Mapping my project

I was inspired after seeing Jessica's post outlining what she wanted to accomplish for the rest of the semester. She used the learning outcomes to decide what she needed more work on, and to decide on the goals she wanted to achieve. I'm going to do it a little simpler and just give myself a basic outline for how I want my research project to go. I'm hoping this will give me a little more structure as I continue posting, so that I won't get lost in the sea of blogging.

I'm going to approach my research topic, Women in Shakespeare, from a few different angles. First, I'd like to concentrate on the historical background, including women as part of Shakespeare's audience and women's education in Elizabethan England. Next I will be researching Shakespeare's experiences with women in his life, such as his mother, wife, extended family, and Queen Elizabeth herself. I will hopefully finish up the semester by analyzing a variety of plays and characters with strong female roles to demonstrate that Shakespeare was influenced by all these different factors, and could be classified as a proto-feminist. Here is my tentative schedule for following this plan:

March 6-12: Women as audience

March 13-19: Women's education

March 20-26: Research on Shakespeare's female relationships

March 27-April 9: Analysis of Plays and Characters

April 9- End of class: Shakespeare as a proto-feminist

Besides these more formal approaches, I will also be including a few informal posts to help fulfill the other learning requirements. I plan to share different digital mediations of Shakespeare that I've come across, do my own creative imitation of the Bard's work, and do some close textual readings.

I know it's not incredibly specific, but I've learned its nice to have wiggle room when it comes to research blogging. Ideas tend to change and plans need adjustment, so I'm trying not to close any doors on myself.

One thing I'm hoping to get feedback on is advice about which female characters and plays to focus on for the second half of my research. There are so many plays I haven't read where I know there are wonderfully witty and even powerful women, so if you have any suggestions, please let me know! They don't even have to be major characters, just ones who show a break from the stereotypical obedient and dutiful woman. So far on my list I am considering Katharina, Titania (although I haven't read A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, so help on that would be great too), Lady Macbeth, King's Lear's daughters, and possibly Ariel and Miranda from The Tempest.

I'd appreciate any pointers, thanks!

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.

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

Tennis balls and other Shakespearean insults

After finishing this history play, I feel that what made reading Henry V so engaging was the different types of language that Shakespeare used. He had the legal and religious jargon of an archbishop, the blood-boiling rhetoric by Henry in the field of battle, and the casual dialects of the lower classes. Across all these different levels of communication, however, the one thing that he always seemed able to convey (whether it be tennis balls or accusations of being a "prick-eared cur of Iceland"), was insults. My favorites are by Pistol: "egregious dog," "viper vile," and "braggart vile." There's also some good exchanges of insults between the French and English, like in Act 1 with the tennis balls, and at the end of Act 2 with this dialogue:

DAUPHIN

For the Dauphin,

I stand here for him. What to him from England?

EXETER

Scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt,

And anything that may not misbecome

The mighty sender, doth he prize you at.

Thus says my king: an if your father’s Highness

Do not, in grant of all demands at large,

Sweeten the bitter mock you sent his Majesty,

He’ll call you to so hot an answer of it

That caves and womby vaultages of France

Shall chide your trespass and return your mock

In second accent of his ordinance.

DAUPHIN

Say, if my father render fair return,

It is against my will, for I desire

Nothing but odds with England. To that end,

As matching to his youth and vanity,

I did present him with the Paris balls.

EXETER

He’ll make your Paris Louvre shake for it,

Were it the mistress court of mighty Europe.

And be assured you’ll find a difference,

As we his subjects have in wonder found,

Between the promise of his greener days

And these he masters now. Now he weighs time

Even to the utmost grain. That you shall read

In your own losses, if he stay in France.

I don't know if this struck anyone else, but the first thing that came to mind when reading the taunting between the French and English was this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Enjoy! :)

Also, this week we will be starting comedies. I'm reading The Taming of the Shrew, and this is my reading schedule:


01/31 - Background and Act 1
02/02 - Acts 2 and 3
02/04 - Acts 4 and 5

One last note on Hamlet

Although our class is moving on to Shakespeare's histories this week, I couldn't resist posting once more about Hamlet. What can I say? It's a great play. 

This semester, I am also taking British Medieval Literature (really interesting class, by the way), and it has truly surprised me how many similarities there are between many of my other readings and Hamlet. We've discussed in class how Shakespeare could be considered somewhat of a plagiarist, that much of what Shakespeare wrote was borrowed from early British historians and writers. Well, in Medieval Brit. Lit. there are just tons of examples of this. I picked out just one to share with you. 

We have been reading what's called "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles," a history that summarizes the most important events of each year, written between the 9th and 11th centuries. In one entry, discussing the death of William the Conquerer, it states:

"He that was before a rich king, and lord of many lands, then had no more land than a space of seven feet! and he that was once enshrouded in gold and gems lay there covered with dirt!"

To me, this bears a striking resemblance to Hamlet's remarks in the Graveyard scene:

"This fellow might be in ’s time a great buyer of land, with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries. Is this the fine of his fines and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? Will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box, and must the inheritor himself have no more, ha!" (5:1)

Both of these passages relate to the idea of death as the great equalizer, and using remarkably similar examples. Although Hamlet is describing a great landowner instead of a king, both authors express the idea that although someone in life may have had great riches or land, he eventually only end up with "a space of seven feet."

Besides that passage, there is also similar language used between the two texts: "churl" and 

"twelfth-night," as well as the name Osric (like the character at the end of Hamlet), although I could be stretching the coincidences with that one. 

I thought it was interesting to find such explicit examples of Shakespeare borrowing from other authors. I will be posting more on this subject when we get to reading tragedies, as Geoffrey of Monmouth's "A History of the Kings of Britain," (which I've also read in my other class), contains the account that Shakespeare later draws from to write King Lear, which I think will make for an interesting comparison. 

As of right now, my reading schedule for this week is:

01/24- Read historical background and summary for Henry V; read Act 1

01/26- Read Acts 2-3

01/28- Read Acts 4-5

I'm going to take this week by week, as I don't know what my exact plan is and I'd like to be flexible. I'll try to post before every class period, and will hopefully be able to work in some fun creative interpretations and analysis. 

Shakespeare is not my forte

I guess the best way to start is to examine what experience I've had so far with Shakespeare. This is a tad embarrassing thing for me to admit, but I've read shockingly little of whom many consider to be one of the greatest writers of all time. Hamlet, Macbeth, and Romeo and Juliet are the only plays I've ever read completely through, and besides some strange Japanese version of Macbeth that I watched in my high school English class, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is the only film adaptation that I've seen (excluding She's the Man and Ten Things I Hate About You, which I suppose can be classified as "adaptations" but very loosely so. Very loosely).

Well, now that my cringeworthy lack of Shakespearean familiarity is announced to the world, the only thing to do is to find a way to cure my scarcity of knowledge. And that is by.... (drum roll please)..... developing a personal learning plan! Now, as exciting as this is, please refrain from randomly cheering or crying out with joy so that your roommates, significant others, or strangers at the library do not think English majors are weirder than they already are.

Gain Shakespeare Literacy.  Before the end of the semester, I plan on reading one play from each genre. So far, I've decided on A Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear, and The Tempest. Since I don't know the histories very well, I'm hoping to get suggestions on which to read. These are only a sampling, but I hope to read more. Besides the plays, I'd like to have a general knowledge of the sonnets, and hopefully be able to find a few not-so-famous ones that I enjoy. Besides reading, I'd love to watch an adaptation, screen or stage, of each play to be able to get a feel for the performance aspect of the plays. 

Analyze Shakespeare Critically. Since we won't have much formal writing in terms of papers we turn in, my analysis of Shakespeare will come mostly through this blog, where I will post textual, contextual, and theoretical explorations about what I've been reading. I will also strive to include some analysis of performance and other digital mediations to give you all a break from formal writing every so often. 

Engage Shakespeare Creatively. And this is where the fun part comes in. Besides academic analysis, I also get to learn about Shakespeare through creative performance, imitation or artistic representation. Some ideas I have on my mind are: translate some scenes from a play to modern English, imitate Shakespeare's sonnet form and write my own, create a video presentation using images and words from play and sonnets, and get involved in a production or performance. I'm sure these will develop and multiply as time goes on.

Share Shakespeare Meaningfully. And after I've done all that, I will find ways to share what I've learned with both my classmates and others that I will hopefully come into contact with throughout this semester. This will mostly be in the form of posts and comments, but I also want to submit some kind of work to Showcase Shakespeare (featured below) which I think would really give me a chance to show what I've learned in a fun way. 

Well, I think that's pretty much it. Please leave me some suggestions if you have any, particularly on which history to read since I believe that's the first genre we'll be reading. Thanks!