For Tuesday: Titus Andronicus, Act One

NOTE: Shakespeare's earlier works can be slightly harder to read, so be sure to read the side notes carefully as you go along. Often, a single metaphor can help you ‘paint’ the scene, so make sure you understand the images and allusions Shakespeare writes into his characters’ lines. Try reading out loud if you have difficulty so you can hear the lines and imagine how they should be spoken. Also note that the side notes summarize each scene to give you the basic lay of the land.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Take one of the longer speeches and read it carefully, like a self-enclosed poem. What sounds or strange syntax jump out at you? What metaphors stick in the brain? What do you think might be the "message" of this poem to the audience? How does it paint the character's ideas and motives? 

Q2: In many ways, this is a play about the relationship between fathers/mothers and their children. How do Titus and Tamora differ in their approach to these roles? Why might this be problematic for a play where Titus is the supposed “hero” of the play and Tamora the “villain”?

Q3: Titus is an odd character, representing a strange notion of honor and loyalty. Why do you think Shakespeare makes him refuse the emperorship, and then support Saturninus (who has physically threatened him) over Bassianus (who has been much kinder)? How are we supposed to respond as an audience to Titus in the First Act? Why might this be?

Q4: Somewhat related to Q2, is Tamora a sympathetic character? Consider her speech around line 443, where she talks privately to Saturninus. Is she at all in the "right" in this act? Can we consider her a character like Shylock, who though pursuing a "wrong" course, has a certain amount of justice on her side? 

For Thursday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapters 4-5

NOTE: Be sure to see the Paper #1 assignment in the post below this one if you missed class on Tuesday

Answer TWO of the following for Thursday's class (bring them to class!). This will be our last reading for a week, so you've earned a nice break until we get to Titus Andronicus in February! 

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

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

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

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

Paper #1: Staging Tragedy

From Spiegelman's Maus, a modern tragedy

“Tragedy can be defined as a spectacle under the permanent observation of a deity.” But how can we be sure? How do we know?” (Poole, Tragedy, Ch.2)

For your first paper, I want you to use Poole’s book to help you examine a modern artistic tragedy (a film, a book, a piece of music, a game, etc.) from the last forty years or so. Nothing from the ancient world or a time where the gods and poetry was taken for granted. Whatever you choose, try to examine what makes it a tragedy according to Poole’s definition, and how it is staged for the entertainment (or education) of the audience. Without the use of gods and poetry, how do we know this is tragic? Would Aristotle and Plato agree? And most importantly, why do you find it tragic and meaningful?

As you write, consider SOME of these ideas from Poole’s book:

• Would everyone see this as a tragedy, or just some people? Is it universal or particular?
• What concept of “god” or judgment seems to inform the work?
• Who’s to blame? God or fate? Or individuals? Is the audience themselves implicated?
• Is the tragedy deepened by not knowing the plot? Does it lose power with repetition?
• What story or message is it trying to tell us about ‘real life’?
• Does the tragedy run the risk of emulation? Would people try to replicate it?
• What ‘language’ does the work use? Is it elevated? Or realistic?
• What powers of the past haunt the present in the work? Are there “ghosts” at work?
• How do we witness the pain of the main characters? Is their pain cathartic?

REQUIREMENTS

• Use Poole’s book to help you examine and frame your discussion of the tragedy. Quote from Poole so we can see the connections between his ideas and your tragic work.
• Be specific: examine a passage or two—or a moment or two—in your work so we can see the connections. Don’t talk about the entire work generally and don’t summarize the entire plot. Give us a basic sense of the work and then analyze it.
• Document according to MLA format like so: In Poole’s Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, he writes that, “one answer is that it’s way of honouring and allaying ghosts collective as well as personal” (35).
• DUE IN-CLASS THURSDAY, JANUARY 30^th 

For Tuesday: Poole, Tragedy, Acts 2-3

Read the next two chapters and answer TWO of the following questions. Remember, too, that these questions are highlighting some of the big ideas (and small passages) that I want you to consider as you read. It can be overwhelming to read everything in these chapters and then walk away 'blind,' so hopefully this will give you something to chew on and think over.

Q1: In Chapter 2, Poole quotes Lucien Goldmann's statement that "Tragedy can be defined as a spectacle under the permanent observation of a deity" (23). Does this mean that in an increasingly secular world (or at least one without the idea of gods that take delight in our human dramas), tragedy is no longer possible? Does tragedy require belief? If you don't believe in divine justice or punishment, does tragedy too easily become comedy? 

Q2: The playwright Ibsen switched to prose so he could portray people more realistically and without the "tongues of angels" (poetry). In his later plays, Shakespeare also increasingly uses prose instead of verse. But without the elevated language of poetry, how can we tell that someone is 'acting' tragic? In modern day movies and shows, how do actors make their language and performance seem 'serious'? What are the signs that we're supposed to cry rather than laugh?

Q3: According to Chapter 3, why do so many tragedies deal with ghosts? Like poetry, why are ghosts and the dead almost necessary to create the atmosphere and language of tragedy? 

Q4: Tragedy literally means "goat-prize" as we learned in Chapter 1, but in Chapter 3 Poole imagines where tragic plays actually originated. What is the beginning of tragedy? Why were they first enacted, and what did they help the players and the audience understand or experience? What aspects changed or disappeared as the original performance eventually became a "play"? 

For Thursday: Read Chapter 1 of Poole's Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction

Welcome to the course! This semester, we'll be reading four of Shakespeare's tragedies of kings, queens, and traitors, and usurpers, in order to ask the question, "what does Shakespeare mean by tragedy?" Is he following our definition--or Aristotle's? Or none of the above? Since most of how we define tragedy, at least in the dramatic arts, comes from Shakespeare, we'll pay close attention to what stories he chooses (since he rarely makes them up), what characters interest him the most, and whether or not his plays bring tragedy to its inevitable conclusion of death and catharsis. BE SURE to buy the books for class as soon as possible, especially Poole's Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction! You need it for Thursday's class. 

For Thursday, read Chapter One from Poole's book (it's pretty short) and bring it to class with you. We'll do a short in-class writing based on a central idea in this chapter. In the future, I'll have questions on the blog for you to answer, but I want to give you a sense of what kinds of question to expect for our first response, so we'll do it in class. If you have trouble getting the book please let me know, and I'll see if I can help out. 

See you in class!