A Midsummer Night's Dream

Well, sorry for the late post! My computer has been giving me some fun difficulties today... let's get to it:

I've been having a hard time deciding what I'd like to write my paper on. Probably mainly because I'm most interested in writing a paper from a teaching perspective (since I will hopefully be teaching some Shakespeare at a high school level someday), but I don't necessarily think that my look into teaching A Midsummer Night's Dream is really my best writing idea. Originally, I was thinking of going along with a thesis something like: By reading and using activities related to A Midsummer Night's Dream, a high school teacher could effectively engage students in a study and exploration of romantic love (or relationships, love in general, etc... depending on what you wanted to emphasize in the class). Kasey then gave me an idea that I feel focuses the paper better--she told me to contrast the way that I feel (or research shows) that Shakespeare should be taught and the way that it is actually being taught, in order to create a more argumentative thesis. So that's one idea I'm considering: using A Midsummer Night's Dream as a vehicle to reach the greater purpose of most effectively teaching Shakespeare to high school students. I don't know... what do you guys think? Is it interesting and/or plausible? Consider this idea in conjunction with my others and let me know what would most spark your interest.

2nd Thesis:
The text in A Midsummer Night's Dream lends itself to modern interpretations of the play where the woods become a fantasy world free of inhibition and the palace becomes a symbol of repression and force.
The idea here (as I mentioned in class) would be to look into things like prose, verse, and the varying types of verse... how does that contribute to the overall meaning of the palace and/or the woods? The problem here is that I haven't found much to back up the correlation that I'm proposing... which could mean it doesn't exist, or could mean that it just hasn't been explored yet. Intriguing.

3rd Thesis:
In the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, dreams function as a means for characters to experience a world separate from the real world, a place where they can live out their fantasies. (I'd probably reword this, depending on where I take the focus.)
The initial idea came from a quote (that I shared earlier on digital dialogue) found here: http://kellybulkeley.com/dreams-midsummer-nights-dream/ ...looking into this idea further I found some interesting articles considering a psychoanalytic approach to this play and the value of dreams. With this thesis I would explore the value that dreams have for the characters. Are dreams just a means to enact fantasies that otherwise wouldn't be acted upon?

Those are some of my ideas--I'd be interested to hear opinions or expansions anyone has. What would you be most interested to hear more about? Any insights?

The Merchant of Venice: Nature, Nurture, and Conversion

Alright, I originally had four general ideas, but three of them have ended up pretty well merging. That has been the topic of most of my research. Here's what I've got:

I am studying The Merchant of Venice. Obviously I've found a LOT of material on racism, how it is manifest in TMOV, to what degree this can be read as a racial text, to what degree we can call Shakespeare racist, etc. However, while I was reading I found that the racism present in the play really presents a question of nature versus nurture more than anything, and scholars, surprisingly, seem to have very little to say on this topic.
The moments in the play which I think most illustrate this question are when Shylock claims that he has been called dog and a devil and all those things, so now he is acting like one; when Jessica and Lancelot discuss whether or not her Christian conversion will save her from hell; the fact of the absence of Jessica's mother; when Shylock is forced to "convert" to Christianity; the brief but still intriguing mention of Lancelet's unborn child by a black woman; and Portia's evaluation of the different suitors (especially, of course, the black Prince of Morocco).
One option I'm considering is staying mainly within the text and evaluating the question (I really haven't come to any conclusion whether we should read this as an argument for nature, or for nurture, or if it just explores the topic without coming to any kind of conclusion), in which case my thesis would essentially be that while racism and religious prejudice are clearly foregrounded in the play, at the root of their presence is really the question of whether the individual characters are shaped by their blood, or their heritage, or if the circumstances under which they live make them who they are.
I've researched some historical context concerning slaves, Jews, and even animals (Shylock is frequently referred to as a dog or a wolf) which has also contributed to this question of nature versus nurture in  categories that were considered less than human.

Something else I have considered is very similar: the topic of conversion. I don't really have an argument with this one at this point, but we have some interesting examples of "Christians" who were born into the faith and revered for being Christian but really don't act as we might say Christ would. We also have Shylock who is forced to convert to Christianity, and the questions that raises. How can one be forced into conversion? And then, obviously, there is Jessica who marries a Christian and is "converted" in that way. Did she have a personal conversion? Does her Jewish heritage prevent her from being redeemed in the Christian sense? Does marriage to a Christian redeem her? Of course I'm not trying to answer all these questions, but just see what Shakespeare and history have to say about it.

Measuring Up

I'm studying Measure for Measure, and have been fascinated by the deep biblical undercurrents which contribute to the tension and dilemmas that drive the plot of this play. I'm interested in the sociopolitical context of the play, since the strict Puritan Manifesto had been recently instated, calling for a "letter of the law" Mosaic observance of biblical teachings and moral codes, in conflict with traditional marriage customs such as the "common law" marriage practiced by many, including possibly Shakespeare himself. The biblical references, and even the plot itself, draw attention to the challenge of balancing justice and mercy, but strongly emphasize the merciful Savior of the New Testament (the higher law) versus the "harsh" God of the Old Testament (the Mosaic law).

I think this video clip from the play does a fabulous job of illustrating this biblical tension:
Measure for Measure: Act II, Scene II

Troilus and Cressida: A Tragic Misreading?

I'm reading Troilus and Cressida, one of Shakespeare's darker plays that has often been categorized as one of his "problem plays." This play is so rich and full of material that one of my initial reactions was that I didn't know where to start dissecting the play. Its a deeply cynical play that critiques war, love, and human nature. However, it's also a fairly philosophical play.

I found this video of Rob Melrose, who directed a version of the play at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival as he discusses why he likes the play, why it's such a difficult play to dissect, and what the specific themes of the play are.

I've started working on a few ideas for my paper. I have a few loosely-formed ideas that I'm developing. In class we've been calling them "proto-papers," or preliminary paper ideas. Originally, I had developed three distinct proto-papers that dealt with textual, contextual, and critical issues, but now I have paired it into two separate but related ideas. 

My first proto-paper focuses on the idea that although sometimes grouped in the category of “tragedy,” Troilus and Cressida is an anti-tragedy because what would traditionally be seen as the linguistically “tragic” language (e.g. Romeo and Juliet) is reduced to anticlimactic and unsatisfying language that departs from this traditionally romantic language.

            Most of the play centers on what seem to be very tragic moments, but these moments are never as amplified or as dramatic as we would expect them to be. Additionally, the characters that seek revenge never get that revenge, and the conclusion is unsatisfying. Because Shakespeare is limited to the story lines of the original Greek and Trojan wars, his story line is already sporadic and difficult to follow, but his choice to end the play with a distinctly unromantic ending goes against the tragic trends that he usually used.

Going along with this idea, I also thought it would be interesting to argue that although Troilus and Cressida was based on previous texts such as the Iliad and Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde, Shakespeare’s version is distinctly more modern and even forward-looking because of its anti-climatic nature and its criticism of traditional tragic values. “Troilus and Cressida, that most vexing and ambiguous of Shakespeare's plays, strikes the modern reader as a contemporary document—its investigation of numerous infidelities, its criticism of tragic pretensions, above all, its implicit debate between what is essential in human life and what is only existential are themes of the twentieth century. ... This is tragedy of a special sort—the 'tragedy' the basis of which is the impossibility of conventional tragedy” (Oates). Shakespeare leads the reader to believe that something dramatic will happen. Perhaps it is the fight between Achilles and Hector, or the revenge of Troilus. Yet, these events are unsatisfying, and just seek to draw out a deeper theme of the play—namely, that human nature is vile, lustful, and untrustworthy, and because of that, the primarily noble desires of a tragedy remain unrealized within the play. However frustrating and unsatisfying one of Shakespeare’s traditional tragedies may seem, Troilus and Cressida frustrates readers even more with a nontraditional tragedy that seems more closely aligned to the disappointed hopes and unexplained events of real life.

I'm wondering if I can weave together these two ideas into one mega-thesis about the status of Troilus and Cressida as a distinctly anti-tragedy play. Of course, this may be a large claim to take on, or may even be too simplistic, but for now, it's where I'm at. Feedback is much appreciated.

Oates, Joyce. “The Tragedy of Existence: Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida.” Originally published as two separate essays, in Philological Quarterly, Spring 1967, and Shakespeare Quarterly, Spring 1966.

"Honest" Iago

My paper is on Othello. I am going into English Education, and so I want my paper to be on something that will be applicable as I try and teach Shakespeare to secondary-age students. Othello obviously deals with themes that I don't necessarily want to discuss in my classroom, but I think that there are points that I can draw out that could be helpful. Below are a few ideas that I have been playing with.

1: With few exceptions, Iago is always referred to as "honest Iago." Using this phrase is an act of justification for the characters, as many times the characters refer to Iago this way they are involved in some action that they are unsure about. This mentality is a "Freudian slip" of sorts, and the characters are looking for a way to view their own actions as honest.

A few potential passages to look at: (pages referenced are from the Dover edition)

• pg. 36 Cassio is concerned about his good name, Iago refers to himself as honest
• pg. 26 Cassio decides to go to Desdemona and says "I will beseech . . . [her] to undertake for me
• pg. 40 Iago says he will get Othello "out of the way" so Cassio can be with her

• It also could be worthwhile to look at some psychology studies and find information on the "Freudian slip" idea.

Much Ado about Marriage

Okay so my focus isn't on Much Ado about Nothing but it's a rather catchy title and I figured that is a must for a first time blog post.  But on to the actual topic that I have been considering for this paper.  Marriage was and is such an important part of society that has been included in many of Shakespeare's plays (particularly comedies).  Earlier in the semester I looked into the inheritance of coat of arms and property down the royal line and would love to tie that into my topic somehow but am finding that rather difficult to find a strong connection.  (Other than the marry my daughter and all her inheritance/my property will be yours.) Perhaps I should just save that for another paper?
 

My favorite concept is the proto thesis of "Although Kate’s subservient attitude seems to be simply submission to her husband’s will, it is actually her shaping and controlling both her husband and their marriage which showcases the fluidity of power between man and woman within marriage."

Basic points

 Courting or wooing period, (2.1.195-201)
 o   She declares him movable
 o   Their witty banter back and forth “stichomythia” would stop if one or the other was not at the same level of education or wit
Road traveling back
 o   Explicitly plays to his masculinity but obeying everything he says whether it be the sun/moon
 o   Embracing the male/female traveler on the road
 (And maybe something about) Bianca’s Marriage feast??? 

 o   This is the big point of the play because Kate's speech could be considered her final submission to the men but it could possibly be interpreted as "serve the men and then you really control the power."

My other thesis I don't feel as strongly connected to because I think it's just weak.  "The showcase of the changing marriage contract within the play of Taming of the Shrew was Shakespeare’s social commentary on the issue which brought popularity to his play because it was a topic that his audience was forced to wrestle with"

The fake marriage of Sly to “his wife, the noblewoman” who is not allowed in his bed

The marriage of Kate to Petrucio (classic marriage) only for economic purposes

    o   But it ends up okay because they are perfect matches in wit, and banter 

 Bianca to Luetensio (non-traditional marriage, they run off together)

o   They are in love,

o   Bianca doesn’t obey the summons at the end of the play

Possible connection to Much Ado about Nothing and the marriage contract as more of an agreement between the two parties rather than the parents of the two individuals???

·         

Possibilities

A few different ideas are competing for my attention. The first one is: Much Ado About Nothing is a valuable play for middle school students to study because of its approachable language, insights into human nature, and entertaining qualities. It's a good segue into other plays. Its slightly more understandable language helps students feel less intimidated by Shakespeare and its humor gives students motivation to try harder to understand what they don’t. Also, while not being the deepest of Shakespeare’s works, this play does offer valuable insights into human nature including the easiness with which the characters find evidence for what they want to believe.

Number two: The lack of complete resolution that sets Twelfth Night apart from other Shakespearean comedies may have been due to the fact that it was performed on the last day of the feast before Lent in 1601 (The Feast of Epiphany).  The play, like the season, ends with movements away from the suspension of reality.  The play ends without the resolution of Malvolio threats of revenge on various characters and with Feste singing a somber song.

The Feast of Epiphany closed the festive spirit of the season before Lent. I got this info from the article "Actors Will Kemp and Robert Armin: Shakespeare’s Fools – An analysis and evaluation" by Joan Tucker of Drew University.

And last but not least: While She’s the Man is about liberating women its parent play, Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, is firmly patriarchal.
Viola in She’s the Man is out to prove that she is equal to men in soccer playing ability

while Viola in Twelfth Night becomes subservient to Duke Orsino by dressing in “male’s weeds.” She isn’t out to prove anything about her sex, and she's content to be the Duke's servant.

Any insights?