Paper #1: Is This Love? due Sep.11th by 5pm

NOTE: The questions for Friday are in the post BELOW this one...

English 3213

Paper #1: Is This Love?

PROMPT: Using 3-4 Sonnets from the ones we’re reading in this unit of the class (1-94), make an argument for what kind of love and relationship the poet is exhibiting. Choose one of the following (or some variation of one of the following):

• A passionate, erotic relationship between two men which is consummated at some point (let us know the before and after)
• A passionate, idealistic relationship between two men which is not consummated, and the young man may or may not even know of the poet’s love (maybe the poems were intended to be private, like a diary?)
• A deeply committed friendship between two men who are not romantically involved but have a modern-day ‘bromance’ (maybe the poet is of a lower class, and couldn’t really hang out with him)
• A deeply committed paternal relationship on the part of the poet toward a younger man, whom he sees more like a beloved, if wayward, son (a playwright instructing a would-be actor?)
• OR, a fifth option, with some combination of the above (maybe one that turns into the other??)

In your paper, you should briefly trace how the relationship evolves, deepens, sours, and maybe even ends through these 3-4 Sonnets. You’re not trying to tell the entire story with these Sonnets, but just the basic outline. Summarize the story that you see and read in your paper, and then use a few close reading examples to bring it to life. Be sure to use Love: A Very Short Introduction as a source in this paper, quoting examples from the text to help you read/discuss the kind of love you encounter in the Sonnets.

CITATION: Be sure to cite lines from The Sonnets either by line or page number. You can also make poetry into single lines using the slash (/) for a line break as I did above. Introduce sources before you quote them (either de Sousa or the specific Sonnet you’re quoting) and include page numbers at the end. A Works Cited page should list all the sources you used in your paper.

REQUIREMENTS:

• At least 3-4 pages in length, but you can do more; be specific and try not to summarize too much.
• Close reading from specific Sonnets for support
• Use of de Sousa’s book for support—quote, don’t just summarize (it’s more persuasive)  
• DUE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11^th by 5pm!

For Friday: Sonnets #s 30-31, 33-35, 40-42, 46-47, 57-58

REMEMBER, no class on Wednesday (sadly) since I'll be out of town until the afternoon. I should be back by 1 or so if you have any questions or need any assistance. 

Read through the next batch of Sonnets, especially the following pairs: 

30-31

33-35

40-41

46-47

57-58

Then answer TWO of the following, or ONE in a longer response:

Q1: In many of the Sonnets, Shakespeare seems to elaborate on the same idea in pairs or throughout several Sonnets. Discuss how one of the pairs above seems to do this? What does he most develop: the situation? The metaphor? the approach? the tone/attitude? Be specific so we can see how they're related, and if possible, what one of them develops (is the second harsher than the first, or vice versa?)

Q2: How does the relationship seem to change throughout these Sonnets, especially in light of the previous ones? Is the relationship progressing, or standing still? Are there any new developments or new characters in the 'drama' of the Sonnets? Does the poet reveal himself in new ways in these Sonnets? Is a platonic love becoming erotic, or vice versa? Be sure to highlight a specific example.

Q3: Discuss a line or lines where Shakespeare either employs puns or words/phrases that have multiple meanings. How does Shakespeare exploit these words to create ambiguity or a complex meaning? Is he trying to be cautious in doing so, or is he being catty or derisive? 

Q4: Many of these poems are defined by their complaints: the poet seems to have a lot of grievances against the young man, and has trouble hiding his feelings. Reading between the lines, what does the young man seem to have done to the poet, or what 'crimes' has he committed? Do these threaten the relationship they have together, or is it more born out of jealousy or paranoia? 

For Monday: The Sonnets, #'s 15, 20, 22, 23, 25, & 29

A portrait of Shakespeare? We'll never know, just like we don't know if the Sonnets are his private letters, or a very public performance...

For Monday, read another handful of Sonnets, anywhere from 15-30, or the ones I've listed above: 15 (again, since it's a good one), 20, 22, 23, 25, & 29. Then answer TWO of the following questions for class:

Q1: Many of the early sonnets seem to express a philia, or sincere friendship between the poet and the young man (as in Sonnet 1). Do you detect a change in the Sonnets as they hit the 20's? What specifically seems to change, and where might we sense an element of eros? Do you think the poet addressing them to a different audience? Clues?

Q2: Shakespeare loves to make references to the stage and acting in his work, and especially in his Sonnets. Where do you see any allusions or metaphors to the world of the stage in these poems? A quick example: (Sonnet 15), "That this huge stage presenteth nought but shows." :) 

Q3: Reading between the lines of these poems, how does the poet reveal something about his personal life or concerns? What is his relationship to the young man (or whomever he's writing to)? Are they of the same age? Class? Profession? How can we tell?

Q4: Discuss something interesting, unique, or puzzling you find in one of the Sonnets. It could be strange syntax, beautiful sounds/rhymes, strange metaphors, or uncertain pronouns. What do you find strange/interesting about this, and how does it affect the poem itself? 

For Friday: Starting (Slowly) the Sonnets!

For Friday: Shakespeare. The Sonnets (1-18)

NOTE: I am only assigning the following Sonnets in the range of the first 18: 1, 3, 9, 12, 15, 18. You can read all of them if you like, but these are the only ones you need to read. And even as you read them, try to single out 2 or 3 to read more than once and to get inside a little bit more than the others.

NOTE ON SONNETS: A Shakespearean sonnet is in iambic pentameter, which means each line has 10 syllables (sometimes 11) that alternate with unstressed and stressed beats. It follows an ABABCDCDEFEFGG rhyme scheme every time. It ends in a Couplet, which are two rhymed lines which provide a little twist to the meaning of the poem. It often gives us a little jolt or surprise, and it can contradict other aspects of the Sonnet. We’ll discuss more on how to read Sonnets and Shakespeare’s poetry in Friday’s class.

Answer TWO of the following using any of the poems in this range:

Q1: Discuss a line that employs unusual syntax, meaning the arrangement of words in a poetic sentence. What do you think this line would translate to in ‘normal’ English? Why might he write it this way? In other words, why does he try to be more confusing than direct?

Q2: How does a specific poem (or a specific line or two) seem to underline some of the ideas discussed in de Sousa’s book about love, hierarchies of love, philosophies of love, etc.? Feel free to quote the passage in Love: A Very Short Introduction to illustrate this.

Q3: Choosing one specific sonnet, what makes it unusual to call this a “love sonnet”? What might it stretch the definition or experience of writing about love to a lover? Does this sonnet seem to be concerned with Eros love, or a different type of love? How can we tell?

Q4: Discuss a specific metaphor in one of the Sonnets that you find interesting, exciting, strange, or simply revealing. What is Shakespeare using the metaphor to explain, and what makes it such an interesting/unusual image? How might it reveal something about the nature and experience of love in Shakespeare’s time?

For Wednesday: de Sousa, Love, Chapter 2: "Perspectives"

Read Chapter 2, "Perspectives" from Love: A Very Short Introduction, but there are no questions this time. Instead, we'll do an in-class writing when you arrive in class on Wednesday (a simple one, so don't worry about reading too carefully--just try to get a general sense of the chapter). However, here are some ideas you might look out for as you read:

(don't answer these--just ideas to consider) 

* How is love a social construction, even though it is a universal and instinctual experience? How does society create--through our involvement--its own rules and taboos?

* In Chapter 2, de Sousa calls love a "pathology"...how does this relate to his earlier claims that it was also a "condition" and a "syndrome"? How does Shakespeare's Sonnet 147 play into this?

* Why do you think love is a way to excuse other reprehensible forms of behavior and manners (which in another context might lead to punishment)? Why does love get a pass when other types of behavior and conditions don’t? What might this say about our understanding of what love is, and what it has to do with logic and reason?

* If love is based on reason, why don't we fall in love with anyone who satisfies our reason? In other words, if you said that you were looking for X,Y, and Z in a person, would you fall in love instantly with everyone who satisfied these criteria? 

* Note how often de Sousa draws from classic literature to explore/explain love: Plato, Shakespeare, Freud, etc. Does this suggest that love is an example of life imitating art? Are we constantly trying to cosplay at art (to continue our discussion from Monday)? Is it all one giant imitation? And is this imitation an example of "sincere flattery"? Or is there something defeated and desperate in it? 

For Monday: de Sousa, Love: A Very Short Introduction, Chapter One

For Monday's class, either answer TWO of the following in short responses, or answer ONE in a much longer response (but it should be more developed and show me that you're really pursuing the question). 

Q1: de Sousa points out that the Greeks had several different words for several different kinds of love, whereas we only have one, 'love.' And yet, when we talk about love, we most often refer to eros, rather than agape, or philia, etc. Why do you think this is? Is this one more important than the others? Or just more important to our culture?

Q2: This chapter also makes the bold claim that "love is not an emotion" (3). He calls it instead a "syndrome" or a condition. Do you agree with this? Why might it actually be difficult to zero in on the emotion of love? 

Q3: One of the most interesting passages in this chapter (indeed, I included it on the syllabus) occurs on page 8: "If love reflects the unique characteristics of the individuals involved, we should expect a virtually infinite diversity of emotions of human loves. What is puzzling is that the exquisite uniqueness of both lover and beloved seems to manifest itself in a surprisingly restricted number of stock scenarios." Why do you think this is? Is it because of cultural taboos and biases? Or is love ultimately a very limited condition governed by a strict sense of chemical responses? 

Q4: In a seemingly humorous paradox, de Sousa writes that "The common dogma that love is purest when not contaminated by sex has an equally plausible converse: we can be sure that sexual desire is pure only when it remains uncontaminated by love" (16). This seems to go against everything we see in romantic comedies and love poems today, so what is he getting at? How can sex with love be "impure" or "contaminated"? 

Welcome to the Course!

Welcome to our journey into Shakespeare, and more specifically, into how Shakespeare's plays and poems can help us investigate the nature of love, both historically and in modern culture. Be sure to buy the books for the class as soon as possible, particularly one of our central texts, de Sousa's Love: A Very Short Introduction. The other works we'll be reading are The Sonnets, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Twelfth Night, Othello, and Antony and Cleopatra. 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, impressions, misgivings, and epiphanies as we read through his works and consider the modern implications of the Elizabethan art of love (which, in many ways, we still subscribe to)! 

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").