For Monday: Twelfth Night, Acts 4-5

Last questions for Twelfth Night! Try to finish the play for Monday's class, though we'll talk about it a bit more on Wednesday. The course calendar says we're going to have an in-class Mid-Term on Wednesday, but I'm moving that back to Friday for reasons I'll explain on Wednesday. But don't worry, it's not a typical Mid-Term and I'll explain what it's all about during Wednesday's class.

Answer TWO of the following: 

Q1: At the end of Act 4, Scene 1, Olivia, mistaking Sebastian for Cesario, tells him, "O, say so, and so be!" Why might this be the motto of the entire Act (if not the play)? How do characters change identities and fortunes merely by the act of speech? Discuss how someone in this act uses language to change themselves or are changed by someone else's language. Are we really constructions of our and other's language?

Q2: In her article, “Twelfth Night: A Modern Perspective,” Catherine Belsey reminds us that Viola is named (as Viola) only once in the play, and only then in Act 5. She goes on to mention that she “has no fixed location in the play. Even when she speaks “in her own person”—and it is not easy to be sure when that is—the play does not always make clear where we are to “find” her identity “ (203). Why do you think Shakespeare makes Viola so transparent in the play and so difficult to pin down? How does that affect the idea of both Olivia and Orsino falling in love with her?

Q3: How does Malvolio change in Act Five? While he’s still very much the same character, what about his language and his words undergoes an interesting transition? How do we—and Olivia—read him differently in the final act? (or, how does Shakespeare suggest we do?)

Q4: Interestingly, in a play about love, none of the men seem remotely in love with the women in question: Sebastian has no reason to love Olivia (he doesn’t even know her!), and Orsino never quite convinces us that he loves Olivia, either. The men are much more convincing when espousing their love for other men: Orsino for Cesario, and Antonio for Sebastian. Why do you think this is? Why can men speak of love more convincingly among each other than to the opposite sex?

For Friday: Twelfth Night, Act Three (no questions)

Remember, we're doing an in-class response over Act Three of Twelfth Night for Friday's class. Here are a few ideas we might discuss...

* Why does Viola insist on speaking verse with Olivia if she doesn't want to lead her on (as she claims)? She speaks prose with the Fool and Sir Toby, so why not continue to speak prose with her?

* Is Olivia falling in love with him, or just toying with him, to see if she can win him over like Orsino? Is his chief attraction that he doesn't seem to like her (the very reason Orsino seems to like her)?

* What does Viola mean when she says to Olivia, "you do think you are not what you are"? Why does she think the same of him? Does she guess his true identity?

* Why do Toby and Fabian want to start a fight between Andrew and Viola? What are they hoping will result from this duel?

* Is Antonio's love for Sebastian still just a deep friendship? Are there any hints in his language (ala the Sonnets) that he strives for something more?

* Why does Malvolio woo his mistress with prose? You would think his love would make him 'usurp himself' into verse, to show that he's her equal? Instead, he acts like a fool in comic prose. Also--what does he say to her which might shock Shakespeare's audience?

For Wednesday: Twelfth Night, Act Two

Keep reading the play, and feel free to read past Act 2, but we'll only have time to discuss Act 2 for Wednesday's class. We won't have questions for Friday, but will have an in-class response for Act 3, so enjoy these questions! :) 

Answer TWO (or One, in an extended response): 

Q1: Carefully examine Viola’s speech in Act 2, Scene 2, which begins “Fortune forbid my outside have not charmed her!” This is a soliloquy, which means she is speaking to the audience alone; what does she reveal of her innermost thoughts? Is she proud to have conquered Olivia’s affections as a “man”? Does she blame Olivia for her conquest? Or Orsino?

Q2: In Act 2, Scene 4, Orsino and Viola have a debate on who loves deeper: a man or woman. Part of the humor of this scene is that Orsino is telling a woman how women feel, and why they can’t possibly measure up to his own (male) affections. How does Viola respond to his claims, and where might she borrow some ideas from The Sonnets along the way?

Q3: Act 2.5 is one of the funniest scenes in all of Shakespeare, and barely contains a drop of verse from beginning to end. What makes this such a universal scene, and one that stages particularly well for a modern audience? (also, how does Shakespeare take pains to make the language relatively easy to follow)?

Q4: In a play full of "fools," what role does the Fool seem to play in this comedy? While Sir Toby and Sir Andrew are largely confined to one locale, the Fool seems to move freely throughout the play, talking with virtually everyone. Why might a 'fool' i Shakespeare not be exactly what we make a fool to be in the modern sense (or what someone like Sir Andrew is, for example)? 

For Monday: Twelfth Night, Act 1

If you missed class on Friday, we watched Act 1 from a modern version (2018) of Twelfth Night, which had modern dress and locations, though of course it preserved Shakespeare's language. If you want to see a modern authentic version, here's a link to the Globe production of 2013, with Elizabethan dress and performance standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnnmKxICYvM

Read Act 1 for Monday and answer two of the following questions (or 1, in more sufficient detail):

Q1: As Shakespeare goes on in his career, he starts to use prose much more often, especially in his comedies. Who speaks prose in Twelfth Night and why might this be? What does prose allow him to say/express with certain characters and their language?

Q2: Twelfth Night is also the first play in this class where we meet a distinct Shakespearean character (of which Bottom and Puck are distantly related), the Fool. In this play, the Fool (sometimes called Feste) has a very unique relationship with the woman he serves, Olivia. What does this relationship seem to be? Is he her servant? And if so, why does he insult her? Does she like him, or just tolerate him? 

Q3: We hear many echoes of The Sonnets in Act 1, most notably when Orsino tells the cross-dressing Viola that "They say thou art a man. Diana's lip/Is not more smooth and rubious, thy small pipe/Is as the maiden's organ" (25). Where else did you hear these echoes and how might knowing the Sonnets behind them change how we read the scene? 

Q4: Read the exchange between Viola and Olivia in 1.5 carefully. Where and why does their language change? We know that Olivia is smitten with Viola, but is this attraction mutual? How should we stage this interaction based on the language and what they say to one another? 

For Wednesday: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act 5

Read the final act of A Midsummer Night's Dream for Wednesday's class and answer a few more questions...

Q1: The Pyramus and Thisbe play is Shakespeare's cheeky lampoon of the worst theater of his day, performed by some of his most insensible actors. According to this Act, what are some of the hallmarks of bad writing and acting that Shakespeare is exposing to his audience? How does Shakespeare also use his on-stage audience as a kind of 'applause' sign? 

Q2: Shakespeare loves being 'meta,' which means little devices that break down the 'fourth wall' of the stage and suggest the obvious--that the play IS a play, and the actors ARE actors. What are some ways Shakespeare accomplishes this in Act 5, which is the most 'meta' act of all? 

Q3: Though clearly a bathetic tragedy (meaning, one that falls short of being truly pathetic, or touching), how might the Pyramus and Thisbe play be itself an echo (or double) of A Midsummer Night's Dream itself? When does the language, or the characters, or even the plot seem to suggest events that we've seen in the previous play, where the audience were the actors?

Q4: Even stranger than the play, is the role of Puck at the end, who is basically playing the role of Bottom, telling the audience (in this case, us) that "none of this was real, it was all pretend, just a dream, so don't be offended!" Why would Shakespeare do this, when he earlier made fun of Bottom for doing so? Is Puck's apology itself an act of meta-satire? Or is it a sincere apology for going too far? 

For Monday: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Acts 3-4

Answer TWO (or ONE, in greater detail) of the following: 

Q1: For one of the first times in the play, Helena speaks a long monologue in blank verse in 3.2. What makes this speech so significant in the play? Also consider who the speech is made to, and why this might account for her change in language. 

Q2: After humiliating Titania (and taking the Indian child), Oberon magnanimously declares, "Now thou and I are new in amity,/And will tomorrow midnight solemnly/Dance in Duke Theseus' house triumphantly" (4.1). How does she respond to be drugged and tricked? Has she been 'tamed' by him? Or does she realize it was a good trick and simply shrug it off? How do you account for her very brief response in Act 4, as well as the language she speaks? 

Q3: What do you make of Demetrius' claim in Act 4 that:

But like a sickness I did loathe this food.

But, as in health, come to my natural taste,

Now I do wish it, love it, long for it,

And will forevermore be true to it. (4.1)

Is his love for Helena his "natural taste"? Isn't he the only one who isn't restored to his senses? So did Puck have to drug him to force a happy ending? Or have any of them been restored to their "natural taste"? 

Q4: At the end of Act 3, Puck famously declares, 

Jack shall have Jill;

Naught shall go ill,

The man shall have his mare again, and all shall be 

well. (3.2). 

A comedy by definition ends in one or more marriages, so Shakespeare had to conclude this play with the triple marriages of the royal couple, as well as Lysander/Hermia & Demetrius/Helena. But what is being celebrated here? Is Shakespeare, like Puck, merely making fun of the audience's need for happy--if forced--endings? Is he making square pegs fit round holes? Or does he share the misogynistic tastes of his audiences, which wanted to see women tamed and men the masters of their domains? Is Shakespeare ultimately on Theseus & Oberon's side? 

For Friday: A Midsummer NIght's Dream, Act Two

NOTE: No questions this time, but we'll do an in-class writing over some aspect of Act 2 (maybe someone's speech??) when you get to class. Here are some ideas to consider:

* Look at the language of this act: who speaks in verse? Rhymed verse? Blank verse? Prose? Who switches from one to the other?

* How do Titania and Oberon contrast with the other pairs of lovers we've seen so far in the play? Who are they most like? Theseus and Hippolyta? Hermia and Lysander? Helena and Demetrius?

* Why does Oberon demand the little Indian boy from Titania, especially when she clearly has a bond with the child that he does not? How might this echo other aspects of the play from Act 1?

* Why does Shakespeare include songs in his play, especially since most of the poetry in the play is already quite musical? How do we 'read' songs as a reader differently than they would appear on-stage? 

* Is it comic that Lysander exchanges his love for Hermia with Helena so readily? Should a mere drop from a magic flower untie the bonds of love? Is this merely a plot device of comedy, or is Shakespeare's cynicism about love (from the Sonnets) showing through?

For Wednesday: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act One

Answer TWO of the following, or ONE in much greater detail:

Q1: In Chapter 3 of Love: A Very Short Introduction, de Sousa writes, “Many people are convinced that their love, like their belief that two and two is four, is both inescapable and grounded in reasons—even if the reasons cannot be articulated. If desire and belief are alike in this respect, perhaps the explanation is also the same for both” (47). How do we see this quote/idea illustrated in Act One? Who loves for reasons and whose love defies reason? Who is told to love for reasons? Do these reasons make sense to them (or the audience)?

Q2: Examine one of the longer speeches as if it was one of the Sonnets. If we extract this speech from the play and read it like a poem, what does it tell us? How does it play with some of the themes we encountered in the Sonnets, and how do the metaphors help us ‘see’ into the mind of the speaker?

Q3: In The Sonnets Shakespeare delighted in using theatrical metaphors to explore his experience of love. In his plays, Shakespeare loves to mock theatrical conventions and pretensions, particularly among people who don’t really know how they work. How can we read Act One, Scene 2 as a lampoon of theater in Shakespeare’s day? What ‘sins’ does he seem to accuse many actors and playwrights of committing? What makes this scene still read as humorous today, even though we have very different theatrical conventions?

Q4: Discuss some element of the filmed version of Act One that changed the play or helped you see some new aspect of it not in the text. What interpretive decisions did they make (setting, characters, costumes, etc.) that either aided or detracted from the play in your opinion? You might also consider why a production of Shakespeare always has to change something from the original text.

For Friday: de Sousa, Chapter 3, "Desire"

We're taking a break on The Sonnets for a few weeks and transitioning into the first of the four plays we'll read in this class (for next week). However, first I want to dive back into de Sousa for some context that might help us see some interesting aspects of A Midsummer Night's Dream. 

Answer any TWO questions, or ONE in greater detail: 

Q1: de Sousa quotes the comedian Groucho Marx who said, "I would never join any club that would have me as a member." How does this sentiment pervade many of Shakespeare's Sonnets? A specific one? 

Q2: How does the concept of "reward" help perpetuate the cycle of desire and pleasure? If you got rewarded at the end of a pursuit, why would the cycle repeat just as strong as before? Would reward necessarily end the cycle?

Q3: What is the "altruist's dilemma," and how does it help explain why a "Court of Love" in 1176 ruled that love is incompatible in marriage? What does marriage--or any kind of formal union--abolish what is essential (they would argue) to the true condition of love and romance? Would Shakespeare agree with this? 

Q4: According to de Sousa, why is love like stepping on a nail? How are love and pain similar concepts? In other words, why are causes and reasons completely different concepts that we often conflate? Why according to de Sousa is love necessarily "reason-free"?

For Wednesday: The Sonnets, #62, 65, 66, 71, 72, 73, 80, 86, 87, 91

REMEMBER, no class on Monday (Labor Day)! Otherwise, read the next 10 Sonnets for Wednesday's class (feel free to read more, but focus mostly on these 10), which form the basis of the questions below. As usual, answer any TWO of ONE in greater detail. 

Q1: How do these 10 Sonnets effectively conclude the drama we've seen building up in the past few Sonnets? How does the relationship end? Is it amicable? Resentful? Does the poet excuse the lover and his mistress? Or does he go down swinging? 

Q2: In these later Sonnets, a fourth character seems to enter the scene, someone else to complicate the initial love triangle. Where do we see a fourth person (and a second rival for the young man's love)? Why might this rival be even more threatening than the Mistress?

Q3: This is a subjective question, but do you think the Sonnets get better as they go along? Obviously all are written at a very high level, but do they become more innovative, exciting, surprising, and interesting as they reach the 70's and 80's? If so, why might this be? What might this say about the nature of love and poetry?

Q4: As a playwright, Shakespeare not only draws from a stock of theatrical metaphors, but also adopts dramatic poses and rhetoric. Where might we see the poet adopting a theatrical 'mode' for greater effect? In other words, why might the poet be adopting a role or simply "acting out" to elicit a specific emotion from the young man? How do we know this poem might be a little out of place because of this attitude?