For Tuesday: Othello, Acts 2-3

Answer TWO of the following (I couldn't narrow it down to only 4 questions this time--so take one extra question to grow on!): 

Q1: How does Iago use language and insinuation to create doubt in Scene 2? How can we see an ulterior motive—and a double meaning—in every conversation he has with another character (and even, perhaps, the audience)? Discuss on example of this in Act 2.

Q2: After Cassio is disgraced, Iago convinces him to ask Desdemona to intercede on his behalf. When Cassio exits, Iago turns to the audience, and in mock-offense, says, “And what’s he then that says I play the villain” (49). Read this speech closely and explain his ‘defense’ to the audience. How is he trying to defend his own character/reputation here, while at the same time laying out his secret plan against Othello?

Q3: What information do you feel ultimately ‘turns’ Othello from trusting husband to jealous cuckold? He tells Iago at one point, “No, Iago/I’ll see before I doubt; when I doubt, prove;/And on the proof there is no more but this:/Away at once with love or jealousy!” (59). Since he never sees proof, what makes him choose jealousy over love?

Q4: Related to the above, some African-American actors have refused to play Othello, seeing him ultimately as a racist stereotype of a black man, full of wild moods and sensuous appetites. We see this change in his character in Act 3, when the noble, poetic Othello becomes increasingly brooding and vicious. How do you think a 21st century audience should read Othello here? Can we excuse him (either Shakespeare or Othello)?

Q5: What kind of woman is Emilia, and who’s side do you feel she’s ultimately on: Desdemona/Othello’s, or her husband’s? How much does she actually understand of the plot? You might also consider her lines to Desdemona: “[Men] are all but stomachs, and we all but food;/They eat us hungerly, and when they are full/They belch us” (72). 

For Tuesday (after Spring Break): de Sousa, Love, Chapter 4: “Reasons”

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In his quest to explain our reasons for falling in love, de Sousa suggests that it “is the process of perpetual change that will preserve the continuity of love” (71). How might this complicate the notion of “love at first sight,” and even the idea that we fall in love from the outside-in? Do you agree with this?

Q2: Is the concept of love itself objectifying to women? de Sousa notes that “Some feminists have disparaged love as a cruel hoax, because no single lover has the strength to overcome the tendency to ‘objectify’ women, making their desirability contingent on their playing traditional and often submissive roles” (69). Even in Stage Beauty, Kynaston suggests that someone is always the man, and someone always the woman. So is the way we think about and experience love inherently flawed? Is there a way to love as equals?

Q3: Freud suggests that many of our emotions, particularly love, have more to do with “transference” rather than choice or reason. Do you think this helps account for love at first sight? Falling in love with someone who looks/acts like your father or mother? Or are we constantly seeking to fall in love with our first love again? Could this be true for any of Shakespeare’s lovers?

Q4: When we claim that “I want to be loved for who I am,” what does this truly mean? What is your fundamental identity? And are you able to see this as clearly as someone else (considering that anyone can see your face better than you can)? As de Sousa writes, “Whose authority counts for most in deciding what is most essential about you?” (58). What if you want to be loved for your beauty, but someone else falls in love with you for your wit? Are they seeing the “wrong” you?

Schedule Change and Paper #2

If you missed class on Tuesday, we started watching the film Stage Beauty about the death of male-female actors on the English stage. We'll finish up on Thursday and discuss. This will be a useful intro to our reading of Othello coming up.

ALSO, I made an error on the revised schedule, so I've had to tweak it again slightly to accommodate my mistake. The revised schedule is below. Beneath that is the Paper #2 assignment, which is due on Friday, March 29th by 5pm (not a class date, but I needed to use Thursday to begin Othello rather than giving you that day off--sorry!). 

T 12:   Film: Stage Beauty

R 14:   Film: Stage Beauty/Discussion

T 19:   Spring Break

R 21:   Spring Break

T 26:   Sousa, Love, Chapter 4, “Reasons”

R 28:   Shakespeare, Othello, Act 1

           

[F 29: Paper #2 due by 5pm]

 

APRIL

T 2:     Shakespeare, Othello, Acts 2-3

R 4:     Scissortail Creative Writing Festival [no class]

T 9:     Shakespeare, Othello, Acts 4-5

R 11:   Wells, Shakespeare, Chapters 6-8 

T 16:    Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Act 1

R 18:   Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Acts 2-3

T 23:    Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, Acts 4-5

R 25:   Wrap-Up Discussion

T 30:    Group Presentations / Assignment due

R 2:     Group Presentations / Assignment due

Final Exam: Thursday, May 9 @ 9:00

Shakespeare Paper #2: The Language of Love

“Our loves are as accidental as the rest of life. But this is unlikely to be comforting for the beloved who wants to feel special, and it makes for an uncommonly feeble defense of the claim that we love for reasons” (de Sousa, Chapter 4: “Reasons”).

THE PROMPT: For your second paper, I want you to examine TWO of the following lovers in the plays we’ve read: Juliet, Romeo, Paris, Viola, Olivia, Orsino, Malvolio, Sebastian, Antonio. Though these aren’t all the characters who could be in love in their respective plays, they at least talk about love, and Shakespeare’s language allows us to characterize them according to what they say and how they say it. So that’s what I want you to do: write about how Shakespeare creates these lovers through their language: what are their “reasons” for falling in love, and how do they argue and persuade others (and themselves) that their love is real? Are we supposed to be seduced by their poetry into feeling the same emotion? Or does it ring false? How can we tell what ‘real’ love sounds like in Shakespeare?

HINTS: Be sure to close read a few speeches from each character, and focus on the small details of their language—their imagery, metaphors, clichés, rhymes, tone, and mode (verse or prose). You might choose two lovers who complement one another, are variations of one another, or sharply contrast with one another. For example, Romeo and Orsino have a lot in common, while Juliet and Malvolio seem to be drastically different. What can we learn from examining such pairs of counterparts and opposites? Do they use similar linguistic thumbprints (metaphors, images, words)? Do they borrow the language of The Sonnets?

SOURCES: To aid you in this discussion, you must use de Sousa’s Love: A Very Short Introduction as support, and you might particularly focus on Chapter 4, which focuses on the reasons (both physical and philosophical) that we fall in love. Use his ideas and language to help you see things you might not otherwise see, and don’t be afraid to use his terminology as well. Additionally, you must use at least ONE biographical source to help you consider what Shakespeare, the writer, may have been up to in creating these characters. Biographical sources could be either Wells’ Shakespeare: A Very Short Introduction, or any of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Remember, the goal of secondary sources is to enlarge the conversation and help you consider multiple perspectives rather than just your own.

REQUIREMENS

• 4-5 pages, double spaced
• Must discuss two distinct characters (no more, no less)
• Must use de Sousa’s text and one other ‘biographical’ source
• Cite sources according to MLA format with a Works Cited
• Due the Friday after Spring Break, March 29^th by 5pm