In de Sousa’s Love: A Very Short Introduction, he writes, “even good reasons are never good enough. In praising a painting, a critic might adduce this ardent colour, or that graceful line, or the balance of a composition. But it will always be possible to find another painting that shares that feature, and yet fails to be good. If reasons are by definition universal, how can one really speak of such features as affording reasons?” (73-74).
In Shakespeare’s comedies, love rarely has a reason other than ‘magic’ or proximity. In the tragedies, however, characters give us very specific reasons for doing anything: falling in love, plotting revenge, planning murder, assisting their friends, etc. But are these ‘good’ reasons, or are they merely good enough? Is tragedy born from well-meaning reasons that don’t add up? Or do the reasons cause the tragedy of the play itself?
Discuss TWO characters in the last two plays (either one from each play OR two from one) and analyze the reasons they offer the audience for their actions/decisions. These could be reasons for being in love, plotting murder, plotting revenge, assisting their friends, betraying their friends/lovers/country, etc. Is Shakespeare trying to convince us of their love/desire, or show us its fatal lack of reason? In the end, is ‘love’ enough? Or do the reasons come after, to rationalize decisions that have terrible consequences for themselves and others?
REQUIREMENTS
·
Analysis/close reading of two characters—examine their
reasons and how they relate to the plot (do their reasons create the plot,
complicate it, etc.)
·
If possible, find reasons that connect to one another: two
characters whose reasons complement (or contradict) one another
·
At least one outside source to aid your discussion, either
de Sousa (don’t use the quote above—go beyond that), or specific Sonnets
·
Due in two weeks: Friday, November 10th by
No comments:
Post a Comment