For Tuesday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapters 6 & 7

NOTE: Read as much of Chapters 6 and 7 as you can, and consider some of the ideas below. We'll write about ONE of them when you return next Tuesday, or some combination of some of the ones below. 

* What does Poole mean when he suggests "first time tragedy, second time farce?" Why does repetition kill an audience's sense of tragic potential?

* If comedy is tragedy that happens to someone else (to paraphrase Mel Brooks), why doesn’t the entire audience laugh at every tragedy? What makes it ‘work’ even though the comedic potential is always there?

* Is tragedy just a stylistic thing? Or as Poole asks, “Does it all depend on how it’s told”? What would that mean in Shakespearean terms? Just iambic pentameter? (You might think about the story he tells from Chekhov)

* Why might comic relief be an important part of tragedy (and not just to take pressure off the serious moments)? Why does Shakespeare always have some comic moment in his darkest plays, such as the murder scene in Richard III, or the Graveyard scene in Hamlet? Could these scenes also be tragic in their own right?

* If plays are all about words/speaking, why are the silences equally important—especially for Tragedy? How does Shakespeare do this in his plays, that you’ve seen?

* Related to this, what does Poole mean when he writes, “Breaking the silence has become a modern way of thinking about tragedy”?

* Why might the role of the ‘messenger’ be one of the greatest tragic roles of all time? And why do all tragedies employ this device—of someone who has to report of a tragedy that happened off-stage?

* Why does the ancient Greek mask of Tragedy (with open eyes and mouth) represent an important theory or message of Tragedy? How can this empower artists writing in the wake of events like 9/11?

* Why is sound in general so important to Tragedy, meaning the sounds other than speech? How do plays take advantage of other aural mechanisms? Think of movies as well.

For Tuesday: Richard III, Acts 4 & 5

NOTE: Try to finish the play for Tuesday, but at least read Act 4, since that will form the brunt of our discussion. I'll also bring in some context about Elizabeth I to help us appreciate the play--and Q2 below. 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Has Richard changed by the last two acts? Is he no longer the sinister, yet charming, and almost humorous character he was at the beginning? If so, what might have accounted for his change of character/persona? Or do you see him as a consistently evil character throughout, with no real growth one way or the other?

Q2: Considering that Elizabeth I was queen while Shakespeare wrote most of his plays, including Richard III, how might the strong queens in the play, notably Margaret and Elizabeth (!), be meant to flatter her? Where might we see lines and passages that show that Shakespeare was trying to be empathetic with her position as a female queen in a world of men? In other words, how might knowing Elizabeth I was listening have inspired Shakespeare to put certain words in their mouths?

Q3: We get a terrible echo of the Richard/Anne scene in Act 4.4, when Richard woos Elizabeth for the hand of her daughter. How does Richard repeat some of the same language and rhetoric from the earlier scene, and is he as convincing to Elizabeth, or the audience, here? Why does she agree to go along with it? 

Q4: Since Richard comes to power only in Act 4, and is dispatched in Act 5, do we really get a sense of catharsis with his death? Do we feel that justice has been served and the play is 'cleansed' of his presence? Should we see him slain as we see Claudius and others die on-stage in Hamlet? Or by not having him die on-stage, does this avoid the cruder aspects of revenge? 

Q5: What do you make of the long procession of ghosts that suddenly appear at the end of Act 5 to curse Richard and praise Richmond? In a play that seems grittily realistic, is it strange to suddeny get shades of Hamlet and Macbeth? Do you feel this makes artistic sense, or is it sort of too over-the-top to be believable? If you were a director, would you cut this part of the play, or is it theatrically (or cathartically) effective? 

For Thursday: Richard III, Act 3

For Thursday's class, read all or as much of Act 3 as you can, which documents Richard's ascent to power, despite not having much popular support. No questions this time, but we'll have an IN-CLASS RESPONSE when you come to class. But here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* Why does the young Duke of York and the Prince mock Richard in 3.1? How does he respond to their jokes at his expense? Why do they act so differently than most other men in the play?

* We see Richard start to act like a king in Act 3, both in public and private. Based on these actions, what kind of king will he be? Should the Citizens in Act 2 be worried?

* This play uses dreams in several scenes, usually people who have dreams of Richard killing or threatening them. Why do you think Shakespeare keeps using this device? And does anyone take them seriously?

* In general, how do most of his peers regard Richard as a serious candidate for the throne? What seems to influence their decision? 

* Notice how many people start taking Queen Margaret's words from Act 1 seriously. Why do they regard her as more truthful now than then, when they dismised her as a "lunatic"?

* How does Act 3 play with the idea of acting and staging scenes for an audience--both the audience in the play, and the audience watching the play? Why might these meta moments (though nothing as explicit as The Mousetrap from Hamlet) be important?

* Shakespeare sometimes has very small scenes interrupt the flow of his story, often with very insignificant characters. 3.6 is one such scene, a single speech made by an anonymous Scivener (scribe). What do you think is the purpose of this scene? Could it be cut without much notice? 

* At the beginning of 3.7, Richard has Buckingham try to stir up popular support for Richard. But no one takes the bait. Even when he plants a few 'supporters' in the crowd to cry "God save King Richard!" this isn't much to-do. Why do you think this is? How might it relate to the scene in Act 2 with the Citizens and their opinions of the monarchy? 

For Tuesday: Richard III, Act 1.4-5, and Act 2

NOTE: Q1 is a repeat from the last set of questions, since we didn't get to touch on it at all. So if you didn't answer them last time, you can take a shot at them now if you like. 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: In another scene reminiscent of Hamlet, the Murderers come to kill Clarence in Act 1, scene 4, but have trouble going through with the act. Why might some of their fears--and Clarence's attempts to dissuade them--echo some of Hamlet's misgivings in his play? What IS the consequence of enacting a just revenge (since Clarence IS guilty of murder himself)?

Q2: Shakespeare brings women to the forefront of this play, from Lady Anne to Queens Elizabeth and Margaret, and the Duchess. Sort of related to Q4 below, how do the women tell a different story--and focus on different details--than the men? Why might Shakespeare be keen to let them tell part of the story, and what does it add to Richard's plot of revenge and ambition?  

Q3: All of Shakespeare's plays are about acting in one way or another, and this is certainly true of Richard III. Besides the scene with Lady Anne in Act 1.2, where else do we see him acting/performing for others. Is his 'role' consistent throughout the play, or does it change depending on the audience? Do people generally believe his act? And if someone doesn't, who and why not? 

Q4: Unusually for a play about kings and queens, Shakespeare shifts the action to the common people in Act 2.3, with a short scene between "citizens." How does he portray the common citizens, and what language do they speak? How does their view of the play contrast with the upper classes? In other words, why might it be a very different story if THEY were telling it? 

For Thursday: Richard III, Act 1 (as much as you can, anyway!)

From the Royal Shakespeare Company's 2007 production 

NOTE: Here is a link to the Folger Shakespere's On-line, which has a slew of information and links about Richard III. One thing I recommend is listening to the play as you read it. The Folger has a link to the Audio Edition here, and you can listen along as you read, hearing the actors give life to the lines, which can really help you visualize the scene and the characters (and understand the emotion). You can also DOWNLOAD the text for free (the Folger version) if you don't have the book. https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/richard-iii/

Read as much of Act 1 as you can, though at least try to get through Scene 3 (though scene 4 is a lot of fun). Answer TWO of the following as always:

Q1: Hamlet was based on legend and vague history, whereas Richard III uses real historical characters and settings. Even though Shakespeare's audience was closer to this history than we were, they wouldn't know all the ins and outs of it (especially at a time before history classes and paperback books!). Given this, how does Shakespeare try to teach us a little history as we go? Why is it not strictly necessary to know the history of Richard III to appreciate this play (and how does Shakespeare make this possible)?

Q2: Richard's famous speech that opens the play, "Now is the winter of our discontent/Made glorious summer by this son of York" is almost as well-known as Hamlet's "To Be, or Not to Be." What makes this speech so stunning and a favorite of actors everywhere? What does it allow the actor to do or perform, and why is it shocking for the audience, given that these are the very first words in the play?

Q3: In Act 1, scene 2, Richard sets out to woo Lady Anne, whose husband and brother he has killed (and she knows it). He has the audacity to confront her in the church AND to try to woo her to her face. Not surprisingly, she's pretty pissed about it. But he gradually wears her down, and by the end, she's actually entertaining his suit. What makes her begin to thaw? How does Richard use language and poetry to press his suit? Do we begin to believe him at any point, or is it always clear that he's playing a dastardly role here?

Q4: In class on Monday, and even last week, we talked a bit about Ophelia's 'mad' songs, which are a kind of confession and indictment of those around (especially the men). Queen Margaret also makes a long, 'mad' speech attacking all those around her in Act 1, scene 3 (starting on page 55--line 195), after which she is dismissed by Dorset: "Dispute not with her; she is lunatic" (59). Why might people mistake this for madness? What is she accusing them of? And what makes these lines so powerful (indeed, Richard only gets a few lines in the entire time). 

Q5: In another scene reminiscent of Hamlet, the Murderers come to kill Clarence in Act 1, scene 4, but have trouble going through with the act. Why might some of their fears--and Clarence's attempts to dissuade them--echo some of Hamlet's misgivings in his play? What IS the consequence of enacting a just revenge (since Clarence IS guilty of murder himself)? 

For Thursday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapters 4 & 5

For our next class, try to read Chapters 4 and 5, but at least read 4, since any of this might give you some ideas for your Paper #1 assignment. They'll also help us decompress after reading Hamlet and figure out just what, exactly, we read! 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: On page 59, Poole writes that "Tragedy represents the conflict not of right against wrong--which is melodrama or simply justice--but of right against right." What do you think he means by this, and how might tragedy reconcile the "dangerous" aspects of philosophy with the more practical, particular aspects of theater? 

Q2: Aristotle championed the idea of a hero having a "fatal flaw" (hamartia) which caused them to create tragedy unknowingly, through a series of ignorant actions. Why might this ultimately be dramatically disappointing for an audience? Why do we want (or need) our tragedies to show people making decisions willfully, and with all the facts at hand (even if they misinterpret them)? Or in another sense, why is it simply more fun to have knowing heroes? 

Q3: Many writers and thinkers, such as Sigmund Freud, believed that tragedy is cathartic because it shows us who we used to be, and who we still are, beneath a cloak of civilization. Or as Poole writes, "tragedy shows us what we are missing" (51). What do they mean by this, and why might tragedy be more a kind of wish-fulfillment than a moral corrective?

Q4: On page 65, Poole suggests that "it is the relation between pain and our ideas about it that tragedy seeks to explore." Why is pain such an important subject for tragedy that has attracted writers such as the Greeks and Shakespeare? How might pain (like ghosts) be a taboo subject that only tragedy can properly deal with? And why is it always the pain of "other people" that interests tragedy? 

For Tuesday: Hamlet, Act 5! (the dramatic conclusion...)

NOTE: Try to finish Act 5 for Tuesday, though don't worry if you can't finish it on time. You'll have time to finish later if you need to, and you can get to these questions by Thursday. But do your best, and try to consider some of these questions as you read, since we need to figure out WHAT we feel about this play by the end. Is it just one disaster after another? Or does it have an overall purpose that leads to 'art'? 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: The Gravedigger would be played by Shakespeare's resident comic actor, who often specialized in 'fools' and other comic parts. Why do you think Shakespeare introduces this character into the play? Is it just some comic relief after a relentlessly grim Act 4? Or does the Gravedigger give Hamlet, and the play itself, a new perspective to consider? 

Q2: Hamlet and Laertes each seem to compete in Act 5.1 over who loved Ophelia the most, with Hamlet's famous line, "Forty thousand brothers/Could not with all their quantity of love/Make up my sum" (255). How do you read this scene? Are they simply peforming for the crowd, and flexing their 'love/duty' towards Ophelia? Or are they both--or just one of them--truly sincere? 

Q3: A tragedy is full of "what ifs," and moments where the final outcome could have easily been averted. How does Shakespeare insert some of these into the fabric of Act 5? Where do we see the play almost become a comedy with a happy ending? Why doesn't it? Does Shakespeare suggest the tragedy is inevitable, or do characters make a very 'tragic' decision to craft their own doom?

Q4: The end of the play is typical of a revenge tragedy: everyone dies on stage in one horrific dance of death. Do you feel Shakespeare tries to transform the gratuitous murder into a message of hope, peace, or purification? By giving Horatio some of the last words, does he rescue the play for the audience? And does Fortinbras' arrival in Denmark offer us the hope of a happy ending for the next generation? 

For Thursday: Hamlet, Act 4

Hamlet in a Royal Shakespeare Company production, 2025 

NOTE: No questions this time around, but try to read through Act 4, and we'll probably have an in-class response to something in the Act (if I remember--I forgot last time I claimed we would have one!). Here are some things to look out for as you read...

* Watch carefully how language changes throughout. While Hamlet speaks to his mother in verse, does he do this with any other character consistently (or intermitently)? 

* Where is the line drawn between Hamlet's performance and his persona? Where do we see the REAL Hamlet? Or was there never really a 'real' Hamlet? 

* How do we respond to the murder of Polonius, and his response to the murder? If Polonius is a fool (and sort of an ass), can his murder be treated as a joke? Or is the death of any character 'tragic'?

* On page 203 (Act 4.4), Hamlet has another longer speech, but one that isn't as famous as "To Be Or Not To Be," or "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!" How does this speech expand some of the earlier sentiments, and what does it reveal of his doubts and intentions?

* Ophelia reverts to speaking completely in prose in Act 4. Is she truly mad now, or is this also a kind of performance? Is there any "method" in it? 

* Laertes returns in Act 4, and learns that his father has been killed by Hamlet (sort of like how Hamlet learns his father has been killed in Act 1). How does he respond very differently than Hamlet? Why might we consider Laertes a kind of 'shadow' Hamlet? Or maybe Hamlet is a 'shadow Laertes'? 

* A second revenge plot is hatched in Act 4. How does it compare with Hamlet's? Is one more right or just than the other? How is it jusified in the play? 

Paper #1 assignment: Water or Oil?

English 3213

Paper #1: Water or Oil?

INTRO: In Chapter 2 of Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, Adrian Poole writes,“A great deal of ink has been spilt on the question of what Aristotle meant by [katharsis], let alone of whether he is right. Where exactly is this katharsis supposed to take place? In the head, the spirit, the soul, or the guts? Should we translate it as ‘purification’ or ‘purgation’? Is it, to adapt one recent critic, a matter of holy water or castor oil?” (Poole 18). In other words, what IS the purpose of tragedy: to make us physically and morally sick, and turn with disgust from the events unfolding before us? OR is it to transform terror into a sense of emotional release and understanding (and thus, a kind of joy)? Is the role of Tragedy to spiritually transform us or to make us feel like we’re implicated in the murder?

PROMPT: Discuss a moment in Hamlet that makes us feel an experience of katharsis, which is a moment of “purification or purgation” that comes from witnessing a dramatic/tragic experience unfold before you. How does Shakespeare stage this moment, and how do you think we’re supposed to read/experience/digest this experience? Is it supposed to explain the “why” behind a terrible “what” in life? Is it attempting to transform something terrible into something beautiful or at least understandable? Or could it be making something mundane or even seemingly enjoyable into a cruel and horrifying experience? If this moment is supposed to change us as an audience, how are we changed? Why does this moment stay with us?

REQUIREMENTS: Choose only ONE passage in the play (no more than 1-3 pages), and be sure to CLOSE READ the passage. Don’t just summarize what happens, but examine how the language and the characters MAKE it happen. You might also explain how this scene relates to the drama of Hamlet as a whole, since it might occur early, in the middle, or even very late in the play.

You must use Poole’s Tragedy in your discussion, and should quote it for support and/or to help you see/discuss certain aspects of your scene. Don’t just summarize it—actually quote a passage or passages that bring out the meaning of this scene.

DUE IN-CLASS ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23^rd! Please don’t skip class and turn it in later, since it will be late. The goal of this short assignment is to discuss the different ways we read and are affected by the play, and to discuss how Shakespeare wrote for many  different audiences (who naturally have different responses to tragedy). 

For Tuesday: Hamlet, Act 3

As usual, answer TWO of the following. Beware--Q1 is a long one, since it responds to the passage below. But it's a fun one, too! 

Q1: Here is the original (?) To Be Or Not To Be speech from the 1603 version of Hamlet to compare to the one we have:

 To be, or not to be, aye, there’s the point.

To die, to sleep, is that all? Ay, all.

No, to sleep, to dream--ay marry, there it goes:

For in that dream of death, when we awake,

And borne before an everlasting judge,

From whence no passenger ever returned,

The undiscovered country, at whose sight

The happy smile, and the accursed damned—

But for this, the joyful hope of this,

Who’d bear the scorns and flattery of the world,

Scorned by the right rich, the cursed of the poor?

The widow being oppressed, the orphan  wronged,

The taste of hunger, or a tyrant’s reign,

And thousand more calamities besides,

To grunt and sweat under this weary life,

When that he may his full quietus make,

With a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,

But for a hope of something after death,

Which puzzles the brain, and doth confound the sense,

Which makes us rather bear those evils we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of.

Ay that, O that conscience makes cowards of us all.

Compare Hamlet’s famous To Be Or Not To Be speech carefully with the version above. How does seeing the original—which is different in a few particulars—help us really see what he’s trying to say here? In both versions,  he begins by asking, basically, “is there a difference in living or dying? Isn’t it just like sleeping—letting go of yourself?” How does our version develop this idea in a few different ways than the 1603 version? And what do both versions agree on?

Q2: Why does Hamlet turn so violently on Ophelia in Act 3, scene 1? What does he seem to be accusing her of?  Is he merely acting mad here, or is he using his madness to speak the truth? Any clues in the language (or her responses)? 

Q3: In Act 3, scene 4, Hamlet argues with his mother over her 'bad' behavior much as he had earlier chided Ophelia in scene 1. By the end of it, the Queen gasps, "O Hamlet, thou has cleft my heart in twain!" Is she saying this because he's made her see the true nature of her sin? Or is she heart-broken at his apparent madness? In other words, has he won her over to his side, or does she just seem to be humoring him? 

Q4: Act 3 contains the famous 'play within a play' which Shakespeare loves to do, and also does in his comedy, A Midsummer Night's Dream. Why do you think he stages a play that not only the audience, but the actors on-stage have to watch? What is the effect of watching people watch a play? And why do we also get to hear their commentary on it? 

Reading Shakespeare, Part 2 (handout from class--just in case you lose it!)

READING SHAKESPEARE’S LANGUAGE, PART 2

 

Three Different Kinds of Verse

 

(A) HAMLET (Iambic Pentameter Soliloquy/Intimate, Conversational):

O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!

Is it not monstrous that this player here,

But in a fiction, in a dream of passion,

Could force his soul so to his own conceit

That from her working all his visage waned,

Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect,

A broken voice, and his whole function suiting

With forms to his conceit—and all for nothing!

For Hecuba! (2.2.p.117)

 

(B) HAMLET’S LETTER TO OPHELIA (rhyming couplets, love poem):

            Doubt that the stars are fire,

               Doubt that the sun doth move,

            Doubt truth to be a liar,

               But never doubt I love. (2.2.p.89)

 

(C) FIRST PLAYER’S SPEECH (epic/bombastic iambic pentameter—parody?):

Anon he finds him

Striking too short at Greeks. His antique sword.

Rebellious to his arm, lies where it falls,

Repugnant to command. Unequal matched,

Pyrrus at Priam drives, in rage strikes wide;

But with the whiff and wind of his fell sword

Th’ unnerved father falls. (2.2.p.111)

 

The Freedom of Prose

 

(Lines can be long or short, controlled by the thought, not the rhythm)

 

HAMLET: Denmark’s a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ: Then is the world one.

HAMLET: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ the worst.

ROSENCRANTZ: We think not so, my lord.

HAMLET: Why, then, ‘tis none to you, for there is nothing, either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me, it is a prison.

ROSENCRANTZ: Why, then, your ambition makes it one. ‘Tis too narrow for your mind.

HAMLET: O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, where it not that I have bad dreams. (2.2.p.99).