Fairies in the Woods

One of the most fascinating aspects of A Midsummer Night's Dream to me is Shakespeare's use of both the fairies, and the setting of the play. Both are utilized so that they become more than simply other characters, or trip through the woods. They become symbols, characters, themes--and vital to understanding what the play is really about. 

To start off, the setting; the play begins in Athens, in the midst of a civilized group of people bursting at the seams with issues. Theseus and Hippolyta are meant to get married, but in reality he "wooed her with his sword", Egeus is trying to get his daughter either killed or wed to Demetrius, who loves her, but she doesn't love him, of course. She loves Lysander. As soon as those two decide to take their fate into their own hands, they run away to the woods. That's an interesting and cleverly crafted decision to move them out of civilization into something darker and more wild. As soon as they leave this royal court they find themselves inside a world that they cannot control, and where conventions of society don't exactly exist. And the woods are where everything begins to get interesting.

Within the woods we have the fairies. They also exist in a world outside of social conventions. Naturally they have their own social structure, but it operates on a different playing field. Oberon and his wife can get into magical fights where they use their powers to get their way at all costs. Selfish, childish, or maybe just privy to more primitive human emotions. They are ruled by passions, and cannot be bothered with rules. They simply don't play by those. Puck is an impish, playful, sometimes malicious, example of the most base of human feelings. All of the fairies, really, represent those wild and less manageable emotions. 

Shakespeare uses both the woods and the fairies to display a darker side of humanity. Wild, passionate, outside of standard societal rules, they exist beyond what we think of as normal. 

Varying Degrees of Comedy

Shameless advertising.

Thus far I've been in two productions of Midsummer, and have seen many other, including film adaptations. I've even read books based around the simpler plot points of the show. I've learned one major thing in these experiences-something that has been pointed out by many students in the class in various posts and comments. Shakespeare can be interpreted infinite ways. Right now I'd specifically like to touch on comedy. Midsummer is a comedy. It has a rise, and a fall, and it has a conclusion that doesn't end in people dying! Unless you count the play within the play, which we probably shouldn't. Anyway, in the productions I've seen and participated in, the show is invariably funny. However, it does vary in the ways in which it presents the comedy. The text itself is hilarious, filled with word play, and situational comedy, as well as even the perfectly timed, purposeful flubbing of lines that Peter Quince brings to the stage whilst reading the prologue. It's a funny play, no matter how you play it. But when watching the production I am in currently, you'll find a much more emotional production, playing on the situations and the lines, and using the comedy that has already been built into the show, as well as physical comedy. When watching the Grassroots revival a year ago though, myself and the rest of the audience was struck by the absolutely hysterical all-male cast, that played every aspect as a farce. Not a line was serious, and not a single moment was meant to inspire anything except laughter. And again, I have seen other productions where the only comedy was the text and the set, or the text and a specific actor used as a running gag throughout the show. As we read the play we can see a great deal of comedic writing, but we can also look deeper at the characters and dig into their situations and motivations to find either the emotion that lies underneath, or the comedy that we can conjure.

Leah Anderson: A Midsummer Night’s Dream: A Teacher’s Solution to Disinterest and Society’s Solution to Anti-Literacy

A Midsummer Night’s Dream:

A Teacher’s Solution to Disinterest and Society’s Solution to Anti-Literacy

Shakespeare has made his way from the heart of commonplace Globe attendants, through the minds of scholarly experts and into the adolescent classroom. As an icon in the history of written English literature, Shakespeare has influenced writers for centuries. Now, thousands of ninth grade students study Romeo and Juliet and other plays each year. The universal themes promoted by Shakespeare’s myriad of publications as well as his stylistic prowess in make his work a popular part of high school English syllabi. However, arguments about the psychological and academic impact of these plays on today’s youth present a contrary argument. This paper will show how teachers can be wise in selecting a Shakespeare text for their classroom and the best methods to teach this material in a way that will engage, motivate, and educate their students.

A Midspring Afternoon's Draft

Romeo and Juliet or Midsummer Night’s Dream?

            Shakespeare has made his way from the heart of commonplace Globe attendants, through the minds of scholarly experts and into the adolescent classroom. (Quote from this article (Thanks Bailey!) “Dude, Where’s My Bard?” Reducing, Translating, and Referencing Shakespeare for Youth: An Introduction) Thousands of ninth grade students study Romeo and Juliet every year, delving into the drama of family feuds, young love and premature death. The universal themes promoted by Shakespeare’s myriad of publications are represented well in this tragedy. But why is Romeo and Juliet the chosen text for so many high school English syllabi, when there is a better alternative? A Midsummer Night’s Dream, stocked with romance, rebellion, heartbreak, magic and laughter is a more valuable text to teach in the Shakespeare classroom.

Troilus and Cressida: Less of a Problem Play and More of a Promise Play

Well, here is my final paper! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xUBXvTGtDI8hPC0ANP-BzgXeVAqzhwT6fe4RcDzcNt4/edit

I hope the formatting stayed intact, as I moved it from a Microsoft Word document to a Google Drive document.

I am still interested in submitting to the following venues:

Shakespeare Institute Review--I heard back from them and they said they were looking for "papers that include analysis rather than description, those that have something original to contribute, and work that is thoroughly researched and documented." My paper is long enough, but I will want to double check that I have something with enough analysis (I tried to include mostly analysis, but I may have to revise accordingly) and originality. I also don't know that my paper fits the theme of their current journal, but I'm hoping it will fit with the next one (or I can revise it to fit with the theme).

Criterion--I also am hoping to submit to Criterion. I am a little bit under the minimum word limit of 3,000 words, so I might have to expand my argument for them and make sure it is very analytically-based (as that is what I found many of the essays in this journal were like).

BYU English Symposium-- I presented a paper last year at this symposium, and I am hoping to do the same this year. If I did submit my paper, I would have to write a 200- to 250-word abstract, which wouldn't be too hard since the paper is already written. I would also have to adapt my paper for a speech format, which might involve simplifying some of my points and making sure my arguments are very clear for listeners (as they won't be able to reread what I say).

Hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving, and happy paper reading.