Final Post: Drawing the Curtain...

Sadly, our course has reached its conclusion, even though we can't formally meet to bid it adieu. I normally like to give out a few free books at the end of the semester, but that simply isn't possible with our current COVID reality. So let me just say, as I have in my earlier e-mail, how much I appreciate your hard work and dedication this semester, and for giving me the opportunity to share my love of Shakespeare with you. Of all the writers I teach, Shakespeare is the one I return to the most, and I consistently get the most out of. That's because you never get to the bottom of his work. I simply can't believe that someone over 500 years ago wrote plays that feel so modern (despite the language and some contextual details) and can move me to laugh, cry, or simply feel awe so easily. So thanks for coming along for the ride and showing me new things to see, experience, and talk about.

Before you go, check out these brief clips from BBC's famous comedy, Upstart Crow, which is a humorous look into the 'real' Shakespeare and the issues he wrote about. It's not biographical by any means, but it does shed some humorous light on why we continue to find Shakespeare a compelling playwright. Enjoy!

Last Lecture Video for Antony and Cleopatra, Acts 4-5

This is the LAST video I'll make you watch for our Shakespeare class! It's just an overview of some big themes in the last two acts that I hope will help you write the final paper. Be sure to read over the Paper #3/Final assignment in the post below this one--that paper is due Friday, May 8th by 5pm (or earlier). Meanwhile, watch this video and answer the question that follow as a post...and that's it! 

Respond to this as a comment below: Using Antony's 'castles in the cloud' metaphor, can you think of a character in a modern movie, show, or book that didn't live up to his or her legend? One that seemed to blow away like smoke when the story looked a bit closer (or the story reached its climax)? Why do you think the story failed the character--or the character failed the story? Why were we (the audience) disappointed? 

Final Exam/Paper #3 Assignment

In Chapter 9, “Endings” from Poole’s Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, he writes,

Death is promiscuous in tragedy. It engulfs the good, the bad, and the indifferent without regard to their mortal qualities, the Cordelias as well as the Gonerils and the Regans. There is no justice we can recognize in the way war, famine, and plague choose their victims. That’s what happens with weapons of mass destruction—they do not discriminate. The ‘evil’ that tragedy shows us is a realistic assessment of the way individuals are destroyed with no regard to whether they deserve it or not (118).

For your Final Paper (and Final Exam, so to speak), I want you to use King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra to respond to Poole’s idea: what are we supposed to learn from the deaths in both plays? Good people are maimed and killed in each play (Gloucester, Cordelia, Enobarbus) and several ‘evil’ people get their comeuppance (Edmund, the sisters, Lear? Cleopatra?). Of course, plenty of people don’t die at all, and the balance of good vs. bad people doesn’t lend itself to an easy moral interpretation. Are the deaths random in Shakespeare’s plays, like life itself? Are they staged merely for dramatic effect? Or do they lead to other themes and ideas beyond merely rewarding good and punishing evil? And how do we get catharsis (or relief, justice, satisfaction) by the end of the each play? Do the deaths accomplish this…or do we get it in spite of the deaths?

This is important to think about today, in the midst of COVID-19, which takes the young and the old, the sick and the healthy, the good and the bad. Is Tragedy a mirror or life, merely showing us what we know to be true? Or does it try to make sense out of the random chance and injustice of life? In other words, how does Shakespeare transform death in these plays to achieve his larger purpose?

REQUIREMENTS

• I won’t grade this like a polished paper, but more like a Final Exam you composed in class. So feel free to be a little more messy and extemporaneous. Give yourself a few hours and see what comes out. Though feel free to revise if you can.
• Use BOTH plays, though you can focus more on one than the other.
• Besides the quote above (which you can discuss directly), use Poole elsewhere in your paper to help make your argument. You can also use Wells if you like.
• Length is not an issue--that's up to you. Double space, though, please. 
• DUE NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, MAY 8^th BY 5pm

Please e-mail me with questions and concerns, or simply to talk some of these ideas out with me. I’m still here to help, even if we can’t talk face to face!

Antony and Cleopatra: Acts 2-3

Here is your last actual set of questions for Antony and Cleopatra! I will give a short video lecture/question for Acts 4-5 early next week, but it won't be the normal set of questions (since it is supposed to be Dead Week). So enjoy these last questions and be sure to get them to me no later than next week. 

Q1: How would you stage Act 2, Scene 5, particularly the scenes with Cleopatra and the Messenger? Is this a scene of high comedy, where Cleopatra loses it and acts like a spoiled child? Or is this a deeply tragic scene, where she realizes that the one hold she had over Antony’s affections is lost? Use a line or two to support how you think we’re supposed to read (and stage) this scene.

Q2: When Enobarbus tells the Romans (Maecenas and Agrippa) about Cleopatra, he switches from verse to prose: why does he do this? Also, examine this speech—what does he think about Cleopatra? Does he consider her Antony’s “exotic” whore? Or does he hold her in respect and awe? 

Q3: Though Rome is notoriously racist in its views towards Cleopatra and Egypt, is the same true of Antony? Does he love her in spite of her race, or is he ‘color blind’ when it comes to his affections? How does Act III offer us a definitive portrait of their relationship, especially once the chips are down (after the disastrous naval battle)?

Q4: What role does Enobarbus seem to embody in the play, particularly in Acts 2 and 3? Though he is one of Antony’s most loyal supporters, even he is looking for a way out by the end of Act 3. Does he function somewhat like the Fool in King Lear? Or is he more like Edmund, plotting secretly against his father?

Short Video Lecture for Acts 1-2 of Antony and Cleopatra

Please watch the short video (20 min) on Acts 1-2 of the play, focusing primarily on Cleopatra as an actress, and answer the question that follows as a Comment (or send it with your next set of questions). I'll post questions for Acts 2-3 later this week, but I'll give you time to digest those acts first. But never fear--we're almost done with the course! :) 

QUESTION: How important to you feel it is to make Shakespeare racially accurate in performance? Should Cleopatra be portrayed by African actors only? Or Shylock only by Jewish actors? Considering that in Shakespeare's day women weren't even allowed on stage, is it more important to adhere to the realities of the stage, or the realities of the plot? What do we gain or lose by being more historically or racially-aware? 

Antony and Cleopatra, Act 1

For those interested, here is a short clip from a RSC production of Act 1, Scene 3 to get a sense of how Cleopatra might be portrayed on-stage. It might give you insight into the first question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0B1xgqAdkM

Q1: In many ways, this is a play about acting, and no one acts more extravagantly as Cleopatra. As Enobarbarus (her servant) says about her, "I have seen her die twenty times upon poor moment" (1.2). Why does she spend so much of her time with Antony in 'costume' rather than being more 'real'? Why might a woman like Cleopatra view life as a performance? 

Q2: How do the Romans in the play, such as Caesar, regard Antony's behavior? Though he's a great warrior and clearly a great lover (to win Cleopatra's affections), what makes him seem 'unmanly' to them? How might this relate to other definitions of manhood in Lear and Macbeth? 

Q3: In a tragedy we might expect Antony to be a dramatic and pathetic (in the best sense, as opposite to bathetic); however, Shakespeare's Antony is very different than the typical portrayal of this famous soldier. How might he have more in common in King Lear, Macbeth, Othello, and (from a play we didn't read) Hamlet? What kind of person is he in Act 1?

Q4: In Act 1, we get a brief glimpse of Rome (Scene IV) and several of Egypt. Why is Egypt written almost entirely in prose (except for the lovers), and Rome entirely in verse? Why might Shakespeare want us to hear this tonal and stylistic contrast? 

Short Lecture on Lear and the 'Gods'

NOTE: Be sure to read Chapters 8 from Poole and Wells for next week; the questions are in the post beneath this one. For now, here's a short lecture to round off King Lear and give you some food for thought. 

When you finish, respond with a COMMENT to this question: "Based on this play (and the ideas in the lecture), do you think Shakespeare is a subversive author? Is he trying to actively change people's mind about the world they live in, and they people who rule them? Or is he just a great entertainer, using characters and plot devices that make for good drama? In other words, does he want to change the world...or just make money off it? 

For Tuesday: Poole and Wells, Chapters 8

For next week, be sure to read Chapters 8 from both Poole and Wells' books. Then answer two of the questions below. Don't forget to watch the brief video in the post above as a counterpoint to some of these questions! 

Q1: Wells writes that the blinding of Gloucester, "is the kind of episode that classical dramatists would have been likely to narrate rather than to represent, but Shakespeare wants us to experience its full horror, causing Gloucester himself to compare it to the bearbaiting spectacles in which contemporary audiences delighted" (82-83). Why do you think we need to see the "full horror" of this scene? If Gloucester came in without his eyes, it would still have its effect and the plot would be satisfied. Why do we need to see this act of sheer violence by the sisters? 

Q2: Poole notes that the word crisis comes from the Greek word for "justice," and climax comes from the Greek word for "ladder" (102). Why might tragedy then suggest that you need to climb to the top of the ladder to find justice? How does this explain the events of King Lear? What 'climax' do we have to reach (and on how many rungs?) to achieve justice? And what kind of justice is it?

Q3: Poole also writes that tragedies are about rites of passage, and specifically, rites such as weddings, coronations, death, funerals, etc. He goes on to note that "These things can go wrong. And tragedy represents the moments when they do, when the rites are challenged, thwarted, violated, aborted" (107). How is King Lear a tragedy about aborted/thwarted rites? What rites? And how do they go wrong? Whose fault is it that the rites don't work as planned? 

Q4: Very interestingly, Wells notes the original King Lear that existed before Shakespeare wrote his own play. This play was "heavily Christianized," but for some reason, Shakespeare took all of this out, so he could "use the story as the basis for a fundamental examination of the human condition, of the relationship between man and the physical universe" (78-79). Why do you think he needed to remove the Christian framework to do this? 

Ian McKellan on Lear (brief lecture)

I was all ready to add a new lecture on King Lear for your 'enjoyment,' but then I remembered this one which is not only shorter, but gives real insight into Lear's character and motives. So watch the video below, which is about 10 minutes, and then answer the question below as a comment (or e-mail it to me with your questions):

The Question: discuss the biggest insight you took away about Lear's character from Ian McKellan's discussion. How did this help you read a specific passage or moment in the play? As someone who has played Lear many times, what does he see that the casual reader may have missed? Be specific, don't just say "he helped me understand why he does what he does." Watch closely and think carefully about what someone who has been Lear has to say about the man and his play. 

For Tuesday: King Lear, Acts 4-5

Here are six questions for Acts 4 and 5, since so much happens here! But you still only have to answer two of them for next week. Again, I don't care when you answer them, whether on Tuesday or Thursday, but keep in mind I'll be giving you questions for Thursday as well. If you need extra time to finish the play, don't worry--we'll only be reading a little bit next week from Wells and Poole, so you'll still have time. You don't have to finish exactly for Tuesday since we don't technically have classes anymore! 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: Read Lear’s speech on page 90 (4.6) that begins “Ay, every inch a king!” carefully.  After emerging from the storm, Lear seems both mad and enlightened, speaking nonsense and ‘sense’ in equal terms.  In this speech, however, he goes on a misogynist rant against women and seemingly blames them for his downfall.  What is he specifically accusing women of here, and have we heard this language (or sentiments) in other characters in previous plays? Also, how might this relate to Lear’s interest in sex that Ian McKellan discusses in his video (the post above)?

Q2: In some ways, Cordelia and Edgar are mirror images of one another, each one caring for a damaged father, both exiled, and both of them acting (to some extent).  How might one character help us ‘read’ the other, and how do their paths cross metaphorically—or linguistically—in Act IV? 

Q3: How do we read the marital discord between Albany and Goneril in Act 4, Scene 2?  Is this the first time he’s seeing his wife like this—or has this knowledge been long known by him?  Is she surprised by his sudden sympathy for her father?  How does the language of their argument help us see them both—and particularly Goneril—in a new light?

Q4: In Goneril’s scene with Edmund (Act 4, Scene 2), she says, “Oh, the difference of man and man/To thee a woman’s services are due;/My Fool usurps my body” (179).  How does her definition of man, a definition defined against her husband, help us understand why she and her sister are so drawn to Edmund—and so angry toward their father?  Does this remind you of anything Lady Macbeth says to Macbeth? Are they defining “men” similarly?

Q5: By the end of Act V, Regan is poisoned, Goneril kills herself, Edmund is slain by Edgar, Gloucester’s heart breaks, Cordelia is hung, and Lear dies at her side.  However, many of these deaths were Shakespeare original invention, as the sources for King Lear (including a play of the same name) have Cordelia surviving. Why do you think Shakespeare insisted on doing away with Cordelia? Do we want—or hope for—a happy ending in this play?  Is it another attempt to frustrate our desires or expectations (giving us a play not as we like it?).  Or does Cordelia have to die to make sense of the play? 

Q6: Related to the above question, consider who does survive: Kent, Edgar, and Albany.  Why these men?  And what do you make of Edgar’s enigmatic final line: “The oldest have borne most; we that are young/Shall never see so much, nor live so long” (114)?  Why does he say this when both Kent and Albany are far from “young”?  Or is this statement about some other kind of youth/age?  

For Thursday/Friday: King Lear, Acts 2-3

NOTE: You can answer these any time Thursday or Friday, since we don't really have class on Thursday anymore. E-mail them to me as usual, and I'll post another video to respond to as a 'comment' tomorrow. 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: In Act 2, Scene 4, when Regan and Goneril decide to openly defy their father’s demands, Lear exclaims “I gave you all” (52).  This echoes his later line in the storm when he proclaims, “I am a man/More sinned against than sinning” (58).  Do we agree with Lear here; has he been a good and selfless father?  Or is this line simply meant to be read, “whatever I did in the past, I finally gave you all my land, so what more do you want?”  Do we have any sympathy for the daughters here?  Is this a betrayal—or an ironic reversal of the events of Act 1, Scene 1?  

Q2: How do you account for the extreme cruelty of Act 3, Scene 7, where both sisters and Regan’s husband, Cornwall, gang up on Gloucester?  Though the sisters may have seemed cruel earlier in the play, here they are truly sadistic, taking glee in plucking Gloucester’s beard and removing his eyes.  Why do they do this, and how might earlier scenes have prepared us for this (or explained their motivation)? 

Q3: Act 3, Scene 6, the so-called “trial scene” only appears in the early quarto version of the play (Q1).  The authentic version of Lear was published in the complete version of Shakespeare’s works, the Folio version, in 1623, and this entire scene is missing.  Either Shakespeare thought the better of it and cut it or it simply got lost in translation.  The editors of this version, though following the Folio, decided to reinstate it.  What do we gain from having this scene in the play?  Does it underline or foreshadow important themes or events in the play?  Or is it too much of the same, including a lot of “nothing”?  

Q4: What do you think Edgar’s role in the play is as “Poor Tom”?  Though he has some of the craziest lines in the play, he is clearly acting, as he pops out of character at the End of 3.6 to talk to the audience.  Is he a foil to Lear?  A rival to the Fool?  Or a mirror to Cordelia (especially if she is the Fool)?  

For Tuesday: King Lear, Opening Lecture

The shortish lecture below (20 minutes) is basically what I would have shown  you in class when we started King Lear (sob). However, I basically narrated some big ideas over the powerpoint, and if you watch this first, it might help you answer the questions below (see previous post). However, the lecture is simply designed to give you the feel of being in class and to help pass on some of the information we would have discussed in class. I promise I'll get better at doing them, and as I get better, they'll get shorter. I just had a lot to introduce this first time! I know it might be boring to just sit down and watch the whole thing, so watch some of it, then take a break, or just keep it on in the background. It might prove useful as we get into the play and start writing another paper. 

After you watch it, respond to the following question as a COMMENT below this post (you should able to post anonymously, or you can create a free Blogspot account--it takes just a minute): If you were staging a new performance of King Lear, would you defer more to the Folio (which is the collected version of all of Shakespeare's plays) or one of the Quartos, which was published during his lifetime and while the plays were freshly performed? Which one do you feel is more insightful to the actual play and its author's intentions? 

ALSO--Don't forget to answer two of the four questions in the previous post for Tuesday's class! Life continues, even with the Covid scare hanging over our heads...remember that Shakespeare had to endure many outbreaks of play, and hid away in Stratford for a year while the plague shut down the theaters in London. Social distancing was a way of life even in the 1590's! 

For Tuesday: King Lear, Act 1

Welcome back! Answer two of the following and e-mail them to me sometime by Tuesday (or you can e-mail me both sets of questions by Thursday—since there will be another set posted on Tuesday.)

Q1: Why does Cordelia refuse to play the “how do I love thee?” game with her father? Is she being a petulant brat by saying “nothing,” or is there more method in her madness? Consider also her comment, “for I want that glib and oily art,/To speak and purpose not” (23).

Q2: This play uses prose much more than any of his plays so far, and in some very unusual ways. Discuss a scene where prose is used extensively and explain why you think these characters are using it. What does it help to say about the characters and the scene?

Q3: In scene 2, Edmund proclaims, “Thou, Nature, art my goddess. To thy law/My services are bound” (29). What does he seem to mean by “nature” in this passage, and how might it relate to his role in society as a ‘bastard’?

Q4: Lear is obsessed with labeling people in this play: they are either true or false, loving or spiteful, friends or foes, strangers or daughters. When he thinks Goneril is betraying his love, he asks repeatedly, “Your name, fair gentlewoman?” What makes Lear so paranoid? Are we sympathetic with his suspicions—or is he meant to appear like a madman? (you might also compare him to Macbeth and Titus by the end of their respective plays).

Welcome Back Announcement

Welcome Back (Almost)! I know the class won't be the same as it was, but I do intend to keep reading along with you guys, and giving you questions, a few videos (see below), and one more paper assignment late in the semester. However, here are the changes I propose for the class going forward:

1. I'll try to stick to the TR format, though with a little latitude. I'll post questions for the next class on Tuesday/Thursday, but I won't count you off if you don't e-mail me the questions by next class. You can do that, or you can turn in both sets of questions together (in case you want/need more time). The only thing I won't allow is turning in three sets of questions together, since that would mean you're really far behind. I'll post the first questions for King Lear this Thursday, but you don't have to e-mail them back to me until the following Tuesday, OR on Thursday along with Thursday's questions (which will be posted next Tuesday, as usual). 

2. Once a week, I'll also post a short lecture (10-15 minutes, approx) along with a Powerpoint to highlight aspects of the reading. These are versions of what I would have otherwise done in class, just minus the great discussion.  I think it would be difficult to get everyone in class together to do a live chat, but at least this way, you can still hear me ramble about each work and say the word "interesting" a dozen times.

3. Each lecture will have its own post, and on the post, I'll ask you a short question based on the lecture. Respond to this question as a "comment" on the blog post (you shouldn't need to create an account to do this). Just click on "comments" on the bottom of the post and write your own. This will replace your Participation grade since you obviously won't be able to come to class and talk in any other way. 

4. I've almost finished grading all the Shakespeare #2 papers, and I e-mailed them back to everyone except for 3 or 4 of you. I should be finished by tomorrow (Tuesday). Check your ECU e-mail and make sure you have it. If not, let me know and I'll resend it. You can revise these for a higher grade any time this semester as usual. 

PLEASE write me with any questions or concerns, and I'll be happy to help. The recorded lectures will be in Zoom, so if you want to chat, I can also open up a Zoom chat at any time, in lieu of coming to my office. I'll post the lecture on King Lear, Acts One-Two in a day or two, so be sure to watch it and respond with your comment. 

Hope everyone is doing okay and I look forward to reading your work again! I miss our class and hope that we can all have a face-to-face class together again soon, if only in the Fall semester.

--Joshua Grasso

Thursday's class--the same as Tuesday (see below)

No new work for Thursday: I want to cover Chapter 7 from both books, so if you haven't read them, you get one more chance! Be careful about missing responses, since you get two without penalty, but some of you are going beyond that. The questions are in the post below this one.

See you tomorrow--unless the lights go out again! :) 

For Tuesday: Chapter 7 from Poole and Wells

Be sure to read Wells' Chapter 7, "Macbeth" and Poole's Chapter 7, "Words, words, words" for Tuesday's class. Here are some questions to ponder as you read--answer two as usual for our next class.

Q1: Poole references the famous scene in Macbeth (4.3) when the Messenger tells Macduff about the death of his wife and children. He notes that "This is an important and recurring scene in tragedy. Something terrible happens off-stage, and a messenger must bring the bad news to the nearest and dearest" (86). Why do you think this is such a popular and effective stock scene? Why does Shakespeare use it over and over again in his own plays? 

Q2: Wells notes that Macbeth's "worst crimes are committed with none of the awareness of evil he had felt in contemplating the murder of Duncan" (72). Considering all the anguish he endures (complete with floating daggers) upon killing Duncan, why are the subsequent murders dispatched so quickly and without remark? Even when his wife dies (which he may or may not have had a hand in), he notes, "she should have died hereafter." Why are the 'worst' crimes the easiest for him to ignore?

Q3: Despite being "the most obviously topical--and to that extent dated--of Shakespeare's plays," Macbeth is surprisingly universal, spawning a number of retellings, many of them as famous as Shakespeare's version itself (such as Kurosawa's film, Throne of Blood). According to Wells, what makes the play so translatable and universal? Why is it more than a witch play meant to capitalize on the king's taste for the occult?

Q4: What role does silence and wordless sounds play in tragedy? Why does Shakespeare employ so many exclamations and empty words such as "alas," "alack" and the infamous "O!"? Why in some cases are words simply not enough?

Q5: On the flip side of Q4, why do plays often make people speak through moments of unbearable tragedy, when in real life we would simply scream or faint? Why do we sometimes need words in these impossible situations? What do they help us see or experience? 

For Thursday: Macbeth, Acts 4-5

Sorry, I couldn't narrow it down to four questions today, but you still only have to answer two of them. Enjoy! 

Q1: In Act 4, scene 3, Malcolm tells Macduff that "black Macbeth/will seem as pure as snow, and the poor state/Esteem him as a lamb, being compared/With my confineless harms...there's no bottom, none/In my voluptousness" (143). Why does he threaten to be an even worse ruler than Macbeth, and vow to debauch women, ruin men, and destroy order?

Q2: In Scene 2, Lady Macduff tells her son that Macduff (who has fled lest he be killed by Macbeth) is "dead" and "a traitor." Why does she say this, especially as her son knows that neither of them are true. Is she joking with him, or being deadly serious? You might also account for her line, "Why, I can buy me twenty [husbands] at any market."

Q1: Is it significant that the witches disappear in Act Five? If they are the moral, supernatural force of the play, shouldn’t they have a concluding chorus (especially since they open the play)? And if they’re simply evil, human creatures, shouldn’t they be brought to justice, or killed off-stage? Why do you think they are entirely banished in Act Five, never to be heard from again?

Q3: Discuss Lady Macbeth’s final words/appearance in 5.1. Considering how much time and power Shakespeare lavished on her throughout the play, is this a fitting end for her? Why does she devolve into a hand-scrubbing madwoman? If she is the mastermind of the plot, why does she go mad and not Macbeth (who if anything, becomes more cruelly lucid as the play continues)?

Q4: In her “Modern Perspective” reading of Macbeth, Susan Synder points out that “Macbeth...is preoccupied less with the protagonist’s initial choice of a relatively unambiguous wrong action than with the mental decline that follows” (206). In many plays and stories, we can argue about what the right action is, and how one person’s ‘right’ is another one’s ‘wrong.’ Why in Macbeth does Shakespeare make this easy for us? What might this say about what interests Shakespeare in storytelling and in the theater?

Paper #2: Playing Tragedy

Shakespeare typically uses borrowed plots, characters, and even scenes in his plays, since in the Elizabethan/Jacobean era, originality wasn’t as important as it is today (in fact, the more familiar, the better it sold). However, he was also a tireless experimenter, and never wrote the same character or scene twice—at least, not without subtle modifications. When we read Shakespeare’s plays, we experience a powerful sense of déjà vu, yet if we look closer, the resemblances become less important than the distinctions. This is certainly true of plays such as Titus Andronicus and Macbeth, both bloody tragedies about the seizing of power and of obtaining revenge, which could be two versions of the same play. And yet…

For this assignment, pick two scenes in both plays that resemble each other in general outline, theme, or action. They don’t have to be exactly alike, but they should be scenes that create that same sense of familiarity, of “hey, haven’t I seen this before?” Discuss what both scenes have in common—what general structure, characters, themes, language, and plot devices. It could be as simple as a speech that is common to both scenes. Then discuss how Shakespeare experimented on the earlier scene (Titus) in the later work (Macbeth). How did he change the language, characters, action, relationships, or even outcomes in the later play? How does this attest to his growing awareness of the possibilities of tragedy, and how he wanted his audience to respond to the events on stage?

Be sure to use Poole and/or Wells in your discussion to help us ‘see’ these similarities and distinctions. Remember, we’re trying to understand why Shakespeare did what he did, and not just what he did. So the gist of your paper should not be plot summary (or any kind of summary) but an analysis of the small details of each scene. For longer scenes, you can focus on just a small moment or two—don’t feel the need to cover everything that happens.

REQUIREMENTS

·        At least 4-5 pages double spaced

·        Quotes and analysis from both plays; don’t rely on summary to make your points

·        Use of Poole and/or Wells in your discussion for support

·        DUE Thursday, March 12^th by 5pm [we do have class that day]

For Tuesday: Macbeth, Acts 2-3

NOTE: There are five questions to choose from this time, since there's SO MUCH going on in these two acts. But never fear, you only have to answer TWO of them as usual:

Q1: One of the most famous speeches in the play is Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” in Act 2.1. Read this speech carefully and discuss the syntax of a particular line that would be difficult to translate into modern English. Why is this? What is Shakespeare trying to show us through this difficult line?

Q2: The Porter is the only character who speaks prose (other than Lady Macbeth’s letter), which makes sense, since he is merely a servant. Why does he get so much stage time when all he does is open a door? What does his speech—silly as it is—do for the play, or the scene?

Q3: Act 3.5, the scene with Hecate, is largely considered to be the work of Thomas Middleton, a contemporary playwright who wrote a play about witches at roughly the same time of Macbeth, and added this scene to increase the witch mania of the time. In reading this scene, does anything strike you as different from the rest of the play? The language? Metaphors? Characterization? Or would you have assumed that Shakespeare wrote this, too?

Q4: How informed is Lady Macbeth about the murder of Banquo and the attempted murder on Fleance (his son)? Is she still the mastermind of the play, or has Macbeth usurped her role? Is there any way to tell who’s calling the shots at this point?

Q5: The “Murderers” that Macbeth hires in 3.1 aren’t really murderers at this point in the play (it’s clear that they haven’t murdered before, and are not professional assassins). How does Macbeth convince them to murder Banquo and/or how does he justify it to himself? Why, too, does he hire murderers now instead of doing the job himself, as he did with Duncan?

For Thursday: Macbeth, Act One (see below)

NOTE: Sorry--I forgot to post questions for Thursday! Since I forgot, we'll just do an in-class writing when you arrive. My apologies--I had too many balls in the air! :( 

So be sure to read Act One for Thursday, and we'll also watch a brief clip from a production of Macbeth to visualize it. See you then! 

For Tuesday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapter 6 & Wells, Shakespeare's Tragedies, Chapter 2

Read these two short chapters for Tuesday's class so we can discuss what others think of Titus, and some alternative theories for why the play is so funny (intentionally or unintentionally so!). 

Answer two of the following as usual, even though I offered you five questions (there's a lot to talk about!):

Q1: Wells notes that despite being a run-away success in its day, Titus Andronicus has been almost unanimously reviled by critics until the mid-20th century, with comments like "[it is] one of the stupidest and most uninspired plays every written" (16). What changed? How did people start to a see a different side of Titus, according to Wells? Do you think he agrees? Does he seem to personally like the play?

Q2: According to Chapter 6, everything in the modern world has become "flattened," so that instead of classical tragedy we tend to get "pseudo-tragedy." So what is the proper subject of tragedy today? What makes tragedy seem 'real' on the stage (or on the screen) today?

Q3: What does Poole mean by the statement, "first time tragedy, second time farce"? How could something tragic become silly by mere repetition? Does this mean Hamlet gets funnier the second time around? 

Q4: Many speeches and scenes of Shakespeare are cut either for time or because they seem perversely undramatic. The scene in Act 2, scene 4, when Marcus responds to Lavinia's rape, is often seen as "consciously artificial writing" (19). But how can even this 'bad' scene become effective and interesting from another perspective? 

Q5: Poole writes that laughter in a tragedy is more than comic relief; indeed, it performs an essential function in a play where the gods (or some other cosmic force) seeks to crush the spirit of mortals. What else does comedy or laughter do in a tragedy, and how might this relate to Titus Andronicus? 

For Thursday: Titus Andronicus, Acts 4-5

[Sorry for the late post! For some reason it didn't post yesterday...] 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Act 4, Scene 3 offers us a refreshing breeze of prose through the character of the Country Fellow. This is the first time he uses prose in the play, and is rare in his early plays. Why do you think he does this? What effect does it have on the play, and in particular, the events of Act Four?

Q2: In Alexander Leggatt’s brief essay on the play (in the back of the book), he writes that “The extravagance of the play’s action takes it to the edge of grotesque comedy. For Aaron, peering through the wall that signifies his detachment, it is a comedy” (249). How does Act 5 seem to underline Aaron’s view of the play—or life itself—as a comedy staged for his benefit? Why might this prove that Aaron could actually be played by the comic actor of the troupe?

Q3: How would you advise the actors play the elaborate meeting between Titus and Revenge in Act 5, Scene 2: as a tense, thrilling drama or as farcical slapstick? Is Titus cunning to see through the disguises of Tamora and her sons, or are the disguises really so bad that anyone could see through them? How does the language help us understand how to stage this extremely bizarre scene?

Q4: Leggatt, writing about Lavinia’s death, notes that “The last we hear of Lavinia is Lucius’ command to bury his father and sister in the family tomb. She is released from an intolerable life, but she is also absorbed into the patriarchal world that was implicated in her suffering” (246). How do the men in the play speak about the deaths of both women in the play, allowing them to be “absorbed” in the same manner?