Finding a focus

It's that time of the semester where I have to decide what I want the focus of my blog to be. As is probably obvious, my blog thus far has been all over the map, and it has been really difficult to decide on one theme for the rest of the class. There are so many things I could write about. However, I really enjoyed writing one of my most recent posts, "Miranda: chaste, silent, and obedient?" and I think I will focus on women in Shakespeare.

I've heard throughout my journey as an undergraduate that Shakespeare is chauvinist and his female characters reflect his bias, but I feel that my experience this semester gives me the opposite opinion. So far, in almost all of the plays that I've read, there has always been at least one female character that doesn't quite fit the mold of the silent, chaste and obedient women sterotypical of the Elizabethan era. Hamlet has Ophelia (who does obey her father and brother, but in the end commits the ultimate form of disobedience by killing herself), King Lear has Cordelia, Regan, and Goneril (Cordelia doesn't give in to her father's bullying, while her sisters completely reject the patriarchal society and rule the country themselves), The Taming of the Shrew has Katharina (who speaks for herself), and The Tempest has Miranda (whom I've already written about) and Ariel (who has more power than anyone but Prospero).

I'm interested in examining how strong females may have played a role in Shakespeare's life personally: his mother, his wife, daughters, and even Queen Elizabeth herself. I feel this may have influenced his writing, particularly when he gives female characters any sort of power over men, like Lady Macbeth, Ariel, Bianca, and Lear's daughter's. To support this idea, I went looking at the library, browsing the incredible mass that is the Shakespeare section. I found tons of great sources, one of which is Shakespeare and Women by Phyllis Rackin. She makes several keys points that reveal a lot about what influenced Shakespeare's writing.

1. Shakespeare lived a very female-oriented environment as a child. Rackin says, "Because most of the women in Shakespeare's family outlived their brothers and husbands, the family in which he grew up was actually predominantly female" (33).

2. Women in Shakepeare's life were influential and powerful. "Women in Shakespeare's family controlled considerable property both in land and in money" and Shakespeare's mother Mary was an heiress in her own right, making her "social status distinctly superior" to that of her husband's (34).

3. Women were also important from an economic stance. "The collective economic power they possessed as paying customers in the playhouse meant that none of Shakepeare's plays could have been successful in his own time if it failed to please them" (47).

Taking these ideas into account, it seems as though the existing feminist criticism of Shakespeare is somewhat one-sided in accusing the bard of maltreating his female characters by giving them stale, two-dimensional characters that only exhibit traits approved by the society he was writing for. I want to argue that perhaps he was the exact opposite, arguably even a proto-feminist, by writing such strong and willful female characters. Whether he was influenced by the strong female presences in his life or simply by economic factors, it remains that he wrote to accomodate a female audience.

Keep in mind that this is my first attempt at defining my blog's focus, and that these thoughts will likely change over the next few weeks. That said, please feel free to comment away! I'm very open to ideas and would love any suggestions.

Works Cited

Rackin, Phyllis. Shakespeare and Women. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Peer Blog Evaluation

I'm will be evaluating Sarah Bown's blog, "A Midsemester-Night's Delusions."

Number of Posts: So far this semester, Sarah's posted 13 times. Since we've been in class about 6-7 weeks, this seems about on target.

Quality of Posts: Sarah has done some really substantial posts. Many of her posts refer to scholarly articles, analyze various film adaptations, and also include her personal take on each play. Basically, I feel she's done really well on gaining Shakespeare literacy, as well as beginning to analyze critically. She has a personal connection when she shares details of how she is learning Shakespeare, but a more specific reference to how she is sharing her knowledge meaningfully would be good to round out her overall quality.

A Strength: One strength that Sarah really has is arranging her posts in order to get the reader interested. Like this post, for example. Here she is reviewing The Taming of the Shrew and begins with a video clip of a fun scene from the movie (which always sucks readers in). She gives a short summary of her feelings about the movie, and then moves on to a critical approach by citing an article that she found about the play. Although the article wasn't exactly supporting her position about the play, Sarah discusses how it changed her perspective. She then ends by posing a question that led to several comments by other bloggers. I thought she did a great job!

Suggested Improvement: I think it would be good to focus more on formal writing and analysis, maybe getting deeper into the language. I know it's difficult to get too deep when we're reading a play a week, but now that we have more time it would be a good opportunity to do some more in-depth analyses of the texts.

Progress Report on Personal Learning

Learning Outcomes: This semester, I've been able to meet many of my goals. I feel as though my effort in this class has sufficiently fulfilled many of the specific learning outcomes (I'm including Engaging Shakespeare Creatively because it is in the works). I've engaged the text by reading scholarly articles, researching cultural elements, and watching film adaptations.


Reading and Research: So far, I've successfully kept up with our class's schedule of a play a week. I've read Hamlet, Henry V, The Taming of the Shrew, King Lear, and The Tempest. Some secondary critical works that have shaped my learning include our textbook, The Necessary Shakespeare, as well as several specific scholarly articles such as "The Problem of Henry V" by Malcolm Pittock and "Rape and the Romanticization of Shakespeare's Miranda" by Jessica Slights. Many of my independent inquiries involve researching the meaning of various plant life mentioned within the plays, looking for background history to give context, and comparing Shakespeare to works read in my other classes. For example, on at least two occasions, I've compared Shakespeare to Geoffrey of Monmouth's "A History of the Kings of Britain"  and "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles."


Personal Impact: The most engaging part of my Shakespeare study so far has been simply becoming more familiar with his language and his writing. The more I read, the easier I find it to understand the Elizabethan language. My approach to reading has definitely changed during this class. Instead of jumping blindly into a text, I now spend time on each play reading summaries, background information, and watching film adaptations. When I finally get to the text, I already have questions and ideas about what I want to learn in that specific play. This course has made me become a much more active reader. Instead of simply plowing through a text just to get it done, I find myself taking more time on each page, asking questions and really wanting to know the answers. I believe that being able to design my own learning plan and decide what I want to learn about really makes an impact. I obviously don't have the same interests as the rest of the class, and this way I can take my own path. 


Personal Evaluation: So far, I believe that I've done best at gaining Shakespeare literacy, analyzing themes and characters, and connecting and sharing Shakespeare meaningfully. I need to work on doing more formal writing, engaging Shakespeare creatively (although this is in the works), and analyzing Shakespeare's language more specifically. 


Peer Influence: I really appreciated David Tertipes's comment on my Personal Learning Plan that helped me decide to read Henry V since I wasn't familiar with the history plays. He also wrote a great historical summary that I linked to on one of my posts. I also enjoyed Lindsay Brock's comment on one of my posts where I compared King Lear to the original text. She asked which text I thought was more effective, something I hadn't even thought about because I was too busy comparing specific words. I appreciated that her comment made me step back from the texts a little bit and just focus on the overall meanings. 

Miranda: chaste, silent, and obedient?

Knowing that there was only one female character in The Tempest, I decided to approach it from a feminist angle. When I began reading The Tempest, I thought I had a clear idea of who the characters were. Prospero was the wily magician bent on revenge (but with a softness for his daughter), Caliban and Ariel his indentured servants, Ferdinand the love-struck prince, and Miranda, the quiet and obedient daughter. While I felt most of these generalizations were relatively correct, my assumptions about Miranda's character did not ring true as I actually read the text. While she possessed the traits of Shakespeare's by now predictably naive, beautiful, and enamored teenager, she also surprised me with many other aspects of her personality that I didn't think would show through such a two-dimensional character. After researching a bit about critic's approach to analyzing Miranda, I was surprised to find so few that accepted her as a developed and strong female role. To me, even though she is a secondary character, the fact that she is the only female automatically places her in the running. Here are some of the facts that make me believe that Miranda should be given more consideration:

1. She is naturally intelligent. While Prospero is telling her of their personal history in Act 1, she constantly asks questions and makes insightful comments. Like in these lines: "And now, I pray you, sir - for still 'tis beating in my mind - your reason for raising this sea storm?" This also shows her intense desire for knowledge, undoubtedly inherited from her father

2. She has an incredible memory. I think I can safely say that most of us do not remember our lives before the age of three. It is remarkable that Miranda recalls memories from such a young age, and so specifically: "'Tis far off, and rather like a dream than an assurance that my remembrance warrants. Had I not four or five women once that tended me?"Even Prospero is surprised that his daughter can remember things from so long ago. He states that he doesn't think it possible for her to remember so long ago, and says, "How is it that this lives in thy mind? What see'st thou else in the dark backward and abysm of time?"

3. She is educated. Prospero is a very intelligent and learned man, and in their twelve years on the island he has played the role of schoolmaster, instructing and teaching his daughter, making her "more profit than other princes." This gives Miranda, a young women, an equal (and even better) ranking with the best of her male counterparts.

4. She is a teacher. Miranda is knowledgeable enough to be able to share her learning with others, in this case Caliban. She (speaking to Caliban) "endowed thy purposes with words that made them known" and "took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour one thing or other."

5. She is observational. Not being in any contact with human beings besides her father and Caliban, she is confused when she first sees Ferdinand. "What is't? A spirit? Lord, how it looks about! Believe me, sir, it carries a brave form, But 'tis a spirit." She knows at first sight that the creature cannot be a spirit because of its form and nature, but yet she can only deduce that it is a spirit because that is all she knows.  However, the fact that she didn't simply assume he was a spirit reveals her skeptical mindset and observational skills.

There are more that I could discuss, but I want to share this great article by Jessica Slights entitled "Rape and the Romanticization of Shakespeare's Miranda." While I focused on Miranda's intellectual abilities, Slight examines other qualities. Slights rejects earlier commentaries that Miranda is simply a prototype: "the woman who is chaste, silent, and obedient" (361) She definitely shares my feminist viewpoint of Miranda, stating that "past and present readings of The Tempest alike have misread the play by emphasizing the nature of Prospero's relationship with the island of his exile without considering the alternative models of selfhood, moral agency, and community life posited by the magician's daughter" (359). This is a really great article for anyone who wants to look at The Tempest from a feminist lens. (I wanted to include a link, but it's from the BYU library so if you want to find it just search for it online at HBLL.)

"The Tempest": High-Quality Elizabethan Entertainment

I was really fascinated by what we discussed in class, that the romance plays were more for aristocratic entertainment than for any type of quality literature. Low on plot and high in the fantastic, Shakespeare knew how to play to an audience. I prepared to read The Tempest by finding pictures and videos of productions done of this play, to try and get an idea for how it might have been performed. I think if I get a grasp on how its supposed to look, the tone and feel of the play will already be set when I read it. Here are a few of my favorite production pictures:

It's really clear to me after looking through these pictures exactly how performance-oriented this play is. The bright colors and costumes, the elaborate sets, and the dramatic lighting all give an idea of how Shakespeare may have had it performed in the Globe.

One last thing: did anyone know about the new film adaptation of the The Tempest that came out last year? I think it looks really good. Interesting that Prospero is played by a woman. Here's the trailer:

What do you all think of it? It's funny to me that the reviews echoed how Dr. Burton described the romances:

Entertainment Weekly, Lisa Schwarzbaum "...spectacle oriented ..."
New York Post, Lou Lumenick "...a surprisingly unengaging and charmless fantasy ..." I'm trying to find showings nearby. but so far no luck. Let me know if you happen upon any!

Comparing "Lears"

Like I said in my previous post, I'm going to focus this week on comparing the original version of King Lear and Shakespeare's take. Since I can think of no better way, I'm simply going to split this into two parts. There are a lot more than what I'm documenting here, so take a look of your own at the original (starting at section 11). This is not the same exact text that I used for my comparison (I used my Broadview Anthology) but it should suffice.

Similarities

The basic plot.  Both stories contain the same basic plot. Lear tests his three daughters on their individual declarations of love for him, Cordelia is sent to France, and Goneril and Regan eventually take power with their husbands.

The main characters. King Lear, along with his three daughters and their husbands, all remain relatively true to the original source. Lear is portrayed in both as the doting father with a temper, Cordelia as the innocent one, and Goneril and Regan and their husbands as the schemers and liars.

Dialogue. There are several specific scenes that are similar between the two texts. The original is much shorter, but still includes some dialogue that is very similar to Shakespeare's lines. One example is Cordelia's accounting of her love for Lear. Here is the original: "You truly have have as much of my love as you are worth: that's how much I love you." And here is Shakespeare's: "I love Your Majesty according to my bond, no more nor less." Not identical, obviously, but enough to make a connection.

Differences (there are a LOT more)

New plot lines. There is quite a bit more action and dialogue going on in Shakespeare's Lear than in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "A History." There is the whole business with Gloucester and his sons Edmund and Edgar, Kent in disguise, and the fighting over Edmund by both Goneril and Regan that was not in the original story. My reasoning for this is that Shakespeare had to add things to make the play long enough for performance, since the original text is only a few paragraphs long.

Minor characters. Shakespeare adds an assortment of new characters to the story. Kent, Gloucester, Edgar, Edmund, Oswald, the Fool, and the other secondary characters are all new additions. Why did he add so many? Like I said above, it may have been to simply add length to an otherwise short story, but I think it also may have been to give the major characters depth. For example, in the original, it doesn't elaborate much on what kind of king Lear was, or how he was as a person. In the play, by including such characters as the Fool, Kent, and Gloucester, I feel we have a glimpse of what kind of a king Lear must have been. These three men, among others, follow the king with absolute loyalty, even out into a terrible storm just to make sure he's safe. Also, even though his older two daughters despise him, we know that he must have been a decent father, since Cordelia loved and cared for him deeply.

Slight changes to the plot. Throughout the play, Shakespeare made slight adjustments to the original story. There are several examples of this. First of all, in the historical account, the king of France is not actually present during the first scene where Lear awards his lands to his daughters. He is still in France and only hearing of Cordelia's beauty is enough for the marriage to take place. He claims that "he had gold and silver and lands enough." Interesting that the only daughter to be disowned by her father is also the only one to marry for love.

Another change made was how Goneril and Regan took control. In the play, it was immediate: the power was granted to them by their father. In the source, however, it's very clear that it really happened much slower. When Cordelia is sent to France, it states that "after a long space of time, old age began to wear Lear down, and the dukes to whom he had partitioned the kingdom and married his daughters rose up against him. They seized from him the kingdom and the sovereign power that he had hitherto wielded bravely and gloriously." So in the original, the sons-in-law actually forcefully took Lear's power while Shakespeare gives a much more peaceful transition.

One more major change is obviously the ending. Since we know that it is a Shakespearean tragedy, people have to die at the end. After the battle between Lear and his two daughters, almost everyone (including Lear and his three daughter) ends up dead in a sad twist of fate. In the original version, however, the ending was much happier. Lear's and Cordelia's forces defeated those of Goneril's and Regan's, and Lear lived for three years after regaining his power. After his death, it states that "Cordelia assumed the governance of the kingdom." Much less sad, yes? I'm curious, however, why Shakespeare didn't have Cordelia end up alive and in control of the country. Coming from the time of Elizabeth, you would think he'd be open to the idea of a woman ruler. Anyone have any ideas on that?

After reading both texts, my conclusion is that Shakespeare was not a plagiarist. He simply took a basic idea and story, one that was probably already well-known in England, and made it his own. He added so much to make it unique that the differences definitely outweighed the similarities between the two stories.

Little bit of a plagiarist, eh? Shakespeare and the history of King Lear

The main reason I decided to read King Lear (besides how obviously famous it is) is that in my Medieval British Literature class I actually read the source that Shakespeare drew from when writing this play. Geoffrey of Monmouth, as the Necessary Shakespeare remarks, was a "Welshman in close contact with Celtic legend." He wrote between 1100-1154, and included a history of Lear, or Leir, in his "A History of the Kings of Britain." (This source is cited in the Appendix under "Sources" found on page A-30, in case anyone's interested.) When I read this selection from Geoffrey's "History," I immediately thought that it would be a fascinating experiment to see how close Shakespeare remained to the original source, in characters, plot, and theme. Also, I will analyze the two texts in terms of when each was written, and try to decide what each culture demanded of its literature. Here is a short snippet of Geoffrey's history:

After this unhappy fate of Bladud, Leir, his son was advanced to the throne, and nobly governed his country sixty years. He built, upon the river Sore a city, called in the British tongue Kaerleir, in the Saxon, Leircestre. He was without male issue, but had three daughters, whose names were Gonorilla, Regau, and Cordeilla, of whom he was dotingly fond, but especially of the youngest, Cordeilla. When he began to grow old, he had thoughts of dividing his kingdom among them, and of bestowing them on such husbands as were fit to be advanced to the government with them. But to make trial who was worthy to have the best part of his kingdom, he went to each of them to ask which of them loved him most.

You can find Geoffrey's full text here (starting at section 11). You can see that some of the names have changed slightly, some only in spelling, but that the basic plot remains the same. As I read Shakespeare's version, I'll report if I'm able to find any glaring differences, and then ask why he would make those changes.

Film Review of "Taming of the Shrew"

Although so far in this class I've watched the film productions after finishing reading each play, I decided to try something different for The Taming of the Shrew. This was mostly because after the generally direct language of Hamlet and Henry V, this comedy had so many innuendos and references that it took me nearly twice as long to get through a page. After reading through Act 3, I decided to watch the film production so I could get a better grasp on the humor and plot as I finished the play. 

I watched the 1960's version of The Taming of the Shrew with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. I must say I had some doubts about it, since it's an older film, but I'm going to start by stating how much I LOVED it! I thought they did a fantastic job with casting, and loved Taylor's and Burton's take on Katharina and Petruchio. The costumes and sets were great, and the story was easy to follow. I'm going to break my review down into three categories: things that were changed in the film, my personal reaction, and how it helped me understand the play better.

First off, although you obviously have to cut some things when doing a Shakespeare production for a general audience, I found it interesting that the "play within a play" starring Christopher Sly was cut from the film. I thought that it was a very funny part of the play, but I guess I can understand how it may confuse modern viewers. Second, besides cutting lines, they also changed some words (such as "mew" to "lock), in an obvious effort to reach a broader audience. Third, there was a lot more action than I thought there would be, which I really enjoyed (especially Kate's and Petruchio's first conversation, gotta love it!).

I've already made it clear that I loved the film, and here are just some of the things that stood out to me:
1. Kate is kind of crazy!
2. Petruchio is kind of crazy! (really makes you think of Bianca's line: "That, being mad herself, she's madly mated.")
3. Hortensio's wig is rather ridiculous. Not even the one he uses as disguise, but the one he wears throughout the movie.
4. Marriage has changed so much since Shakespeare's time!
5. I love Kate and Petruchio's interactions. I feel like everything they say and do is a test for each other.

And lastly, I'd like to discuss how the movie helped me understand the play better, and even changed my mind about a few things. First, in the movie (like I said above) Kate is truly crazy! While reading the play, I felt so sympathetic for Kate thinking that her father didn't love her and everyone thought she was a "fiend." In watching the film, however, my sympathies definitely were with Baptista and Bianca, because Katharina was awful! She was beating on Bianca, rude to her father, and breaking everything in sight. But then, of course, my sympathies switched back to Kate when Petruchio is late to the wedding, and then withholds food and generally makes her miserable.

Really, Kate was easily the most fascinating character to me. Everyone else is designed by some goal they want to achieve: Petruchio wants money, Baptista to marry off his daughters, and Gremio, Hortensio, and Lucentio want to marry Bianca. But what Kate wants is never really clear. Why does she act the way she does? Why does she marry Petruchio? And why does she allow herself to be "tamed" at the end of the movie?

I felt that the film gave me an insiders look into Katharina. I am now on the side of those who claim that she was never really tamed, but just went along with it in order to work the system. She knew if she remained unmarried she would have to live with her father forever, something I'm sure didn't appeal to her. Then, when Petruchio treats her terribly in his home, she learns to agree with what he says in order to get the things she wants. This wasn't terribly explicit in the play, but the film definitely gave that impression with all of Kate's sarcastic tones and side-long glances. In the end, she was a rich, well-dressed, and respected woman, which I think may have been her desire all along, and she achieved that only by allowing herself to be tamed. What do you all think? Which side are you on?

My schedule for King Lear:

2/07 - Read Background and Act 1

2/09 - Read Acts 2 and 3

2/11 - Read Acts 4 and 5

My experience with AskShakespeare

Like we tried out in class, I posed my own question to the experts over at AskShakeapeare, and these are my results. Here are some of the people who responded:

Almasi Zsolt – @zsalmasi – reader at Péter Pázmány Catholic University, Hungary, interested in Tudor literature, and histories

Actors Shakespeare Company – @ActorsShakes – artistic director, Colette Rice of the theatre in residence at New Jersey City University

Shakespeare’s School – @ShakespearesSch – for all things related to Shakespeare’s School days

It was fun being able to chat with people I knew were knowledgeable about Shakespeare, and got some interesting responses and some great links, so check them out!

My Question:

JoannaLance: I know Shakespeare used a lot of English History in his plays. Did he also use elements of his personal life? #askshakespeare

My Answers:

BarbotRobot: @JoannaLance #askshakespeare His son, who died very young, was named Hamnet

zsalmasi: @JoannaLance Surely, but it is rather difficult to tell with precision. I reckon references to the theater are the ones. #askshakespeare

ActorsShakes: @JoannaLance #AskShakespeare That is a huge and loaded question. We just don't know. We can conjecture, but we are only guessing.

• JoannaLance: @ActorsShakes What do we know? Any specific facts, like characters he may have based on someone he knew? #askshakespeare

•  ActorsShakes: @JoannaLance #AskShakespeare we can't say 'fact.' William Page is a school boy studying Latin in Merry Wives - much like WS must have done.

• JoannaLance: @ActorsShakes So we can probably assume that the kind of school he had was reflected in his character William Page? #askshakespeare

•  ActorsShakes: @JoannaLance #AskShakespeare From the scene with William & Hugh Evans (Schoolmaster) it seems this was part of a typical boy's education.

• ActorsShakes: @JoannaLance #AskShakespeare There are the stories that John Falstaff was originally John Oldcastle, named for a historical figure.

• ActorsShakes: @JoannaLance #AskShakespeare WS had twins, one of whom died as a child - Viola and Sebastian are twins who each think the other dead.

ShakespearesSch: #AskShakespeare @JoannaLance . . & some believe 'Seven ages of Man' speech inspired by these buildings http://bit.ly/bu_guild (expand)

• JoannaLance: @ShakespearesSch That's really interesting! Thanks for the info #askshakespeare

• ShakespearesSch: #AskShakespeare @JoannaLance @ActorsShakes Sir Huw Evans/my successor Sir Thomas Jenkins http://bit.ly/flickr_PD01 (expand)

• ShakespearesSch: #AskShakespeare @JoannaLance . . . & local inspiration for "Tempest" http://bit.ly/SBT_FS127 (expand) 

• ShakespearesSch: #AskShakespeare @JoannaLance from his schooldays http://bit.ly/flickr_PD01 (expand) 

• ShakespearesSch @JoannaLance @ActorsShakes detailed & scholarly comment from Prof David Crystal http://bit.ly/DC_pwl (pdf file)

• ActorsShakes @ShakespearesSch @JoannaLance #AskShakespeare That's great. It said everything I researched when I directed MWives but can't fit in a Tweet.

• Joanna Lance: @ActorsShakes @ShakespearesSch Thanks to you both! I got some great stuff out of this :) #askshakespeare

I also enjoyed other questions and answers:

todayilike: #askshakespeare my Mum asks Shakespeare, What do you do in your spare time?

ActorsShakes: @todayilike #AskShakespeare - Spare time? I write plays, copy parts, rehearse, learn parts, fights, dances, perform, ride to Stratford...

zsalmasi: @todayilike I like to imagine that Sh did much reading in his spare time, and falconry, perhaps. #askshakespeare

ActorsShakes: @todayilike #AskShakespeare Truly he would have had little spare time. The played 6 days a week, almost always a different play.



There's still time to ask your question! Head on over to twitter or follow the instructions here!

Ask Shakespeare

Previously, I've posted about BloggingShakespeare, a really interesting blog that I stumbled upon a few weeks ago. Their slogan is "Embracing Shakespearean Conversation in a Digital Age." Sound a bit like our class? Well, I was poking around their website, hoping to find some amazing article about The Taming of the Shrew to share with you all, when I came across something even better.

Right on their main page is a tab labeled AskShakespeare, an event, which luckily enough, is taking place TOMORROW. AskShakespeare is a one day event where a panel of Shakespeare enthusiasts and experts will answer any questions posted on Twitter. There are more detailed instructions here, but basically you Tweet your question with #askshakespeare included somewhere in your text, and someone from the panel will answer your question! It's really easy to get an account if you don't have one, and I think this a great way to do what Dr. Burton was talking about in class on Monday, communicating with other Shakespeare scholars, not just our class. It's really easy and seems like a way to get quick results and answers to our questions. If anyone has any questions, let me know in a comment and I'll try to respond here or maybe in class tomorrow. I'm definitely going to try this, and I'll let you know what the results are in my next post.