Next Week and the Final Exam Assignment (due Dec.9th!)

If you missed class on Monday, or simply forgot what we did, remember that I gave you a Final Exam assignment (posted below). It's based on the idea of making Shakespeare new again, and challenging how we see and understand his plays. It's also inspired from the Reduced Shakespeare Company, a performing troupe which used to perform all of his plays in about an hour and a half. The video below is what we watched in class (about the first 26 minutes), but feel free to watch the entire thing for inspiration. 

ALSO, we DO have class next week, but only on MONDAY. We're going to wrap up the course and get the chance to win valuable Shakespeare prizes! :) Enjoy the break and I'll see you next week. 

Link to the Performance: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd4h16DWpdU&list=PL2YqtSaZw0JSnkhbBIuUvHvOcQz6lzAnH&index=6&t=1934s

English 3213: Shakespeare

Final Project: Ten-Minute Shakespeare

For your ‘final exam’ so to speak, I want you to take a cue from The Reduced Shakespeare Company, which performed all 36 of Shakespeare’s plays in a single hour (well, sort of). While this is a humorous idea, it also tests how well you know a given play, and what the essence of the play’s themes and ideas truly consist of. What would a ten-minute Julius Caesar or Hamlet look like? How could you compress most of the general theme, plot, and ideas into a single short scene?

That’s exactly what I want you to do: take one of the plays from class, and reduce it to a 5-7 page script (since 1 page = 2 minutes of reading time). You don’t have to write a thing. All you have to do is arrange lines of dialogue that somehow suggest the main action, events, or ideas of the play. Granted, you’re going to have to leave a LOT out. But how can you still suggest the basic essence of the play to an audience so that they walk away with a rough idea of what the play is about (or maybe, some aspect of the play)?

Think of the 10-minute scene as a kind of ‘movie trailer’ for the play, one that captures the drama of the work in miniature. You don’t have to use an entire speech, or an entire conversation, but edit it as you see fit. For example, you could focus solely on the journey of a single character, or a single theme, or a single relationship. Or you can give several little snapshots. But try to make it coherent, and include stage directions (the original or your own) so we see how the different moments go together.

The goal of this assignment is for you to communicate a ‘reading’ of the play based on the shortest possible script of the play. Have fun with this. It doesn’t have to be serious: in fact, you can show us how silly King Lear looks by only focusing on the ‘mad’ parts! But think about your audience: assume they’ve never seen the play before, so try to give them a taste of what they’ll encounter when they see or read a complete performance. Or better yet, make them want to see it!

REQUIREMENTS

• Try to keep it short, no more than 5-7 double-spaced pages. After that you’re cheating! :) 
• Make sure we know who’s talking and where they are. Use stage directions as you see fit, and feel free to add your own (that’s the only writing you’ll have to do)
• Maintain the play format, so that it reads like an actual scene in a Shakespeare play.
• Feel free to add your own scholarly footnotes ala the Folger Shakespeare! (especially if you want to be funny)
• DUE NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9th BY 5PM

For Friday: Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act 5

Remember, we'll do an in-class writing over Act 5 on Friday, so I won't post questions after class. The questions below, as always, are about today's reading and discussion (Wednesday).

Answer two of the following:

Q1: Though we have no idea what Shakespeare really intended with this play, when it was first published in the Folio of his completed works, Measure for Measure was listed as a comedy. Why do you think this is, based on our reading so far? Does it suggest a certain dark humor in the play? Or a sense that we shouldn't take the moral implications and "dark corners" of the play too seriously? Or does the play offer the laughter of a Fool, who tells us the truth while seeming to be absurd?

Q2: Why do you think Isabella, who defies both her brother and Angelo, is so compliant to the Duke's wishes? Consider that even after she learns that Claudio has been killed, and the Duke tells her to keep up the facade, she replies, "I am directed by you" (4.3). Why would she be directed by him, a random Friar who has a dubious plan that seemingly fails to work?

Q3: What role does Lucio seem to perform in this play? He's a totally inconsequential character, and yet, as he tells the Duke, "I am a kind of burr; I shall stick" (4.3). Why do you think Shakespeare found his character attractive?

Q4: We discussed the Duke's connection between both King Lear and Hamlet in class today, which brings up a big point: do you think the Duke is mad? Angelo certainly thinks so, saying that "His actions show much like to madness" (4.4). Is there more method or madness in his actions so far? Does he seem to have a calculated, long-term plan? Or is he just making this up and he goes?

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Act 4

Read Act 4 for Wednesday, and answer two of the following based on Monday's reading/questions:

Q1: What do you make of the strange scene in Act 3.2, when Lucio confronts the Duke-Friar and gossips about the former Duke, saying, among other things, that "He had some feeling of the sport, he knew the service, and that instructed him to mercy" (119)? Is he merely lying to make everyone seem as bad as he is, or is ironically telling the truth to the Duke's face? How does the Duke react to this information? 

Q2: A great point was made in class that Isabella's outrage in 3.1 against her brother is because he would never have to sacrifice himself to save her, yet she is asked to do the one thing she most abhors to save him. Is that how you read this scene? And if this is true, why doesn't she say words to this effect, instead of just insulting him and calling him a "faithless coward" and a "dishonest wretch"? Are we supposed to be more sympathetic with her in this scene, or with Claudio?

Q3: Why do you think the Duke is getting so involved in the intrigues of his kingdom rather than simply curing them himself? For example, he cautions Claudio to prepare himself for death when he, more than anyone, could save him with a word. And why does he offer the example of the bed-trick to Isabella, rather than simply pardoning them both at once? In short, why not see that Angelo screwed up and call it off...why does he continue to play the game?

Q4: When Angelo presses Isabella to accept his terms, she protests, "Better it were a brother died at once/Than that a sister, by redeeming him,/Should die forever" (83). Do you think she really believes that God's judgement would be so inflexible when she later told Angelo to forgive her own brother's sin? Is she being a hypocrite as much as Angelo, though to a less disgusting degree? 

For Monday: Shakespeare, Measure for Measure Act 2.3-Act 3 (see note below)

NOTE: These are the post-reading questions for Wednesday's class. You can turn these in as late as MONDAY, since we don't have class on Friday (Paper #3 is due on Friday, remember). But be sure to read Act 2.3-Act 3 for Monday's class as well.

Answer two of the following for Wednesday's reading:

Q1: What is the purpose of Act 2.1, which is little more than an elaborate farce between Elbow, Escalus, and Pompey? Do we ever learn what Escalus accuses Pompey of doing to his wife? How does this all relate to the rest of the play?

Q2:  We briefly discussed Isabella's powerful speech in Act 2.2, where she proclaims that if everyone used their power like Jove, "Jove would never be quiet,/For every pelting, petty officer/Would use his heaven for thunder,/Nothing but thunder" (67). According to her, what is the danger of punshing people within the full limits of the laws, as many judges do even today? Why not give someone the maximum sentence, if the point of a punishment is more to deter crime than than to punish the person themselves?

Q3: It was mentioned in class today that the play has resonances with the Book of Job, where God tests his most faithful servant to show Satan that some men are indeed true to the faith. How might this play be a kind of allegory for faith or virtue, and if so, who do you think is being tested: Angelo, or Isabella? Who might be the real protagonist of this play?

Q4: Re-read Angelo's famous soliloquy in Act 2.2, where he reflects on the effect that Isabella has had on him. What do you think he means when he says, "but it is I/That, lying by the violet in the sun,/Do as the carrion does, not as the flower,/Corrupt with virtuous season" (71)? Why is he not like the flower, and why is he doing "as the carrion does"? Does he think himself unfairly "assayed" by Isabella in this speech, or is he admitting to his own weakness and frailty? How well does he seem to know himself here (consider how Lear's daughters said "he does but slenderly know himself"). 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, Acts 1 through 2.2

NOTE: Be sure to read past Act 1 through Act 2.2 since Act 1 is very short in this play, and a better cut-off point is Act 2.2.

Since we couldn't watch Act 1 in class today (!!), here are some notes that might help you in your reading of the play. Also note the scene summaries at the beginning each scene in the Folder edition of the play--they can be very helpful!

Act 1.1: The DUKE is giving his power to ANGELO to see if he can tame the people's taste for vice and debauchery, which has gotten out of hand. He thinks it's unfair to suddenly introduce harsh laws since he more or less let such behavior flourish under his reign. ESCALUS is his second-in-command who learns about this first, and is told to assist Angelo.

Act 1.2: LUCIO is a man-about-town and a friend to CLAUDIO. He learns that the brothels are being closed and anyone who commits a sin, such as sex before marriage, will be punished severely. Claudio has been accused of just such a crime, since he slept with his fiancee, JULIET, out of wedlock. He speaks with Claudio on the way to prison, and Claudio entreats him to talk to his sister, ISABELLA, before she takes holy orders as a nun. If anyone can convince Angelo to save his life, she can.

Act 1.3: the DUKE talks with FRIAR THOMAS, who helps him disguise himself as a fellow brother. The Duke explains why he has skipped out of town, only to return secretly to watch Angelo's affairs. He believes that Angelo is an extremely virtuous man who might, if possible, be too virtuous. So he wants to test him. 

Act 1.4: Lucio convinces Isabella to entreat Angelo to save her brother's life. 

Act 2.1: A long, 'comic' scene, where Angelo and Escalus hear the testimony of ELBOW, an officer, against FROTH and POMPEY. Elbow has the very comic ailment known as "malapropism," which means when a character uses a negative word for a positive meaning. For example, he often calls his superiors "vagrants," and calls the criminals "benefactors" (instead of malefactors). He goes on and on and doesn't make a very convincing case against the pair, whom he thinks have debauched his wife (which they don't exactly deny). Escalus finally sends him away with not much accomplished.

Act 2.2: The 'big' scene where Isabella petitions Angelo, at first unsucessfully, but gradually more and more persuasively until he relents--almost. He tells her to come back tomorrow, and then has a soliloquy which shows how attracted he is to her 'virtue.' Note Isabella's language in this scene, which is extraordinarily powerful and some of Shakespeare's greatest writing. She clearly blows him out of the water. 

REMEMBER: No questions until after class on Wednesday. Then I'll give you "post reading/discussion questions," and you can answer them anytime between Wednesday and Friday. This way, you can focus on reading and not have to scramble to finish the questions right after class. Remember, too, that Paper #3 is due on Friday! 

See you next week! 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, King Lear, Acts 4 & 5 (see note)

NOTE: Remember, no class on Monday, since I have a schedule conflict that I can't avoid. We'll pick up King Lear on Wednesday. In the meantime, finish the play and answer two of the following questions...

Q1: In the early acts of the play, both Lear and Gloucester seem to believe in the power of fate and the gods to order the universe and dispense justice. As Gloucester proclaims before his eyes are put out in Act 3, "But I shall see/The winged vengeance overtake such children" (163). How do one or both men's views of fate/justice as the play reaches its conclusion? Do they feel that the gods are still watching over them, ready to offer justice? Or are we performing alone on-stage, without even an audience?

Q2: Why does Edgar pretend to lead his father to the edge of a cliff to watch him 'jump' in Act 4, scene 6? Is this an act of madness on his part? Is he being cruel/getting revenge? Or does he have another method to his 'madness'? Is this another scene that could/should be played for laughs?

Q3: As the most self-aware and rational/cynical person in the play, what is Edmund's endgame in Act 5? What does he hope to achieve by courting both sisters and plotting against Albany? Do you feel these plans are more active (a creation of his own nature) or passage (a reaction to the actions around him)? 

Q4: Did it surprise you that despite her very active beginning, Cordelia ends up a passive spectator in Acts 4-5, only to die off-stage? Why might the play have silenced and defeated her, letting Edgar be the true victor/survivor of the play?

Q5: What do you think happens to the Fool? Why does he disappear in 3.6 never to return? Is he killed? Does he run away? Is he simply no longer needed since Lear is 'cured'? (note that many staged versions show him being killed in some manner). Similarly, why does Cordelia only return to the play once he's gone? And why does Lear call Cordelia his "poor fool" at the end of Act 5? Is he confused about who she is...or he is remembering what happened to the fool off-stage at some point? (or do we buy the footnote that a 'fool' is merely an endearing term for a child?) 

Paper #3 assignment: The Role of Madness, due Nov.11th

English 3213

Paper #3: The Role of Madness

“We do and are done to, endlessly, neither pure agents nor victims. We live in the active and passive ‘voice,’ to use the grammatical term. There are other kinds of doubleness to the ways we live in time, in several tenses and moods all at once, in our sense of what was and will be, what should be and might have been, as well as what is” (Poole 99).

In both Hamlet and King Lear, people are constantly ‘playing mad’ or ‘playing the fool,’ or otherwise acting roles that are outside their normal (or society’s) character. However, we only see this in upper-class characters such as Hamlet, King Lear, Kent, Edgar, and Ophelia. While each one of these characters is clearly a victim and nursing some private hurt, they also lash out at others through their madness, becoming perpetrators themselves. Indeed, they often threaten, wound, and even kill in this new identity. So why is madness the only way in Shakespeare’s plays to usurp your given role in society? Why can’t Hamlet act, for example, without going mad?

Some things to consider:

• When do characters go ‘mad’ in the play? Is it sudden? A process? Is it announced? Does everyone do it the same way?
• What happens when two ‘mad’ characters confront one another?
• How does language determine who is mad and who is acting?
• Is madness itself active or passive? How do we know?
• Is madness the ‘real’ person inside the mask? Which one is the alter ego, the original character or the mad one? Which one seems more natural?
• Are the Fools in these plays ‘mad’? Is madness a way to speak secret wisdom? Is it a code?
• Is anyone cured of their madness? Is it permanent or temporary? Are the characters in command of this role—or does it command them?

REQUIREMENTS

• Discuss at least TWO characters, though you can focus more on one than another. But you’ll need more than one to really establish some of your ideas about madness.
• QUOTE from the plays and examine the language, since character is a performance, and the performance occurs through language.
• Be sure to cite all quotations with the page number or the act/scene number.
• No page limit, but please double space! I also prefer Word docs, even pasted in the e-mail, rather than a PDF if possible.
• DUE Friday, November 11^th by 5pm [no class that day]

For Friday: Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 3

 REMEMBER, no questions this time! But read Act 3, since we'll do an in-class writing when you get here to discuss some aspect of our reading. So bring your book! See you then...

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 2

 Answer two of the following: 

Q1: In a play about nature/natural vs. unnatural/nothing, why are so many people acting and/or playing roles? Besides the Fool, both Kent and Edgar take up disguises as madmen/fools, and even Lear, to some extent, is playing a role (since he’s no longer the king). Why do you think Shakespeare has so many characters switching identities merely to perform before one another?

Q2: In some ways, Lear’s response to his daughters is similar to Hamlet’s response to his mother, as both use terms such as “adulterous” and “incestuous” to describe rather normal situations (a mother falling in love again, daughters rebelling against their father’s whims). Why does he find their behavior so unnatural, especially since he exclaims to Regan in 2.4, “I gave you all” (115). What does he feel he has given them—love? Land? Life?

Q3: Somewhat related to Q2, why does Lear insist on maintaining his knights even when he’s no longer king? When asked why he needs 25, 10, 5, or even 1 knight, he thunders, “O, reason not the need!” (117). Why might this speech in 2.4 shift Lear from being a rather flat, antagonistic character to someone more round and compelling? Is this the moment Lear becomes a more sympathetic character to you?

Q4: Act 2.2 is a strange scene, where Kent goes after Oswald like a man out for revenge. He not only viciously berates him (pp.83-85), but attacks him and seems on the verge of killing him. Since this scene almost comes out of nowhere, is this scene supposed to be played for laughs? Is Kent just acting mad here for the audiences’ entertainment? And if so, why does Regan punish him so severely?

For Monday: Shakespeare, King Lear, Act 1

On Friday, we watched Act 1 from Trevor Nunn's 2008 film (based on his 2007 production) of King Lear starring Sir Ian McKellan. If you want to learn more about this production, or about Lear in general, here's a great article/interview about it: https://www.rsc.org.uk/king-lear/past-productions/trevor-nunn-2007-production

For Monday's class, be sure to read Act 1 of King Lear and answer two of the following questions:

Q1: As always after we watch a production, is there anything that you saw in the lines that you didn't necessarily see on screen? OR, did the staged version help you see something--an interpretation, reading, staging, etc.--that you wouldn't have noticed from the text itself? 

Q2: Why does Cordelia refuse to tell her father how much she loves her, when it seems clear she actually does (as opposed to her sisters, who seem pretty damn tired of him!)? In the play, she has the aside (not shown in the production) where she says to herself, "What shall Cordelia speak? Love, and be silent" (11). Does her silence show love? Is that what "nothing, my lord" is supposed to convey? 

Q3: Edmund makes two speeches in Act 1, scene 2, the first in verse, the second in prose. Both speeches are "asides" to the audience alone, and so show something 'naked' about his true character and motives. What does one (or both) of these speeches reveal about him as a character? For example, what might he mean when he says in the first speech, "Thou, Nature, art my goddess" (29)? 

Q4: For the first time in this class, we have a true Fool in the play, who plays a very specific role with Lear: he entertains him by speaking a witty form of the truth. What is he trying to tell Lear through his jokes and banter? Does Lear seem to catch his meaning, or does he dismiss it as mere nonsense and buffoonery? 

For Wednesday (see note below): Poole, Chapter 8, "Timing"

NOTE: No class on Monday. I have to cancel--check your e-mail for details. We'll pick up the reading and questions below for Wednesday. 

For next week, after Fall Break, be sure to read Chapter 8 of Poole, "Timing" to dovetail with our discussion last time of Hamlet, Act 5. We'll return to some ideas in Act 5 a well. Enjoy the break! 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: Poole writes that “it’s all in the timing” (97). Why is timing particularly important for tragedy, particularly for at what moment a tragedy begins? With Hamlet, why don’t we begin with the murder of the king? Or much later? After all, couldn’t the entire Act 5 be the play itself?

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 might this explain the events of Hamlet? What 'climax' do we have to reach (and on how many rungs?) to achieve justice? And what kind of justice is it?

Q3: Poole reminds us 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 Hamlet 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: Quoting the critic Gail Holst-Warhaft (what a name!), Poole notes that tragedy “is, at least in part, an appropriation of the traditional art of women and we sense in its language, its inscrutable echoes of music and dance, an older body of ritual, a sub-stratum which informs and at times intrudes itself into an urban, male art” (106). What do you think she means that tragedy combines the female art of lamentation (since women traditionally were mourners of the dead) with the male art of war/action?

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 5

For next class, finish Hamlet but don't worry about answering any questions this time. We'll look closely at Act 5 in class and do a brief in-class response looking at some of the strange features of this very exciting act, which is one of the rare acts in Shakespeare's plays where the fifth act is actually one of the most eventful--not a mere tying-up of loose ends. 

Pay special attention to the graveyard scene of Act 5.1, which is definitely something Shakespeare added to the pre-existing story of Hamlet. Remember that the play is based on two sources: 1, an old Danish story that was in circulation for some time, which was translated in French around Shakespeare's time, and 2. an actual play called Hamlet which was popular just before he took to the stage, and seemed to have had many of the same features and plot, though it was reportedly full of stiff speeches (a bit like the speeches Shakespeare mocks in Act 3, with the Mousetrap play). However, the original story didn't have a graveyard scene, it has Shakespeare's stamp all over it. It's not important for the plot, and yet, it's one of the most iconic scenes in the play. So why did he include it? Hmm...

For Monday: Shakespeare, Hamlet, Acts 3 & 4

REMEMBER, Paper #2 is due on Friday by 5pm! You can turn it in late, but you lose points (see syllabus). For next week, read Acts 3-4 and answer TWO of the questions below, even though I've given you six this time! Sorry, but there's a lot of ground to cover...

Here is the original (?) To Be Or Not To Be speech from the 1603 version of Hamlet to compare to the one we have:

 To be, or not to be, aye, there’s the point.

To die, to sleep, is that all? Ay, all.

No, to sleep, to dream--ay marry, there it goes:

For in that dream of death, when we awake,

And borne before an everlasting judge,

From whence no passenger ever returned,

The undiscovered country, at whose sight

The happy smile, and the accursed damned—

But for this, the joyful hope of this,

Who’d bear the scorns and flattery of the world,

Scorned by the right rich, the cursed of the poor?

The widow being oppressed, the orphan  wronged,

The taste of hunger, or a tyrant’s reign,

And thousand more calamities besides,

To grunt and sweat under this weary life,

When that he may his full quietus make,

With a bare bodkin? Who would this endure,

But for a hope of something after death,

Which puzzles the brain, and doth confound the sense,

Which makes us rather bear those evils we have,

Than fly to others that we know not of.

Ay that, O that conscience makes cowards of us all.

Q1: Compare Hamlet’s famous To Be Or Not To Be speech carefully with the version above. How does seeing the original—which is different in a few particulars—help us really see what he’s trying to say here? In both versions,  he begins by asking, basically, “is there a difference in living or dying? Isn’t it just like sleeping—letting go of yourself?” How does our version develop this idea in a few different ways than the 1603 version? And what do both versions agree on?

Q2: Why does Hamlet turn so violently on Ophelia in Act 3, scene 1? What does he seem to be accusing her of?  Is he merely acting mad here, or is he using his madness to speak the truth? Any clues? 

Q3: In Act 3, scene 4, Hamlet argues with his mother over her 'bad' behavior much as he had earlier chided Ophelia in scene 1. By the end of it, the Queen gasps, "O Hamlet, thou has cleft my heart in twain!" Is she saying this because he's made her see the true nature of her sin? Or is she heart-broken at his apparent madness? In other words, has he won her over to his side, or does she just seem to be humoring him? 

Q4: By the end of Act Four, Laertes becomes a second Hamlet, swearing "my revenge will come." What distinguishes Laertes from Hamlet? How might Laertes' reaction to the business of revenge help us read and understand something important about Hamlet?

Q5: How has Ophelia changed by Act Four, particularly in her language? Has she gone truly mad here, or is she, too, taking a page from Hamlet's book? Is there any "method" in her madness, or is she truly speaking nonsense?

Q6: We also see a different side of Hamlet in Act Four: how does he present himself to other people in these acts? Is he still acting mad? Or is he trying another approach? Consider his lines, "Nothing but to show you how a king may go a progress through the guts of a beggar" (197). 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2

Can you name one of the actors portraying the famous duo, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?

As always, answer two of the following for our next class (or shortly after class)...

Q1: All of Act One is in verse (unrhymed imabic pentameter), but in Act Two, when Hamlet enters in scene 2, he talks in prose throughout the entire act. Why would Hamlet, a prince, insist on speaking prose, which is usually a “low” language of the common people? Also, why does everyone around him, including Polonius, also follow his lead? 

Q2: Hamlet has another famous speech at the end of the Act where he compares himself unfavorably to an actor: “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I…” Why does he, a prince, envy an actor? What can the actor do that he can’t? And why might this be a meta-moment where Shakespeare (a playwright) is marveling at the power of actors (and the theater)?

Q3:  Polonius seems quite willing to exploit his daughter and expose Hamlet’s follies to the King and Queen. Why is this? What does he hope to gain from showing them Hamlet’s love letters? And why does Ophelia (who may be in love with Hamlet) go along with this? Couldn’t she have refused?

Q4: Two of Hamlet’s old friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, arrive to keep watch on him for the king. Hamlet knows they’re dong this, but plays along. However, he probably talks too much. What does he reveal about his state of mind and his character in this passage? In other words, how does Shakespeare show us what’s really going on in his mind when he’s acting “mad”?

For Monday: Shakespeare, Hamlet (Act 1)

I couldn't leave you with just 4 questions for Act 1, so here are 5. But again, you only have to answer TWO. But think about all of them, since I want to address most if not all of them in class on Monday. There's so much going on in this first act, which is unusually crammed with incident for Shakespeare. However, think about Julius Caesar as you read Act 1, since there are many connections between the two plays, as Q1 discusses. 

Answer two of the following: 

Q1: Poole reminds us that in tragedy the living are haunted by the past, making them, in effect, the 'living dead.' Taken in this light, Hamlet has a lot in common with Brutus from Julius Caesar, and both open the play wracked with indecision. What else makes them similar characters? Why might we read Brutus as a trial run for Hamlet? 

Q2: How did David Tennant (in the 2009 production) portray Hamlet in a way that made him distinct from merely reading his words on the page? In other words, what did he add to the play that helped you 'see' Hamlet as you read the play? Where do you most 'hear' him when you read Act 1?

Q3: One of Hamlet’s most famous speeches occurs very early in the play: Act One, scene 2, which begins, “O, that is too, too sullied flesh would melt” (29). What is he complaining about in this soliloquy (poetic monologue)? Try to read this speech like a poem and find a metaphor that can help you interpret his complaint as a whole (for example, why should “sullied flesh” melt?). Since this is our first big moment with Hamlet, does this speech make us sympathetic for him? Or wary of him?

Q4: Why do Ophelia’s brother (Laertes) and father (Polonius) distrust Hamlet so much? Why don’t they encourage his attentions (and as she thinks, love) towards her? Wouldn’t it be a good match for her to marry a king’s son, the Prince of Denmark?

Q5: Hamlet and Ophelia have had some sort of romantic relationship prior to the events of Act 1, though Shakespeare doesn't give them a single scene together until Act 3, scene 1. How does Ophelia betray the depth of her relationship? Was it a deep, romantic one? Or one more like Romeo and Rosalind, a mere exchange of letters without any substance? In other words, is she in love with him...or is she merely the object of his affection? 

For Friday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapter 7: "Words, words, words"

This is the last reading for a week, so enjoy! Answer TWO of the following:

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: What role do 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!"? Might this also explain why Brutus merely whispers his dying request in Act 5, rather than speaking it aloud?

Q3: On the flip side of Q2, why do plays often make people speak through moments of unbearable tragedy, when in real life we would simply scream or faint? Is it melodramatic for plays to take this artistic license? In other words, is it hard to take such moments seriously/tragically? Or is there another way to experience them?

Q4: What does Poole mean when he writes, “Risk is intrinsic to all performance, but where tragedy is concerned the sense of risk is written into the text itself as something to be embodied, encountered, endured by anyone who reads, witnesses or performs it” (90)? How is the audience at risk in a performance of tragedy? What are we risking other than our confusion or boredom?

Paper #2 assignment: due Oct.7th!

English 3213

Paper #2: First Time Tragedy, Second Time Farce

 

Brutus: Forever and forever farewell, Cassius.

If we do meet again, why we shall smile;

If not, why then this parting was well made.

 

Cassius: Forever and forever farewell, Brutus.

If we do meet again, we’ll smile indeed;

If not, ‘tis true this parting was well made. (Act 5, scene 5)

INTRO: As Poole writes in Chapter 6, “There’s a good case for laughing at the pretensions of tragedy when it’s not the real thing.” This is important because for tragedy to make its mark on an audience, we have to relate to the pain and emotion of the characters and see it as our own. The more distant it is, the more we withdraw, shake our heads, or simply laugh out loud. Indeed, some of the greatest tragic moments are often hilarious in the wrong context—or in the wrong actors! The line between pathos and bathos is perilously thin, and Shakespeare is happy to skirt it in all his tragedies, trusting in the power of his actors and in readers who can skillfully interpret his poetry. Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet are some of his most oft-parodied plays, since the over-the-top relationships and dialogue can seem histrionic or hysterical to modern audiences (esp. if the actors don’t understand it themselves).

PROMPT: For your Paper #2, I want you to examine TWO SCENES in Julius Caesar and/or Romeo and Juliet (in other words, two in one play, or one in each) that you feel risk sounding comic or ridiculous in performance. Why do the words strike us as false, out of place, or bathetic? Do we know what Shakespeare’s intention might have been? Have the meanings of words changed? Do we need to understand the social/historical context? Or is it more in the delivery? Discuss how you would make this scene (or these words) powerful rather than pathetic, rousing rather than ridiculous. What does the audience need to see or understand that could be ‘shown’ at the same time the words are spoken? You might also consider whether laughter IS the appropriate response, and if something humorous or ridiculous can still have a tragic effect.

REQUIREMENTS:

• Be sure to employ CLOSE READING when you analyze your passages. Don’t just summarize the plot, show me the story: explain how the language creates an effect, and discuss how Shakespeare creates it (and how we interpret it).
• You don’t need to summarize the plot of each play, but do briefly set up each scene—remind us what’s going on around your passage.
• MUST quote from Poole’s Tragedy along with the two plays: use him to help your conversation about Shakespeare.
• NO PAGE LIMIT: That’s entirely up to you, but try to exhibit thought and attention to details.
• DUE Friday, October 7^th by 5pm

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act V

 NO QUESTIONS for Wednesday! Instead, we're going to have an in-class writing over some aspect of Act V (so be sure to read it!), which will also lead into your Paper #2 assignment, which I'll pass out tomorrow. 

Remember that questions are due by 5pm the day we discuss them. I've been letting people turn in questions a little late now and then, but the later you turn questions in, the less helpful they are to you. The goal of the questions is to get you thinking about the reading before we discuss it in class. If you do it a day or two later, you're just doing work, and it's not as effective in helping you read/examine the work. 

See you on Wednesday! 

For Monday: Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Acts 3-4

Be sure to read the next two acts for Monday, though if pressed for time, at least read Act 3. It's longer and more important, and will occupy the brunt of our discussion time on Monday. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Caesar's famous death scene, he suddenly turns to Brutus and utters the famous words, "et tu, Brute?" (And thou, Brutus?). This is the only Latin in the play and stands out, almost jarringly so. Why do you think Shakespeare does this? Doesn't it break the suspension of disbelief for the audience, since all the characters are supposed to be speaking Latin all along? Why do you think Shakespeare found this effect irresistible?

Q2: In his famous speech in 3.2, Antony protests that "I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth,/Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech/To stir men's blood" (131). Does Antony persuade the crowd because he is more a "man of the people," who speaks a common, emotional language? Or is there another reason his speech proves so persuasive?

Q3: Related somewhat to the above, why does Antony decide to go against Brutus and stir up the people against him? What is his 'end game' in rousing them to a bloody frenzy? Is he tragically ignorant of the consequences of his actions? Or is he even more manipulative than Cassius? 

Q4: How does Brutus began acting and/or speaking more like Caesar in Acts 3 and 4? Why might he do this? Does anyone notice his change of character? 

For Friday: Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 2

NOTE: Try not to worry too much about the history surrounding this play, since Shakespeare's Rome isn't really Rome, and he plays loose with some of the characters and events in the story. However, one thing to note is that the great Republic which Cassius, Brutus, and others fear will be destroyed by Caesar is something of a myth. Rome had always been a tenuous republic, its democratic ideals shaken by one general after another who seized power and assassinated his rivals. Pompey, who held power before Caesar, was the de facto king of Rome, given great powers by the Senate to fight encroaching pirates and other threats on Rome's borders. But as he became too powerful, Caesar defeated him and that's where our play begins. So it seems that, like today, people like to re-write history and create a myth of the "founding fathers" to justify their own political beliefs, however little those fathers would have understood or agreed with their brand of politics. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, Poole reminds us that "But there is a more political aspect to the living dead…they embody values, ideas, and ethics that challenge the present and obstruct the future. The living dead are by nature conservative, if not reactionary…they insist that the world remain as it was for them" (Chapter 3). How does this play show us that Rome is haunted by the ghosts of the dead, which limits the actions and decisions of those still living? Who in the play might be considered the "living dead," numbly rehearsing the myths of their forefathers?

Q2: When Portia confronts her husband after the meeting of conspirators, she exclaims "No, my Brutus,/You have some sick offense within your mind,.Which by the right and virtue of my place/I ought to know of" (69). Do you think Brutus has been poisoned and manipualted by Cassius and company? Are they maniuplating his thoughts and ambitions? Or is the "fate" he was destined to walk all along? How much is he acting of his own free will?

Q3: In Act 1, Cassius bemoans modern-day Romans, since they "are governed with our mother' spirits/Our yoke and sufferance shows us womanish" (39). Even Portia echoes this lament, saying "how weak a thing/The heart of woman is!" (89). Yet how does Shakespeare characterize the few women in the play so far--Portia and Calpurnia (both wives of the rival men). Are they stereotypical portraits of feminine weakness? Do they emasculate their men just as Rome is (according to Cassius) emasculated by womanish values?

Q4: Though Brutus is more than willing to strike down Caesar, where does he draw the line? Why does he feel this line is ethical and important? Do the others agree with him? Do we agree that though willing to murder a rival, he does so for the right reasons? Or is this another instance of right vs. right? 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 1

Think about the 2012 RSC version we watched in class as you read the play, and think about whether or not it helps you or hinders you as you try to get inside Shakespeare's language.

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: As always, I like to know whether the film helped you see or understand some aspect of the play you wouldn't have otherwise? How did the performance underline some key interpretation, delivery, or emotion? OR, you could answer the question by considering how the film confused you about one scene in a way that the play itself clarified. 

Q2: Caesar hardly appears in Act 1 at all, even though the play is named after him. Why do you think Shakespeare keeps him off stage, only allowing us to 'see' him through others' eyes? Do we feel these are reliable accounts of his motives and character?

Q3: In Act 1, Scene 2, Cassius makes an impassioned speech about Ceasar's mortality, which he contrasts with the godhood which has now been bestowed upon him. What does he want to impress upon Brutus here, especially when he says, "He had a fever when he was in Spain,/And when the fit was on him, I did mark/How he did shake"? 

Q4: Much of Act 1 is very stratified between the nobles, who speak verse, and the commoners, who speak prose. And yet Casca speaks entirely in prose to his equals, Cassius and Brutus. Why is this? Could this explain the unorthodox scene in the bathroom that we saw on Monday? 

For Friday: Poole, Tragedy, Ch.6, "No Laughing Matter"

Before we move onto Julius Caesar next week, be sure to read Chapter 6 from Poole's Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction since it talks about a very important subject: the razor thin line between comedy and tragedy (something we even address in class on Wednesday!). 

Remember, too, that Paper #1 was due today, and if you haven't turned it in yet, you can still turn it in late on Thursday or Friday, losing 10 points a day (so be careful!). 

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: What does Poole mean when he suggests "first time tragedy, second time farce?" Why does repetition kill an audience's sense of tragic potential? Does this suggest, too, that we've seen tragedy too often to be honestly moved by it? Does all tragedy by default become melodrama? 

Q2: We talked in class on Wednesday that tragedy is in the eye of the beholder, and this chapter certainly agrees with that. But it goes even further, quoting Mel Brooks (the famous comedian and director), who once said, "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die" (70). If this is true, why does an audience watching someone else's tragedy not always laugh? How might tragedy prevent this? 

Q3: We discussed, too, how in Romeo and Juliet, the most tragic moments (or potentially tragic moments) often end in comedy: either with 'low' characters making jokes, or the Prince giving a bathetic speech that is hard not to laugh at in performance (esp. if you've heard it once too often!). According to Poole, why are such moments a necessary part of tragedy? What do they do for the play and for the audience (besides give us some relief from the drama)? 

Q4: Poole quotes a passage from Anton Chekhov's notebooks where an old woman comes into a traveler's room and gives him an enema; he doesn't  complain bcause he assumes that's what people do here. It turns out she had the wrong room. It this just a comic story, or a tragedy in miniature? What would make it one or the other? Or does it have to be both? 

For Friday: Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Acts 4-5

The ending, from Zeffirelli's famous 1968 film

NOTE: Don't forget to start thinking about/writing your Paper #1 due next week! Luckily, we don't have class on Monday, and no reading to worry about, so you can get a jump on it then, too. But don't let it sneak up on you! 

Finish the play for next class and think about whether the play follows the rules of tragedy that either Aristotle or Poole (or you!) have described. Question #4 deals with this more specifically if you want to answer it head-on. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In a few of his plays, Shakespeare has a clergyman propose a very unorthodox solution to an ethical dilemma: in this case, drinking a potion that will give Juliet the semblance of death (a similar solution occurs in Much Ado About Nothing). How does Shakespeare characterize the friar’s motives and intentions in his language? Are we meant to trust him? Does Juliet?

Q2: How does Juliet’s family and her fiancée respond to Juliet’s death in 4.5? Obviously they’re all crushed, but look at their language: how does Shakespeare ‘stage’ their grief? Do you find it full of tragedy of melodrama? Pathetic (emotional) or bathetic (parody)?

Q3: Romeo had been kept away from the play in most of Act 4, but he comes to dominate it in Act 5. How has he ‘matured,’ if at all? Is his poetry more authentic and affecting? Or does he still rely on stock expression of grief and rage? Does he seem worthy of Juliet by the end of the play (you might look at some of his longer speeches)?

Q4: In the 19th century, the play often ended with Juliet’s death, while some versions had her and Romeo survive altogether (making a tragedy into a comedy). What do you make of the ending of the play, where the Prince re-emerges and acts as a Chorus to the play (which has been absent since Act Two)? Is this really the moral of the play—that “never was a story of more woe/Than this of Juliet and her Romeo”? Or might this conclusion be trying to create a katharsis that doesn’t exist?

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Acts 2-3

From a 2021 Globe production of Romeo and Juliet: 

 Here are a few questions to consider as you read Acts 2 & 3 for Wednesday's class. And remember, don't worry about catching every joke and understanding every reference. Look for changes in language (prose to poetry--or the reverse, unrhymed language that starts rhyming, etc .), long speeches, and elements of comedy that change to tragedy. And as always, think about how a character's language characterizes who they are and how they come across to the audience.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: Many theorists believe that men and women perceive the world differently, so it follows that their writing has fundamentally male and female characteristics. With this in mind, examine how Romeo and Juliet use poetry in Act 2, scene 2. What distinguishes Romeo’s language from Juliet’s, even though they’re both using love language? Is one more realistic than the other? Is one a better poet than the other? How does Shakespeare characterize them through their use of language in this scene?

Q2: Why does Act 2, scene 4 begin in verse and quickly descend into prose for the rest of the scene? Who starts the “prose-fest”? What does prose capture that iambic pentameter could not—and how might it sound very different in verse?

Q3: Mercutio is sort of the antidote for the poetry and idealism of this play; and yet, Shakespeare kills him relatively early on, in Act 3, scene 1. Are we supposed to read his death as tragic or comic? If you were the actor, how would you play it? What does his language suggest? Is he ultimately here for comic relief, or does his death truly begin the play’s descent into tragedy?

Q4: Note that Juliet dominates this play much more than Romeo, and in Act 3 is given numerous long speeches while Romeo has very few. Why does Juliet seem to interest Shakespeare more than Romeo? What does he say through her that might not make sense through Romeo? Also, why might a young, inexperienced girl see things clearer than a more worldly, love-infatuated teenage boy?

For Monday: Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, Act 1

Be sure to at least read Act 1 for Monday's class, though feel free to read more if you like. However, I want to go slowly at first so we can discuss how the language works in the play, and how best to 'listen' to it as you read. I'm giving you six questions this time (even though you only have to answer 2) to help you along and give you more to think about. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Discuss a short passage (a few lines, or up to a page) that you didn't pick up on in the staged version, but seems to jump out at you when reading the play. Why do you think you missed it initially? Why do you feel the passage is significant? 

Q2: Much of the play is in blank verse (unrhymed iambic pentameter), though some characters exclusively speak prose (normal speech). Additionally, some characters lapse back and forth from verse to prose and back again. In general, who speaks verse and who speaks prose, and why might this be significant in Shakespeare's plays? Do you think we can 'hear' this in a performance? 

Q3: One of the more dated features of Shakespeare's plays is his (and his audience's) love of puns and witty wordplay. A good example of this is at the very beginning of the play between Sampson and Gregory, or more interestingly, between Romeo and Mercutio in Act 1, Scene 4 (around page 43). Why were these passages 'funny' for Shakespeare's audience, and why are they so hard to bring off today? For example, did you chuckle at them when watching Friday's performance?

Q4: One of the most famous speeches in the play is Mercutio's Queen Mab speech in Act 1, Scene 4, which starts out humorously, and then expands into a full-on epic monologue. Romeo thinks that Mercutio might be a little drunk, because he says, "Peace, peace...thou talk'st of nothing." So what do you feel IS the significance of this speech? Is he just filling up space, or is there something more going on here than Romeo or the audience realizes? 

Q5: Though Juliet is supposed to only be 13 and a half years old (!), her language is remarkably confident and mature. How does Shakespeare create her personality through her language? Discuss a brief scene that might hint at her star power even in Act 1. 

Q6: How does Romeo come across in Act 1? Remember that he enters the play sighing for Rosaline, a girl we never meet, and he never mentions again once he sees Juliet. Discuss a line or passage that helps us get a fix on who he is, or how others in the play see him. 

For Friday: Romeo and Juliet, Act 1--at the Globe!

There is no scheduled reading for Friday's class, but I will show you part of Act 1 of Romeo and Juliet from a taped Globe performance of the play circa 2009. If you want to read ahead, feel free to read Act 1, though we'll be reading Acts 1-2 for Monday's class. Hopefully seeing the play will help give you more of a sense of how the language sounds, and how the characters move within the play, since when you read it, you only see "words, words, words" (to quote Hamlet). 

The Paper #1 assignment is posted below for future reference. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help starting or developing it! 

Paper #1: Defining Tragedy--due Wed, September 7th

Spiegelman's graphic novel, Maus, one of the great modern 'tragedies' 

Paper #1: Defining Tragedy

For your first paper, I want you to take ONE of the provocative statements made by Poole in his Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction and use a modern work of art (a book, film, TV series, album, painting, etc.) to explain and examine it. In other words, I want you to discuss what you think the quote means (and feel free to use other parts of Poole’s book to explain it), and then apply it to a modern work which can help you illustrate your definition. Try to avoid being VAGUE: don’t just say “The Godfather does a lot of things in this quote, and makes me really understand it better.” Discuss a specific passage or two to help us see (a) what the quote is really getting at, and (b) how it helps us read and appreciate a modern work of tragedy.

THE QUOTES:

• “But there is a more political aspect to the living dead…they embody values, ideas, and ethics that challenge the present and obstruct the future. The living dead are by nature conservative, if not reactionary…they insist that the world remain as it was for them” (Chapter 3).
• “One of the distinctive features of modern tragedy is that it takes such an interest in private, even secret, mourning…This is a paradox embodied in many modern texts and works of art that seek to share griefs, bereavements, and traumas that would otherwise remain private, neglected, unnoticed” (Chapter 3).
• “Of course tragic characters are primitive, barbaric, monstrous. They represent all that we have had to overcome in the cause of culture and civilization…tragedy shows us what we are missing” (Chapter 4).
• “Tragedy represents the conflict not of right against wrong—which is melodrama or simply justice—but of right against right” (Chapter 5).
• “This is why we should attend closely to the way within tragedies that people witness each other’s pain. To us, the readers, spectators, and viewers, they are third persons, as we are to them, separated by the frame of fiction. Tragedies abound with bystanders, advisors, and counsellors” (Chapter 5).

NOTE: You can use a fuller quote than the one listed above, though it has to use some part of these quotes (don’t choose an unrelated quote, since I want you to grapple wit h these ‘big’ ones).

REQUIREMENTS: At least 2-3 pages double spaced, though you can do more. You MUST quote from Poole and try to quote or discuss specific passages/ideas from your work of art. Assume I’ve never seen it, so bring me through it with enough context to understand why it illustrates the quote and is relevant.

DUE IN-CLASS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7^th (after Labor Day): I plan to discuss some of our approaches in class, so bring your paper with you!

For Monday: Poole, Tragedy, Chapters 4 & 5

As before, read the next two chapters and answer TWO of the following questions in a "thinking out loud" manner. Remember that I'm not fishing for answers or looking for a specific response. I simply want to see how you respond to the readings and where your ideas will take you--and the class, when we discuss them.

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? 

For Friday: Poole, Tragedy, Chs.2 & 3

For Friday's class, read Chapters 2 and 3 of Poole's Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction and answer any TWO of the questions below. Remember that it's better to read carefully and not completely finish rather than read both chapters superficially and not remember a thing! The questions are designed to help you do that, but don't feel bad if you're not 100% sure of your answer...these are designed to get you thinking, and not to be completely 'right.' 

Remember, answer any TWO:

Q1:  One scholar writes that traditionally, tragedy was defined "as a spectacle under the permanent observation of a deity" (23). How does this explain how tragedy (esp. the Greeks, Shakespeare) might have worked? Why might we be more skeptical of this definition today?

Q2: Why might poetry have been considered to be the ideal medium for tragedy (rather than prose, or in other words, normal speech)? What makes dramatic speech so suited for tragedy? Again, why might modern tragedies (in film) not entirely agree with this...or do they? 

Q3: Poole writes that ghosts are unnerving to audiences because they have "crossed a boundary that should be unpassable. It's almost as bad as incest" (34). Why might a ghost (or seeing a ghost) be like breaking a social taboo, so that tragedies would be compelled to deal with the 'living dead' as often as possible? What do the dead allow writers to talk about that they couldn't otherwise? (related note: does this explain our own culture's obsession with zombies and vampires?). 

Q4: Poole also notes that tragedy depicts the normal rites of society going wrong: marriages, funerals, courtship, elections, etc. Why might these very normal situations have the makings of universal tragedy? What is so tragic about the expected going unexpectedly? 

Welcome to the Course!

 Welcome to the official blog of Fall 2022's Shakespeare's Tragedies course! Here you'll find all the readings, questions, assignments, and other announcements you'll need to enjoy the course. You won't have to interact with the blog in any way, other than to find the assignments and bring your responses to class. 

Be sure to buy the books for the course as soon as you can, especially Poole's Tragedy: A Very Short Introduction, since we'll start reading it this week! You can get any version of the Shakespeare plays on the syllabus, though I personally find the Folger editions to be the most helpful for those still new to Shakespeare's language. You can find all the books in ECU's bookstore, but feel free to find them elsewhere, too, if you like. 

If you have any questions or concerns, e-mail me at jgrasso@ecok.edu, or come to my office after class (348--right next to our classroom). 

See you in class!