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?