving. However, by using Adam Smith's concept of sympathy to explain Henry's motives and source of rhetorical power, one understands a very different part of Henry than the previously accepted opinion of him being manipulative. (I know it needs work. It's a little wordy and confusing.) Anyway, mostly I'm looking to make sure that I explain Smith's concepts well enough for those who are unfamiliar with him. Thanks, guys! You're all awesome!

To Lizy and Steve . . .From Kaylee with Love

Lizy - Your research and explication are very thorough! Great job on doing your homework!

 If you’re worried about space, I don’t think you need to have an individual paragraph for each play in part 1. In fact, I think that you could probably get away with cutting those three paragraphs entirely and just jumping right in to your paper. I think that a little fine tuning might also help in cutting your paper down. What do you need to drive your point across? What information is superfluous? All in all, good job Lizy!

Steve – Good way of phrasing the old nature vs. nurture argument. It seems like you’re emphasizing the nurture part, saying, “Well it’s not quite all his fault?” Am I understanding that correctly? Anyway, I thought it was quite an excellent viewpoint on a much debated topic. One thing I noticed about the paper that you might want to consider revising: avoid cliché phrases and long sentences. Sometimes there are really long phrases in the sentences, so it’s hard to remember previous clauses by time the sentence is over, and then the sentence doesn’t make sense. Anyway, nice job. After you revise, I think it will look fabulous!

Back to the Beginning

        So I kind of had to rework a few things (well pretty much everything). I met with Dr. Burton on Wednesday and he pointed out that my thesis was too general, and everyone has pretty much analyzed Henry in this way. So naturally, I was quite discouraged. I started from the beginning (again), and scrambled for something that could help me. I began reading a book that I borrowed from Dr. Burton about rhetoric, and it reminded me of another concept we had talked about in another class. 

         In this class, we read Adam Smith's essay on sympathy. Smith's main premise was that sympathy wasn't necessarily a purely altruistic function, but that it was necessary for humanity to function. Smith says, "How selfish man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him." He asserts that the "greatest ruffian" can even feel sympathy. Essentially, we can never truly feel what another person feels, but when we see someone in pain, we naturally imagine ourselves in the same situation and how we would feel.
         Smith later applies this to capitalism and how it functions, but the part that was most interesting to me is how it can be applied to Henry. Henry no doubt has a powerful rhetoric, but instead of thinking of his rhetoric as the end result perhaps his speaking ability stems from the fact that he can sympathize better than other individuals. His ability to sympathize gives him the power to sway people rhetorically. I think this solves my problem of wanting to present Henry as both bad and good because as Smith defines sympathy, everybody is able to practice it, so therefore, Henry can have both characteristics.

         Any feedback is seriously appreciated. Thanks for your patience everyone! 

Finally! It's here!

http://www.memecenter.com/fun/260108/when-easter-eggs-hatch

Here's my Bibliography. Also, I agree with David: I'm not going to subject you to a huge wall of text, so enjoy this cute little meme. Happy Easter! 

Whoops! It's a little late!

Social Proof

Over the last week, I’ve made some headway on my paper, and a significant number of people in the class have commented on the posts and have really helped and encouraged me. I know that this may not necessarily seem like a thorough or more advanced social proof exercise, but it has really helped me as I’ve gone through the process of writing.

Assistance to Others

Hopefully, I’ve been able to help Lizy (at least a little bit). I tried to find a scholarly article that will help her with her paper, and I’ve reviewed portions of her draft that she’s posted to the blog. So far she has been pretty great! She is really working through her draft and is already beyond the expectations of a typical draft. I’m thoroughly impressed. 

It actually works!!

bloodbludger4

Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh! I am freaking out right now because one of the scholars mentioned in my annotated bibliography commented on my post! Dr. Burton kept talking and talking about how people get really interested in what we are doing, and I just kind of brushed it off like “Yeah, right. People really care what I’m writing about in my Shakespeare class,” but they do! They really do! AND I NEVER thought that I would be this excited about it. I don’t know if I’ll actually end up using the article, but who cares!? I can still get some feedback about how applicable she thinks lying is in terms of literary characters! I am ridiculously excited about this!

A Whole New Light

At last I see the light!
CC Lichtmagnet

Previously, I just wanted to show that Henry was a good guy, but I think there is value in understanding that he does have his faults, and looking back at the text helped me see everything again in a whole new light.  

Henry V Quotes

Act I

Chorus – “Then should the warlike Harry, like himself, / Assume the port of Mars” (I.chorus.5-     6)

Scene 1 – Allusion to Biblical “drink the bitter cup” 20.1-20.2

-          Canterbury’s description of Henry’s character (38-59)

-          Ely’s Response

Scene 2 – Henry’s caution to Canterbury (line 21ish)

-          “May I with right and conscience make this claim?” (ln 96)

-          Many fault Henry for going into France with barely a claim to the throne, but in this scene EVERYONE is telling him to fight and claim it.

-          Henry’s worried about leaving his country defenseless against the Scots. He’s the only one that cares about this. (ln 136-139)

Better Late Than Never . . .

So yeah, it's really really rough. I know I have a lot more work to do on it, but we'll see. Thanks for reading!

Shakespeare’s Henry V has been one of the most long-debated characters in literary history. Many argue that Henry is manipulative and controlling and others view him as the uniting force for the British Empire. Henry’s powerful and                      rhetoric has been seen as a manipulative tool that he uses in order to secure his own desires. There is no contesting Henry’s rhetorical power. However, Henry’s motives are often called into question due to his many mistakes and overly ambitious desires, and many debate about Henry’s true motivation and character. While most are familiar with Henry’s St. Crispin’s Day speech, many have neglected to analyze Henry’s conversation with Katharine due to it being seemingly out of place among the rest of the play. However, this does a great injustice to Henry’s character. Henry’s and Katharine’s conversation is truly helpful in understanding Henry and yields different insights into his character that are not found in any other part of the play. By analyzing his motives and intentions with Katharine, one is able to see that because Henry is genuine with her, he may also be genuine with others despite his many mistakes.

Some Thoughts

So I have a lot of theories swimming around in my head, and I’m just going to voice them here. My friend, Ken, helped me see that while Henry is genuine and is actually trying to do the right thing, he does make some mistakes. Before Ken, talked to me I was just convinced that Henry was a good person emphasizing genuine feelings in different ways. However, a lot of other people have mentioned Henry’s less than noble actions at times, and I found myself struggling with this because I still believed him to be a good person.

                   

Then I was talking with Paul and he mentioned how the English Symposium talked a lot about heroes and villains, and Paul thought that most of Shakespeare’s characters don’t really fit the hero/villain archetype. That made me think more about the hero/villain idea in context of Henry V and what I was already thinking about him, and I think I finally found the “so what?” factor of my paper:

Henry is a good person that makes a lot of mistakes, but the mistakes that he makes do not define him as a villain, and there is a danger in only seeing his character as purely good or purely evil. If we put him into these cookie cutter categories, we lose the complexity of his character and miss crucial things about him.

So . . . what do you think?

Stop! It's Lizy time!

Lizy,

I'm actually really intrigued by your idea of analyzing Shakespeare's play based on the controversy of the monarchy. I think it's a pretty unique idea. I did a little research on royal scandals especially connected with Shakespearean plays, and this seemed like it would fit. I didn't read it all the way through, but the abstract made it seem pretty applicable. I hope this helps!

Jeffrey S. Doty. "Shakespeare's Richard II, "Popularity," and the Early Modern Public Sphere." Shakespeare Quarterly 61.2 (2010): 183-205. Project MUSE. Web. 19 Mar. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.

Kaylee

I'm working on it . . . Annotated Bibliography Version

Working Thesis Statement:

In Shakespeare’s Henry V, Henry is often seen as a manipulative and controlling individual. While at times Henry may seem calculating, Henry is sincere in his endeavor to do what is right and best for his people.

Love and Lies

Let me just dictate my thinking process here:

Public Domain Image

How does Henry communicate? Does Henry lie?

It seems like Henry has nothing to gain from convincing Katharine to marry him. During that time period women have very little choice especially in terms of political agendas, so he really has nothing to gain from convincing her that he loves her. Her father will most likely sign the treaty regardless of how Katharine feels about Henry. So why does Henry take the time to “woo” Katharine? What does he gain from this?

Then I thought, “Well maybe everyone else is right. What if Henry is lying?” But that didn’t sit well with me, so I did some research about why people lie and the affects that lying has on interpersonal relationships. One article I found discussed Attachment Theory and authenticity.

Public Domain Image

Attachment Theory: “The theory is built on the core observation that security-enhancing caregivers or “attachment figures” (usually beginning with parents or other primary care providers in childhood) help a child develop positive mental representations of self and relationship partners.”

Authenticity: is being honest with, or true to, oneself

“Children and adults with a history of supportive attachment relationships are notably less defensive, more mindful of their feelings, more genuinely empathic, and more open in communicating with relationship partners,” and attachment insecurity “is associated with negative views of relationship partners, unwillingness to disclose feelings to partners; reluctance to seek and provide help; and low relationship satisfaction, trust, and commitment” and “fears of rejection or abandonment and doubts about one's value to other people.”

Katharine's Voice

To those of you that replied to my blog post about being a naysayer, THANK YOU! You helped more than you know! Here’s a round of applause for you!

CC By Nemo

The different points of view that everyone brought up kind of discouraged me (but in a good way). After thinking about all the comments, I still thought that this was something worth pursuing (Good sign! Yay!), but the comments asked me questions that I was unprepared to answer. They asked me things that I hadn’t asked myself, and now I have different approaches that I can take. Nyssa was particularly helpful because she asked, “How can you prove genuineness?” (I’m paraphrasing.) So while I haven't exactly come up with a plan or prepared my "tweethis" statement, I think I have a better direction now. 

Also, the comments and other research that I had done prompted me to return to the text. One source I found mentioned briefly about how people generally question Henry’s love for Katharine, but people rarely consider whether Katharine loves him. Looking at that scene, I realized that once again Henry has the majority of the lines (Surprise! Surprise!). Katharine mostly just feigns ignorance until finally she cuts Henry some slack and tells him,

“Den it sall also content me”

So does Katharine love Henry or is she just going along for the ride? What say ye? 

Be a Naysayer!

I want you . . . to be a naysayer!

CC by Nemo

I think I’ve narrowed down my topic to analyzing Henry’s speech with Katherine to show that because he is genuine with her, he is also genuine with his other audiences. HOWEVER, I want some controversy! I want to see those people out there that disagree with me! I want to hear (in a respectful way) how wrong I am. What about Henry makes you think that he’s manipulative? What about him just makes your blood boil? Believe it or not, these opposing opinions will actually help me. I need to get a feel for the opposing audience and how they respond to Henry. If I’m missing something, I want to know about it. I want you to be a naysayer!

Make It Meaningful

Make it Meaningful

I think I’ve narrowed it down to two specific ideas: how the meaning of words does not necessarily coincide with the meaning of conversation in Love’s Labour’s Lost or by analyzing Henry’s speech with Katherine, this shows that he is actually being genuine in all his conversation. I asked my roommate (in a VERY VERY VERY general, nonspecific way) about which one she would rather read, and she replied with that the latter interested her more. I asked her why. She said that it seemed like a topic that was more useful and applicable to an individual’s personal life. While I don’t know that I’ll necessarily go with this, I think she hit on something really important. We have to write about something that we really care about. Otherwise, it’ll be moot. This may seem totally obvious to everyone else but it finally just hit me, and I thought I would share this unexpected wisdom. 

Love's Labour's Lost is right

One post that particularly stuck out to me was “Love’s Labour’s Lost, Realistic Ending Found.” I’m reading this play right now, and I wondered the same thing. Why did Shakespeare not give us the happy ending that we want!? While I don’t necessarily want to write about this, I still think it’s valuable especially as I watch her develop her argument and thesis. I could mirror her process because she found something that truly intrigued her, and she was funny about it!