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?

For Thursday: Titus Andronicus, Acts 2-3

NOTE: Hopefully we'll be back in class on Thursday, but if not, we'll return to these questions on Tuesday. If we get Thursday off, feel free to read ahead, though I still want to focus on Acts 2-3 for Thursday or Tuesday.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Remarkable for this era, Shakespeare writes a scene between two women: Lavinia and Tamora (Act 2.3). In this scene, Lavinia is abducted by Tamora’s sons and on the verge of being raped. Desperately, she appeals to a fellow woman who has undoubtedly been brutalized in her own life. Why does this scene striker deeper than almost anything in the play thus far? How does Tamora respond to her pleas? What makes her eventually turn her back on Lavinia?

Q2: Does Titus become a more interesting or complex character in Acts 2 and 3? Or does he stoically remain the same stern, stubborn character as before? If you see a chance, what seems to be the cause of his transformation?

Q3: What scenes are inadvertently funny on the page? While this is a tragedy, and nothing is supposed to be comic (no prose, after all), why might some of these scenes be played for laughs? Do you think Shakespeare was aware of the comedic potential of some of the more absurd tragedy?

Q4: Why does Shakespeare lavish such attention on Aaron in this play? He is potentially a one-note villain, similar to Shylock, who is also more interesting than he needs to be; yet,  certain moments rescue him from being a cardboard cut-out. Where does Shakespeare show us that Aaron is more than a “moor” or an “other” but a flesh-and-blood human being? (note: this is not to say he’s a good person!).