Final Exam Information

Final Exam for Shakespeare: Thursday, May 10th @ 11:30 

I’m going to take select passages from Bevis and van Es’ book and ask you to respond to them using two of the plays from class—so bring 2 books at least! You can use more plays if you like, but you  must demonstrate knowledge (through quotation) of at least two plays to respond to these ideas about comedy, character, conventions, time, and satire. You can also bring Bevis and van Es’ books with you if you want to explore the context of a passage or simply quote from them as well. But the gist of the exam will be several short essays using Shakespeare’s text as support. Remember, the exam is worth 15 pts. out of 100 pts. total for the class, so as long as you show awareness of the ideas we've been discussing all semester, and feel confident about at least two of the plays, you should do well. 

Good luck!

For Tuesday: The Tempest, Acts 3-4

As you finish The Tempest, here are a few ideas to consider:

* Much of The Tempest reads like a play-within-a-play: how does Shakespeare achieve this quality? When do we feel we're watching the actors play roles inside their own, and when do we seem to be watching the "real" action?

* Caliban claims that "They all do hate him/As rootedly as I" (3.2). Is Caliban lying here? Is Prospero a much hated tyrant who the entire island wishes to dethrone? How might this compare with the reasons he was booted out of Milan many years ago?

* Though playing a somewhat comic role in a comic sub-plot, how does Shakespeare make Caliban surprisingly round in these acts? Why do you think he does so, since it slightly serves to unbalance the comedy of the plot?

* Why does Prospero threaten Ferdinand numerous times not to sleep with Miranda before their wedding night? Why would he assume Ferdinand would do so? (could he be setting him up??)

* What do you make of the elaborate play (or "masque," a 17th century genre where allegorical figures perform with song and dance) in 4.1 with Iris, Ceres, and Juno? What is the "plot" of this play, and why is it staged for Ferdinand and Miranda?

* Several of Prospero's late speeches are considered autobiographical for Shakespeare, though of course we can't really know what he thought or felt. What speeches seem to have a curious double meaning about the stage and/or the retirement of a famous playwright?

* At the end of Act 4, Prospero says, "At this hour/Lies at my mercy all mine enemies," though soon after, in 5.1, he suddenly says, "The rarer action is/In virtue than in vengeance." Did he always mean to pardon his enemies with a show of strength? Or does something convince him to abandon his plans?

* Is Caliban redeemed at the end? If so, is it believable? Has he changed--or has Prospero's vision of him changed? Does the play offer a happy ending between "father and son"?

Short Paper #2: The First Review

“Such deadpan ironies can make comedy the defender of the finer feelings which it offends. Perhaps it even elicits feelings in the reader by affecting to disregard them…A dark comedy may be the best answer one can muster when faced by this messy state of affairs. Any single life should be taken seriously, but not too seriously” (Bevis 100).

Shakespeare is often taken too seriously, which is such a shame—he’s too funny (and insightful) for that! For this short paper, I want you to write a satirical review of one of the plays—either All’s Well That Ends Well or The Tempest—pretending that you’re the first critic to ever see the play. With that in mind, try to imagine how such a critic would be confused by this “comedy” and the “happy endings” or “solutions” it offers us. Throughout your review, try to be ironic—try to use the critic’s confusion, anger, frustration, or even delight—to help us understand the point of the play itself. In other words, don’t tell us what you like about the play…show us what you like about the play through the voice of someone who doesn’t understand or appreciate it.

Remember our articles from The Onion, especially the one, “It’s Time To Give Up " (I pasted them below). The article begins, “Years of research regarding your progress thus far and the projected outcome of your continued efforts have culminated in the finding that it is in fact time for you to give up, experts on you concluded this week.” Of course, the point of the article isn’t to give up…it’s to make fun of the way we beat ourselves up and think that we, alone, are a ‘failure’ in life. So do the same thing in your review: have a critic review the play who thinks Betram is a great guy and he’s  finally found the woman of his dreams…or a critic who thinks Caliban is an evil brute who is punished the way he deserves, thanks to Prospero! Whatever you satirize, try to do make the reader realize (a) that you don’t really mean this, and (b) what the true point of the play really is.

REQUIREMENTS

·         No page limit, but be reasonable—one page isn’t enough!

·         QUOTE from the play in question; you might have the critic misinterpret important lines or see the wrong thing for comic effect

·         Have fun! Be funny but also make a point—don’t just play it for laughs

·         Due Tuesday, May 1st by 5pm

THE TWO ARTICLES: From The Onion.Com

Ex-Boyfriend Still Hopes To Be Terrible, Incompatible Friends

DENVER, CO—Insisting the turmoil didn’t need to stop just because the relationship had ended, local man Alex Ware was reportedly hopeful Monday that he and his ex-girlfriend could still be terrible, incompatible friends. “I understand that we’re a bad match romantically, but after everything we’ve been through, I think we owe it to ourselves to maintain some kind of toxic relationship,” said Ware, who assured his ex-girlfriend that he wanted her to have an unhealthy presence in his life. “I still care about you and, even if we’re not dating anymore, I want us to keep bringing out the worst in each other. You probably need some space right now, but once you’re ready, maybe we can meet up to fight occasionally.” At press time, Ware responded to his ex-girlfriend blocking him on social media by leaving an honest, solemn message on her voicemail saying that their breakup wasn’t working.

Report: It’s Time To Give Up

WASHINGTON—Years of research regarding your progress thus far and the projected outcome of your continued efforts have culminated in the finding that it is in fact time for you to give up, experts on you concluded this week. “You made a decent run at it, but you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re ever really going to get anywhere,” said numerous sources who worked on your case, none of whom believed that further expenditure of time, energy, or resources would garner appreciable gains and all of whom believed that a graceful admission of defeat is your best option. “You may believe this is merely a slump or a rough patch and that you’ll eventually get back on track with everything, but all the data we have indicate that the more effort you put forth now, the greater your disappointment will be when you are finally forced to surrender to your own inadequacy and stop trying altogether. Yes, before you say anything, we know it seems as if you have years to get it together, but you don’t. Those years will only bear mute witness as you flail helplessly, getting nowhere. You probably should have given up decades ago. You are a failure.” The experts also noted that, while it has been stated many times previously that one should never, ever give up, that sentiment is intended as a general guideline and does not apply in your specific and more hopeless case.

For Thursday: The Tempest, Acts 1 and 2

Be sure to read the first two acts of our final play in class; as you read, keep in mind the ideas of satire and dark comedy that we discussed from Ch.7 in Bevis' Comedy. Here are some other ideas to consider:

* Why is there generally more verse in this play than All's Well and As You Like It? Though the servants in the play generally speak prose, everyone else typically sticks to verse, and even Caliban speaks verse to Prospero.

* Pay close attention to the story Prospero tells his daughter, Miranda, about why they came to be on the island. Is it as cut and dry as he makes it sound? Though his brother did betray him, what might have aided in this betrayal?

* What are Prospero's relationship with the other inhabitants in the island, Ariel and Caliban? Why do they serve him?

* How does Prospero come to be master of the island? What do we imagine happened to the previous 'owner' of the island, Sycorax?

* Why is Caliban so abusive towards Prospero and Miranda? Why might this be an example of "laughtears"? Why might he be both a comic and a pathetic figure?

* How is Prospero trying to manipulate both his daughter and the new visitors to his island? In particularly, what does he want to have happen between his daughter and Ferdinand?

* Who are the fools in Act 2 and what message do they have for the duke--and for the audience?

* What advice does Antonio (Prospero's brother) have for Sebastian? How does he convince him that this is a sound and reasonable course of action?

* How might the Act 2, scene 2 satirize the encounters between Europeans and natives that were ongoing throughout Shakespeare's time (since this was when Europeans were actively exploring the Americas)? How is Caliban duped by the servants?

For Tuesday: All's Well That Ends Well, act 5 and Bevis, Chapter 7 "Beyond a Joke"

Some questions to consider for our reading...

* Why might the quote, "Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh" (105) be a way for understanding Shakespeare's problem comedies, esp. All's Well? While it doesn't have a lot of "death," in it, why does it use serious and even disturbing material for the purposes of comedy?

* In explaining dark comedy, Bevis uses the example from Mel Brooks: "Tragedy is when I cut my little finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die." Why is the latter funny? What makes it tragi-comic? Where do we see similar moments in All's Well?

* Writing about dark comedy, Bevis says that "any single life should be taken seriously, but not too seriously" (100). While this could be said of comedy itself, what makes dark comedy even more apt to underline this sentiment?

* Fools like Parolles, the Fool, and even Lafew seem to point to Bevis' point that "those lacking in imagination can be TOO healthy." Why might Shakespeare insert more fools than usual in a dark comedy like All's Well? Why might they be essential for the plot? Or the meaning behind the plot?

* Bevis writes that "comedy does not preclude tragedy; it presupposes it." Why might the plot and characters of All's Well "presuppose" tragedy? And why might that very fact have challenged Shakespeare to make a comedy of it?

* How is Act V a masterpiece of dark comedy? Who is the butt of the jokes in this act?

* Does the play end satisfactorily in the manner of a true comedy? Or does Shakespeare subvert even this expected ending? When the King says that "the bitter past, more welcome is the sweet," is he acknowledging what happened on stage, or trying to MAKE us see it?

For Thursday: All's Well That Ends Well, Acts 3 & 4

[sorry for the late post--somehow it didn't take when I posted it last night!]

Here are some ideas to consider for Acts 3 and 4:

* Is Parolles more of a flat or round character in Acts 3 & 4? Do we feel sympathetic to him when he is humiliated by Bertram and the Lords?

* Does Helen become more "flat" in these acts, particularly when she engages in the bed trick with Diana? Would she have done this in Acts 1 and 2?

* In justifying her actions, Helen says, "Let us assay our plot, which, if it speed,/Is wicked meaning in a lawful deed,/And lawful meaning in a lawful act,/Where both not sin, and yet a sinful fact" (3.7.). What does this mean?

* Why do the Widow and Diana go along with this? Are they convinced that this is a just action to support a maligned wife? Or are they simply well paid?

* Does Bertram emerge as a rounder character in these acts? What kind of lover is he to Diana? Is he authentic or comic in his lovemaking?

* Also, does Bertram betray himself (as the Second Lord later suggests) or is he tricked into laying with Diana? In other words, is he a villain or do they make him a villain?

* Act 3, scene 1 is a tiny scene that shows us the war going on behind the scenes. Why do we need to see this? Indeed, many versions of the play would cut this out entirely. But why do you think Shakespeare included this in the play? You might consider that some of the Duke's lines are echoed elsewhere in the play, as so:

Duke: "So that from point to point now you have heard/The fundamental reasons for this war..." (3.1)

First Lord: "Ay, and the particular confirmation, point from point, to the full arming of the verity" (4.3)

* Like Hero, Helen also engages in a staged death to trick her husband and force his repentance. Does this initially seem to have the intended effect? And is this something we would expect from her (or any 'round' character)?

For Tuesday: All's Well That Ends Well, Acts 1-2

Sorry for the delay--I got bogged down with Scissortail activities this week! Here are some question and ideas to consider for the first two acts of the play:

* The language of All's Well is much more difficult than the previous plays. Many of the speeches are notably more dense, such as Helen's line "The mightiest space in fortune nature brings/To join like likes and kiss like native things" (1.1).Why might a playwright make his verse (and prose) more difficult to penetrate? How would this play on-stage?

* Why are there so many 'fools' in this play? Not only in there a Fool, but Paroles plays the role of a fool, Helen speaks like a "fool" (in that she is wise, and spars with the fools), and even Lafew plays this role. Why might Shakespeare be continually adding fools to the ingredients of his play (and they have been increasing--we had a few in As You Like It, too).

* Why is so much of this play in prose? Everyone, except the King, speaks prose for much of the time. When do they switch to verse and why? Related to this, why when Helen confronts the King does their verse become largely rhymed couplets? (this happens almost nowhere else)

* Why does Paroles urge Helen not to be a virgin? Is he offering wisdom here or simply raillery? How does she 'spar' with him throughout this exchange in 1.1? Consider the line, "That you were made of is metal to make virgins."

* What makes Paroles a comic figure, and perhaps, an unwitting fool? Why does Lafew, in particular, hate him so much? Consider his line, "there's no kernel in this light nut. The soul of this man is his clothes" (2.5).

* Why does this play have a "square plot"? (remember van Es?). Why is it a difficult play for "round" character to inhabit?

* What makes Helen such a sympathetic and "round" character? Consider her speech in 1.3 when she confesses her love for Bertram to the Countess.

* One of the themes of this play is the difference between nobility and birth. Nobles are "born" noble from their blood, yet to be noble is a quality beyond blood or birth--it is an act. How does the King weigh in on this in 2.3?

* Why does Bertram refuse to marry Helen initially, even though all the other courtiers do, and the King has demanded it? What do you think he objects to--is it really just her inferior birth?

For Tuesday: van Es, Shakespeare's Comedies, Chs. 4 and 5 "Time" and "Character"

Since we only have one class next week (because of the Scissortail Creative Writing Festival), I want to take a break between plays and talk shop about Shakespeare through van Es' book. So read the chapters on "Time" and "Character," since these are very important for Much Ado and for our next play, All's Well That Ends Well.

Here are some questions to consider as you read, one of which we'll write about on Tuesday:

* What is the difference between a 'flat' and a 'round' character? Why was Shakespeare one of the few playwrights of his age to write 'round' characters?

* How do Beatrice and Benedict demonstrate a combination of the two types?

* Why, according to van Es, did Shakespeare move away both from flat characters and from the classical unities of time from his early to his middle plays?

* If comedy is about reformation (or seeing our vices), why do you think Shakespeare risks complicating his comic types and making them more interesting/human rather than based on 'humours'?

* van Es writes that the "manipulation of time is an exceptional achievement that sets the comedies apart from other plays" (76). What does he mean by this? How does Shakespeare manipulate time in the comedies besides simply compressing many days/weeks/months into a two-hour play?

* Related to the above, why did Shakespeare become more interested in time as a 'character' in his plays?

* van Es also suggests that comedies can also be defined by a movement from winter to spring, or of "fertility over the sterile." How can this help us understand some of the comedies we've read in this class so far?

* Why did playwrights follow the "classical unities" so closely for so long? Do we have any idea why Shakespeare abandoned it so early in his career?

For Tuesday" Bevis, Chapter 6 and Act 5 of As You Like It

Be sure to finish the play for Tuesday, and if possible, re-read the final act to keep it in mind for Tuesday's discussion. Also read Chapter 6 of Bevis which discusses the line between savagery and satire, and why we delight in the nastiness of humor so much--and what this might say about us and the people who write comedy.

Here are some ideas from Bevis to consider relating to the play:

* What does he mean when he says "Behind the smile, then, may lie a socialized snarl; and behind the laugh, a play fight. But behind both of these facial expressions lie real snarls and real fights" (78)? Where do we see in As You Like It a sense of play becoming "serious"?

* Bevis quotes Alexander Pope, the writer of the great mock-epic poem, The Rape of the Lock, as saying "'Tis a sort of writing very like tickling" (81). Why is tickling the perfect metaphor for satirical comedy, and much of what we see in As You Like It?

* Bevis writes that "comedy can teach you to be both a fatalist and a moralist at the same time" (83). How might this describe most of the fools in Shakespeare's plays, and especially someone like Jacques?

* Bevis writes "to be a witness [in a comedy] is to be an accomplice" (85). When do we feel guilty for laughing or enjoying a laugh in this play? When is the laughter also cruel or uncomfortable? What things do we laugh at in the play that we wouldn't laugh at in real life?

* One of my favorite quotes in the chapter comes at the very end when he writes, "comedy is a story of how taunting becomes teasing becomes treasuring" (88). How might this work in As You Like It?

Mid-Term Paper: “Based Upon A Play By Will Shakespeare”

“in Shakespeare…we get something different: sustained, two-way courtship in which the affection of women is taken seriously in spite of the ludicrous confusion that inevitably occurs. This confused courtship lies at the heart of romantic comedy, a modern genre that Shakespeare could be said to invent” (van Es 54).

For your mid-term paper, I want you to consider adapting one of Shakespeare’s classic comedies for the big screen: Two Gentlemen, A Midsummer Night’s Dream or As You Like It. Each one has all the hallmarks of the ‘Romantic Comedy,’ as it is about the struggle, confusions, doubts, and joys of love relationships. In that sense each play is very modern, particularly in how Shakespeare makes courtship the center of the play, and women are allowed (even if only temporarily) to assume center stage and decide their own fate. However, as van Es reminds us, “though we might say that love in Shakespeare’s comedy is more modern than one might have expected, we should also acknowledge that it is more early modern than it at first feels” (64). So much of what he dramatizes and makes fun of is particular to Elizabethan England and might not translate for modern audiences without a little editorial work.

Your paper will be a “pitch” to a producer as to why you think your adaptation will work on the screen and become the next She’s the Man, or Ten Things I Hate About You. To do this, I want you to address the following points:

• Your introduction should state the new title of your play (make it sound modern), the updated setting, and the main characters (you don’t have to use them all, but consider if you want to update their names or situations). Compare your adaptation to a modern film or show that you feel it will complement in style, tone, or ideas. You might want to analyze a brief scene from that show/film to illustrate this!
• Discuss what scenes still work and are “modern”: what scenes would play beautifully with a minimum of editing? Discuss 1-2 scenes in a short close reading/analysis. Also explain how it will work in the context of your new setting/characters.
• Discuss what scenes don’t work and need to be cut or severely changed for the good of the adaptation. Discuss 1-2 scenes in a short close reading/analysis. Make sure we understand why it’s too “early modern” rather than “modern.”

ALSO: You must use Bevis and van Es to help make your points and explain why Shakespeare is not only funny to modern audiences, but how his humor works—why it’s subversive, witty, exciting, and risqué. Make sure your paper is a conversation between you, Shakespeare’s text, and the critical sources addressed to a specific audience—a producer who doesn’t know Shakespeare very well and might be inclined to think he’s boring, old, and obscure.

REQUIREMENTS: At least 6-7 pages (double spaced); all quotes should be cited according to MLA format guidelines; due Thursday, March 15^th by 5pm

 

For Thursday: As You Like It, Acts 3-4

Finish the play if you can for Thursday, but we'll really only have time to discuss Acts 3 & 4 as usual. Here are some ideas to consider as you read:

* In a play largely written in prose, verse is no longer 'natural,' but often strange when it appears in the play. How does the play often use verse for satirical purposes--that is, to mock the person who uses it?

* How do these acts discuss the conventions of love and how lovers such as Oliver, Silvius, etc. should behave? What seems artificial and ultimately humorous about these conventions? How do we know that Shakespeare is laughing at them? (if interest, read Shakespeare's Sonnet 130, which seems to inform many of the speeches in this play--notably Rosalind's to Phoebe in Act 3, scene 5).

* How do Touchstone and Audrey satirize the behavior of other lovers, such as Orlando & Rosalind, and Silvius and Phoebe? What makes his "foolish" approach to love so unconventional--and comic?

* How does Rosalind (as Ganymede) instruct Orlando to woo her? How is this similar to how Sylvia instructs Valentine in The Two Gentlemen of Verona? What makes this version of the scene a bit more racy--and humorous?  

* Why is Act 3, Scene 5 entirely in verse? What makes Rosalind switch when talking to Phoebe and Silvius? What effect does this have on the scene and the audience?

* In previous plays, the headstrong, witty woman always has a foil--a man who can ultimately overpower her (Proteus for Sylvia and Julia, Oberon for Titania, Demetrius for Helena, etc.). Why doesn't Rosalind have a similar male foil? Why do you think Shakespeare allows her to basically run wild in the forest with no one to oppose her?

* How does Jacques develop as a fool in these acts--and what happens when he meets up with Touchstone?

* Why is Oliver out to destroy his brother, Orlando? What makes him a villain in this play? And how seriously are we supposed to take him?

For Tuesday: As You Like It, Acts 1-2

Read Acts 1-2 of As You Like It and consider some of the following questions below. Also, I want to work on close reading skills in class over the next few weeks, so expect to really dig into some difficult or confusing passages in class!

* Why does this play use almost as much prose as verse? Which characters predominantly speak in prose and why? When do they revert to verse?

* Why do brothers in this play hate and betray one another, whereas 'sisters' (even though Rosalind and Celia aren't blood sisters) are willing to die for one another? What might this reveal about Shakespeare's view of male and female relationships?

* Touchstone is the classic Shakespearean fool much like Speed rather than Bottom or Puck. What is his role in the play? Consider, too, that a "touchstone" is a "stone used to test the quality of precious metals."

* Why does Rosalind take the name Ganymede? Who was Ganymede and what meta-associations might this have for the audience? Consider Bart van Es' point in Chapter 3 that Shakespeare likes to test the possibilities of relationships in his comedies though they are always restored to 'normal' by the end of the play.

* How does the play contrast the world with the court with the Forest of Arden? Why does Duke Senior prefer it? Do others?

* Is Jacques a knowing or an unwitting fool? Is he also a kind of "touchstone" for others around him, to prove their wit/worth? Or is his wit more nonsensical/humorous?

* Read Jacques' speeches in Act 2, scene 7 (page 77-78 in the Folger edition) carefully: according to him, what is the license of a Fool and what is the benefit of satire? Why does he desire to be seen as a "motley fool" so desperately? Does Duke Senior think he's qualified for the job?

* Consider the many allusions to the stage in Act 2, particularly Jacques' famous speech, "all the world's a stage." Why call the audience's attention to this in the forest scenes?

For Thursday: van Es, Chapter 3, "Love" and Act V of Midsummer Night's Dream

Be sure to finish the play if you haven't, and we'll talk more about Act V specifically and the play within the play--and what it's like to see that on-stage. Also read Chapter 3, "Love" from Shakespeare's Comedies so we can figure out what Shakespeare is doing with the idea of love, coupling, and marriage in this play--and if we have a bona fide happy ending.

Some ideas to consider:

* Do Titania and Oberon live "happily ever after?" Does she forgive his trick? Do we?

* How is Act 5 a commentary on the act of performing and writing a play? Why does Shakespeare give us so much behind the scenes chatter? 

* What is it like to be in the audience watching another audience? What does the audience laugh at and object to? The same things we do? Does laughing at the play's own jokes ruin the joke?

* Why is Pyramus and Thisbe a bad play? Does Shakespeare use any of these techniques (flaws) in his own play? Is he showing us one bad play to help us 'see' the bad 'acting' in his own?

* Why end with a play rather than a marriage? Is it anti-climactic? Or does it take away from the "comedy" of a Romantic Comedy? 

* How does Shakespeare subvert the comic norms from Roman and Renaissance drama in his Romantic Comedies? (according to van Es)

* Why do women generally get a larger role in Shakespeare's comedies (or in the Renaissance in general)? 

* What do we learn about Shakespeare's ethos and ideas from an adaptation like She's the Man? What has to be changed or updated? And what is lost?

For Thursday: A MIdsummer Night's Dream, Acts 3-4 (and mabe 5)

 

* We didn’t talk about the actors last time, so think about how they represent a satire of contemporary acting in Shakespeare’s day, including in-jokes and references to acting/actors. What’s so funny about how they approach acting—and why might an audience used to watching actors find this particularly funny?

* Consider how the way characters talk to one another describes their relationships. Why does Hermia, for example, speak in couplets to Helena but not to Lysander? Why do lovers, in general, speak without rhyme?

* Are Helena and Hermia like Proteus and Valentine in Two Gentlemen? In 3.2, Helena reproaches Hermia of being unfaithful, since they were once “Two lovely berries molded on one stem.” Do women have the same close friendships that Shakespeare reserved for men in his earlier plays?

* Examine how Demetrius and Lysander both woo Helena: how does their language change from what it once was? Look, too, at the metaphors and imagery they use to woo.

* How do you read Robin Goodfellow (“Puck”): as an unwitting fool who can’t do anything right, or a “wit” who knows what he’s doing and is all the more menacing because of that? Consider, too, his final trick on the lovers in Act 4.

* On the same token, what about Bottom? Is he another witless fool, or is he a true “fool,” and perhaps even something of a tragic figure?

* Why does Shakespeare stage a play-within-a-play in Act 5? What is the effect of watching the audience watch a performance (all of whom are actors)? And what does the Athenian audience say about the performance that might echo what we say about it?

* Does the play end as a true comedy, with marriages and everything set to rights, or is it also like Two Gentlemen, a somewhat uneasy compromise between comedy and tragedy? Do we feel that everyone has received their just desserts? Is everyone sufficiently “happy”? Or are they simply forced to leave the stage?

For Tuesday: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Acts 1-2

NOTE: A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play that is constantly pitting different worlds against one another, as van Es explained in his book. So you will find the word of the forest/faeries (Oberon, Titania, Puck, etc.) vs. the world of upper-class Athens (Theseus, Hermia, Lysander, etc.) vs. the world of lower-class Athens (Bottom, Flute, Snout, etc.). To complicate matters, Theseus and Hippolyta are figures from Greek myth, though they exist side-by-side with the upper and lower-class characters in Athens who are really characters from Shakespeare's England. When these worlds mix, chaos--and comedy--ensue. 

* How do the paired lovers disucss the rules and ideals of love in the First Act? Consider especially Helena's speech in 1.1, and Egeus' complaint to Theseus at the beginning of the play.

* How is the moon used as a metaphor throughout the first scene regarding love and constancy? Consider Theseus' comment, "Changing faint hymns to the cold fruitless moon" (1.1). 

* Also, consider how characters play with the metaphor of "love as sight" throughout the first Act. For example, Hermia says, "I would my father looked but with my eyes," and Helena says, "Were the world mine, Demetrius being bated,/The rest I'd give to be to you translated" (1.1). 

* How do the "rustics" (the low class players) satirize the idea of acting and perhaps of Shakespeare's own theater? 

* The low class characters often use "malapropisms," which is the misuse of a word. Why are such mistakes funny? How would Bevis explain this? 

* Read Titania's speech in 2.1 carefully. What does this say about her character and about the nature of love itself? How does it offer a commentary on many of the themes/metaphors of Act 1? 

* How do the Spirits and they're arguments/conflicts echo that of the human world in Act 1? Consider the connections between Egeus and Oberon, and Titania and Hermia, etc. 

* Though prose and verse are pretty strictly followed in these Acts (verse for upper class, prose for lower), the use of verse often breaks from imabic pentameter into couplets and songs. Why does Shakespeare employ so many variations of poetry throughout Acts 1 and especially 2? 

For Tuesday: van Es, Shakespeare's Comedies: Intro, and Chapters 1-2

Okay, time to finally crack open our next book: Shakespeare's Comedies, which will give us insight into the historical period Shakespeare wrote in, as well as more food for thought about comedy and comedic conventions. Read the first 48 pages or so (no punishment if you don't get to the end), and consider some of the following ideas--one of which we'll write about in class:

* How did comedy as an art form change as Shakespeare was writing? How do his plays seem to reflect this?

* How did later generations view the 'problems' of Shakespeare's comedies? Do we find the same things problematic?

* What is the general rule for producing Shakespeare these days? Why are we less worried about "historical" accuracy and sentiment?

* What does van Es mean when he writes, "[the] strange quality of space is one of the reasons that there have been so few critically acclaimed films made of the comedies" (23). Why is space such an important factor in the comedies? Related to this, why are they often referred to as "dreamlike"? 

* The writer George Meredith claims that "some degree of sociial equality of the sexes is necessary for comedy to thrive" (27). Why is this? How might this explain the need for women to cross-dress so often in his plays?

* Shakespeare likes to "set a first world against a second world" in his plays, such as we see in The Two Gentlemen of Verona: the world of the court and the world of the forest (where the outlaws live). Why is this also important for comedy and to explore the social values of his time?

* According to van Es, what is the distinction between humor and wit? Does this jive with Bevis' ideas on the subject?

* van Es uses The Two Gentlemen as an example of Shakespeare's more dated use of wit. Why doesn't this translate as well for modern audiences? What are we missing when we hear this or see it on stage?

* According to Freud, what is the difference between humor and jokes? How does one relate to our "unconscious" thoughts and desires?

* In a passage that seems to echo Bevis' book, how does comedy play on social taboos and desires? In Shakespeare specifically, how does this play into his discussion of women's virtue? 

Short Paper #1: Comedic Personas

William Holman Hunt's depiction of Act V of The Two Gentlemen of Verona (the "happy" ending)

“By the time the comedy has ended, the lesson seems to have been that character is not something you are, but something you play. Many comedies have been entranced by the image of a person who never quite coincides with themselves, even when that person is at their most single-minded” (Bevis 38).

For your first Short Paper, I want you to write a character study of ONE character/role in The Two Gentlemen of Verona. In this paper, I want you to explain why this character is “funny,” or comical, or absurd through their inability to play their given role in the play.

By their “given” role, you might examine one or more of the following…

• Their identity in a relationship (a friend, a lover, a son, a daughter),
• Their identity in society (a gentleman, a gentlewoman, a servant),
• Their identity in language (prose and verse).

Comedy often comes from people acting against type, or what we expect them to perform in a given situation. Language allows Shakespeare to take this to another level, since who someone is can be undercut by what they say and how the language “creates” their reality (to quote George Constanza from Seinfeld, “it’s not a lie if you believe it”). To make this convincing, choose 2-3 passages that you can close read to help us see how you read the character’s conflicting character, and who they are throughout the play (even if this persona changes from one act to another). Why do they shift personas? What makes them ‘betray’ themselves and others? And how aware are they of these transformations? Does anyone else see them? Are they made aware of it? Do they listen?

REQUIREMENTS

• Quote from Bevis, Comedy: A Very Short Introduction to help analyze the character and the play. Don’t just use the quote above as your one and only “source!” Show me that you can make both books “talk” to each other.
• Close read 2-3 passages from the play to illustrate the character’s persona.
• Cite page or line numbers properly and include a Works Cited page for both books.
• DUE IN-CLASS on Thursday, February 15^th (we will discuss it in class)

For Thursday: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Acts 3-5

Finish the play for Thursday, and if you feel bogged down by lines you don't understand, don't feel afraid to skip (since you wouldn't catch everything in a performance, either). Look for passages you do understand and try to examine them more closely.

As always, look at how Shakespeare uses language:
* When does the language seem more noble, passionate, or poetic than usual?
* When does it descend into the most common, rambling (but hilarious) prose?
* When do characters seem to be speaking in clichés? Saying what "sounds" good rather than what makes sense?
* When are characters cracking jokes to the audience? Look for "asides"

Also, consider some of the following...

* Proteus is the biggest actor in the play: how many roles does he actually play? How many people is he deceiving? Consider Sylvia's line at the end of the play to him: "better have none/Than plural faith, which is too much by one" (5.4.51-52).

* Lance returns in Act 4, scene 4 for another big scene with Crab, which is typically hilarious. Yet it is also touching, much more so than his last one. How does Shakespeare ennoble Lance through his seemingly artless prose? How does he emerge as a more heroic figure than Proteus here?

* Julia transforms dramatically from Act 1 to Act 4-5. What allows her to do this? Is this consistent with her character? Or is she learning to 'act' like Proteus, her lover?

* Why are the women more constant than the men? Is this a convention of the time (women are virtuous, innocent, etc.), or should we read more into this?

* How does Proteus instruct Thurio to woo Sylvia? How does it do it himself? What does this say about the conventions of lovemaking in Shakespeare's time? Do these work on Sylvia?

* How does the play satirize the relationship between masters and servants, particularly when so many servants are "masters" (Proteus acting as Thurio's servant in love; Julia acting as Proteus' servant, etc.)?

* When Valentine is offered the leadership of the outlaws, he makes them promise to "do not outrages/On silly women or poor passengers" (4.2.). So why does he excuse Proteus' behavior to Sylvia--and once forgiven, even offer to give Sylvia over to her body and soul?

* Why doesn't Sylvia speak again in the play after the rape attempt? What do you think she's doing in the rest of the act, since she's still there--just silent?

* Does this play end as a comedy--or as something different? What would modern audiences make of it?

For Tuesday: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Acts 1-2

A 2014 RSC Produc tion of The Two Gentlemen

In class on Thursday, we watched the First Act of The Two Gentlemen of Verona in a 1983 BBC production to discuss how to "see" the wit and comedy in his language. Be sure to read the post below this one, which discusses the difference between prose and verse in his plays--this will be VERY important for our discussions, esp. on Tuesday. Consider, too, some of the ideas below for our in-class writing on Tuesday, which will ask you to write about one of them:

* Bevis writes that "one of comedy's most frequent and enduring topics is the vexed, intimate relationship between the rulers and the ruled" (67). How do we see this in the first two acts? What is being made fun of about this relationship?

* Which comic characters emerges as fools? Unwitting fools? How can we tell?

* Bevis writes that "Being in love it itself a comic double act. The couple rely on wit to gain some mastery over feelings that they cannot quite control" (26). What scene seems to embody this quality of comedy? 

* Bevis also writes that comedy is discusrive, not always concerned about telling a methodical, logical plot. Which scenes seem the most pointless or out-of-place to you? Why might Shakespeare have included them?

* How does the play satirize the conventions of love even while making the characters fall in love? In other words, how is Shakespeare making us laugh at ourselves when we fall in love in order to better understand how and why we do it? 

* What parts of the play transcend the page? That is, what would have to be seen or acted to truly be funny? You might consider a character like Crab, who is said to be the greatest non-speaking role in Shakespeare. 

* Like many of Shakespeare's early comedies, we find pairs of men and women: Julia and Sylvia; Valentine and Proteus. This can be confusuing for a modern audience, since we mistake one for the other--and on the page, it's hard to distinguish each one's characteristics. Why might pairs of young people in love lend themselves well to comedy or comedic situations/accidents?

* Bevis reminds us that in comedy, "a mistake is often something you secretly want to make" (18). Where do we see such mistakes in this play? 

Reading Verse and Prose in Shakespeare’s Plays

The fun of reading Shakespeare is less in the plot (most of which he borrowed from other sources) than in his characters and their language.  In Shakespeare, characters speak a mixture of poetry and prose, though at different times and for different reasons.  Conventional wisdom says that the upper classes speak verse and the lower classes speak prose.  However, this crude distinction would make for a very boring kind of drama, especially since the Shakespearean stage was bare by modern standards: the language ‘clothed’ the actors and helped us see who they were (classes, personalities, ideas) as well as characters’ relationships to one another.  Characters often switch from prose to verse and back again depending on whom they’re speaking to or who they are in a given situation.  The language is another actor on stage.  

PROSE: You can tell if a character is speaking in prose since the sentences look normal: that is, they go from one side of the page to the other.  Also there is no strict meter or rhythm (though prose can be very poetic!).  Prose is often used by the lower classes, though just as often between intimates (Beatrice and Benedick), among people being serious or honest, or when people are alone with their thoughts.  It’s often used as a way to create a comedic atmosphere, since prose is closer to the earth, whereas verse exalts common speech to a more poetic realm. 

VERSE: Verse is used for various reasons in Shakespeare: to invoke a more ‘epic’ character, to speak of love, or for formality.  Often, this puts us in a more tragic frame of mind, which can happen even in the comedies.  Characters typically speak verse to their superiors or in a courtly/public setting; however, some characters never switch into prose (perhaps due to insecurity?) and even think in verse.  You can tell if a character is speaking verse by the way the sentences are presented on the page.  For example, in Much Ado About Nothing, we find:

PEDRO:          Dost thou affect her, Claudio?

CLAUDIO:                                                     O my lord,

                        When you went onward on this ended action,

                        I looked upon her with a soldier’s eye,

                        That liked, but had a rougher task at hand

                        Than to drive liking to the name of love (I.1.280-294). 

These lines are in iambic pentameter.  An “iamb” means an unstressed + a stressed syllable.  “Pentameter” means a meter of five iambs.  So each line should have roughly 10 syllables, starting with an unstressed one followed by a stressed, etc.  For example, Pedro speaks 8 syllables: “dost THOU ah-FECKT her CLAU-dee-OH?”  Claudio then finishes the line with “o MY lord,” which makes it 11 syllables, which is okay (possibly Shakespeare’s actors pronounced Claudio with 2 syllables, though sometimes he uses an 11-syllable line).  This is interesting since characters are part of one large poem, their sounds and thoughts often echoing one another. 

Sometimes, Shakespeare will depart from iambic pentameter for songs or other significant moments.  But generally, he uses iambic pentameter to give his plays their unique rhythm and poetry.  As you read, note how he shifts from poetry to prose, who speaks what, and when, and why.  Often how one speaks is just as important as what one says.  

For Thursday: Bevis, Chapters 4 & 5

As usual, here are a few ideas to consider as you read through the next two chapters on "Plotting Mischief" and "Underdogs":

* Why is the nature of a joke a frustrated expectation--or an unexpected surprise? How is this beneficial for society as a way of "maintain[ing] data integrity"?

* Why can we consider a joke as much HOW it is told as what is told? Why is delivery so important?

* Chapter 3 talked a bit about love as a form of comedy, and in Chapter 4 we learn that "to be in love is to have lost the plot" (52). What does this mean? How does this help make love comedic--and the reason we have romantic comedies, and not as many romantic tragedies?

* What does Bevis mean by saying "Comedy is often a story in which people can believe their luck" (53)?

* E.M. Forster said that "In a novel there is always a clock," but the clock in a comedy doesn't run in a normal fashion (unlike tragedy, which is run on a dramatic, methodical tempo). Why is time so skewed in comedy? And why is comedy not exactly about getting to the point?

* How does the film, Groundhog Day, provide a metaphor for the very philosophy of comedy? What does he learn that anyone who finds themselves in a comedy would learn?

* Why does comedy make more sense from the perspective of an underdog? Why do we have less comedies of the upper classes, rather than the lower (or middle)?

* The word philosopher invites the pun "foolosopher," which many "fools" in plays and movies certainly warrant. Why is the fool--the one who cracks the jokes--often the wisest man or woman in the room?

* What are the two types of fools in plays, particularly Shakespeare's? Why is one more 'foolish' than the other?

* Why did comedy develop past merely laughing at the fool to imagining "what it would feel like to be a fool or clown" (71)?

* Is it true that we can really only laugh at ourselves? Is that the essence of comedy (again, the idea of identity)?

Short Presentation Assignment

“Comedy characteristically begins with desire before encouraging us to laugh at it, but—in doing so—it can also reconcile us to desire, make it somehow easier to live with” (Bevis 18).

On Week 3, I want to spend both classes presenting short examples of comedy from throughout our culture as curated by you, the students (the true experts on modern comedy!). I want you to find a short clip, maybe 3-5 minutes long, from something you find particularly funny. It can be anything: a show, a movie, a skit, a stand-up comic, a song, etc, so long as we can watch it like a spectator. Show it first, and then I want you to briefly answer the following questions for the class:

 

1.      Why is this funny? What makes it comedy?

2.      How is it subversive? Why might someone find it threatening or inappropriate?

3.      Which chapter in Bevis’ book (Chs.1-5) does it most connect to? Find a specific passage or idea from one of these chapters (we’ll discuss them all next week) that made you go “ah ha!” when you watched it. Help us briefly appreciate the connection. 

For example, remember how we watched and discussed the skit, “It’s Business Time” form The Flight of the Conchords. This is a show that makes fun of something very taboo—a couple’s sex life—but also explores the real-life problems that come with routine. It’s not that having a “sex date” is bad, or that marriage is bad, but that sometimes we need to laugh at the absurdity of love to have a healthy relationship with our significant others.

DUE WEEK 3: Tuesday, January 30^th and Thursday, February 1^st (we’ll decide the order in class on Tuesday, so be ready to roll!). Please feel free to e-mail me with any questions or concerns, or come to my office before or after class (or during office hours) for help. Good luck!

For Tuesday: Bevis, Chs. 2 & 3

Be sure to read Chapters 2 & 3 for Tuesday's class, where we'll delve into more theories and ideas about comedy and what we find funny. Here are some questions to consider, one of which may return to haunt you on Tuesday:

* Bevis reminds us that "the comic cannot exist without sensousness'; the comic writer 'fastens our mind upon physical detail'" (21). Why is the body such a source of humor for audiences? Why do we need to be reminded of it--as well as the sensations relating to it--to achieve comedy?

* Why does comedy make more sense on stage than on the page? Why do we often need to 'see' it for it to make sense? Consider that Jorge Luis Borges, the famous writer, suggests that "Humour, I suspect, is an oral genre" (24).

* The word wit comes from the root "witan," which means "to know." How does this tie into the purpose of comedy as discussed in Chapter 1? Do you think this is still true today? Does comedy teach us "to know"?

* What does it mean that "all men are necessarily comic: for they are all things, or physical bodies, behaving as persons" (29). 

* Also, what does it mean to say "the body is the most imaginary of all imaginary objects" (32). Isn't the body the LEAST imaginary of all objects? Or is this a joke in itself?

* Bevis writes that comedy "is frequently born from the disparity between what a person is and what he affects to be" (39). Why is this funny, and how does this relate to the concept of one's "character"? 

* What is the difference between a character and a caricature? 

* Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying "One's real life is so often the life that one does not lead" (43). How might this explain the appeal of comedy and of the characters in a comedy?