On Friday, you received a packet with background information about William Shakespeare. Your assignment is to read the packet and decide one aspect/topic to discuss. Because I would like for everyone to share his/her blog on Tuesday, I'm asking for no more than two students to write about any given topic. Please keep in mind, you can select a topic addressed in the packet as a starting point and add your previous knowledge or expand to the topic by researching additional information. In addition, you can disagree or criticize with the position/topic addressed.
Assignment specifics: Respond to (reflect, agree/disagree with, speculate about...) a topic addressed in your Shakespeare packet. Responses should be 200-250 words and must include specific quotes from the article. In addition, unless you are the first student to respond, you should address a comment made by one of your classmates. (What you choose to address from your classmate does not necessarily need to be directly related to your topic of discussion.) As always, follow the conventions of standard written English. This is an academic assignment, not a Facebook posting...
Due date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011.
“Transvestite Theater and Boy Actors” was the section I found the most interesting because even though it is just highlighting on a simple fact of Theater culture of the early 1600s that men had to play women’s roles and therefore had to cross-dress, meanwhile our modern society finds the practice of cross-dressing to be taboo. Even though it says in the article “…there are so few parts for women in the plays…” Shakespeare is a playwright known for the romances in his plays and the strong female characters. This idea that Shakespeare did incorporate a lot of major female roles into his plays shows some correlation to the fact that, as talked about in “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable”, it is speculated that Shakespeare was indeed bisexual. Being that he obviously was not a conservative of that time period, he was more willing to be risqué with his plots and strike a bit of alarm in his audience. This is evident in both of his plays I have read so far, Macbeth and Hamlet. In Macbeth he has his most intense character as Lady Macbeth, who has the upper-hand over her husband, Macbeth and for Hamlet, he has two main female characters, Gertrude and Ophelia.
ReplyDelete~Ester
Similar to Ester after reading the article “Forget and Footnote and Other Advice” the excerpt that I found the most intriguing was “Transvestite Theatre and Boy Actors”. This excerpt was particularly appealing due to the fact as Ester said, “Modern society finds the practice of cross-dressing to be taboo.” This is due to the fact that the cultures were so vastly different and in Shakespearean times for boys to play the roles of women was completely acceptable. This relates to Blackface, a form of theatrical makeup used in minstrel shows and plays, because just like women in Shakespearean times Blacks were oppressed and denied roles in plays.
ReplyDeleteThis article also exhibits the aspect of cultural differences in the fact that in Shakespearean times women were still oppressed in society. However, even though there were differences in culture in the 15 and 1600’s we can still enjoy Shakespeare’s eloquent plays still to this day due to his intricate writing style.
Also, by writing the roles of women to be played as young boys Shakespeare’s work is given a unique twist; as stated in , “A look at the Elizabeth Stage”, “Shakespeare turned his restriction into an advantage, evoking desirability through language and dramatic action.” This illustrates that this “taboo” aspect of Shakespeare’s plays in turn gives it an unexpected edge for audiences and readers to still enjoy today.
-Russell
The section that I found the most interesting was "The 'Uncomfortable' Shakespeare. To me, this was the most interesting because it speculated a lot about Shakespeare's non-theater life. What really stood out to me, specifically, was the explanation that all these speculations were because of our desire to see the man behind the works (kind of like the man behind the curtain in *The Wizard of Oz*). I agree with the author with the fact that if "somehow we could unveil the real William Shakespeare, we'd probably find him disappointingly ordinary, neither as witty as the Fool." We'd probably be fantastically bored with Shakespeare if we met him. He'd probably be some boring guy who carries a notebook and lots of different colored pens (modern day, of course). This section exposed Shakespeare as a bisexual moneylender, but this is all because we want a personality to go with the name. Still, it is interesting to read the reasoning for why these speculations are made. The author believes that he wanted to be an aristocrat and to have a coat of arms. It is believed that he is bisexual because many of his most amazing love sonnets were addressed to men and contained some of the most romantic words in history. I agree with Ester on the fact that because there are so many strong female characters in Shakespeare's plays, and they had to be played by males due to the social taboos of the time, this points to the fact that Shakespeare is indeed bisexual.
ReplyDeleteCaroline :)
While this article was fascinating as a whole, the description of Shakespeare's audience struck me as highly important. In the section conveniently labelled "Shakespeare's Audience", the author mentions that "like spectators at a baseball game today, the Elizabethan theatre crowd represented a good cross-section of society." The theatre was more than just a visual art; it was a means of social gathering, a lowest common denominator for many of London's citizens. Despite the fact that women were forbidden from participation in all plays, they still comprised a large portion of the regular audience. It is also interesting to note that Shakespeare did not avoid controversy in the presentation of his plays. For instance, actors wore "extravagant, spangled affairs of gold, lace, silk, and velvet," all obscene in the eyes of the Puritan minority. As Ester pointed out, "...he was... willing to be risqué with his plots and strike a bit of alarm in his audience." The fact that so few of his audience were turned off shows that risky moves payed off, and the plays of Shakespeare were something new and exciting to a group of people normally deprived of such different ideas and imagery.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly intrigued by the section “A Brief History”. Some key point I found of interest was that the Globe theatre could hold “about three thousand spectators”. Every artistic representation that I have seen of the Globe theatre is that it was a rather small and intimate theatre, especially when compared to theatres today. However a theater that can hold about three thousand people is a decent sized theatre, even when compared to modern times. Another point I found interesting was that playwrights and plays in general became popular after Shakespeare had already begun his career as a playwright. This suggests that Shakespeare could not have been attracted to the profession of becoming a playwright for the extravagant lifestyle, but maybe because he genuinely enjoyed doing so. I also noticed that the actor who played Hamlet in the Globe theatre had the same last mane as James Burbage who build the first theatre, and whose parts were used to construct the Globe theatre. I wonder if infact Richard Burbage (the actor) became an actor due to the influence of his father building the first theatre. The passage also stated that, “the church profited, pocketing the revenues from pimps and brothels” but, “the city fathers considered playgoing immortal.” I found this highly hypocritical for the church to accept money made means of which they do not consider morally correct. Other types of behavior that the church did not find acceptable was, as Ester said, “he (Shakespeare) obviously was not a conservative of that time period, he was more willing to be risqué with his plots and strike a bit of alarm in his audience” and yet the church made profit off of his success as well.
ReplyDelete-Amina Kureshi
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe section that I found most captivating in the read was the portion called “The Lost Years.” This section adds a mysterious aura around the already amazing life of Shakespeare. The reason as to why I emphasize that this section adds a mysterious sense is because from 1585 to 1592, these are the years that there are no official records of Shakespeare’s life. What is more interesting is that people have speculated that these years have been documented in his plays and in his stories. They have said that he was potentially a “moneylender, gardener, printer, tutor, soldier, coachman, lawyer, clerk and schoolmaster.”
ReplyDeleteThis section also brings out a side of Shakespeare that a person would never expect from him. A rumor is said that Shakespeare was “caught poaching deer on Sir Thomas Lucy’s estate”, one year before his marriage. After being prosecuted, he constantly ridiculed Lucy in which he joked about his name, calling it “Lowse” and “Lowsey” (similar sounding words in the Stratfordian dialect). I would never expect that somebody like Shakespeare would have a childish side to his personality. This legend is also said to be true because several sources have cited Shakespeare pouching a deer.
I agree with Caroline that the The 'Uncomfortable' Shakespeare was also an interesting section of this read. Similar to my interests, this section reveals “Shakespeare’s non-theater life” in which he is thought of as bisexual which also caught my eye in which “the author believes that he wanted to be an aristocrat and to have a coat of arms. It is believed that he is bisexual because many of his most amazing love sonnets were addressed to men and contained some of the most romantic words in history.”
I have chosen to do the "The Globe Excavation". I was amazed at the fact that it took so long for archaeologist to discover the globe theater I mean of course considering the fact that it is such an important fact piece to the world because it gives the world a bigger view on the world of the peasants and high class people. I learned that 1989 or the year that the Globe Theater was discovered is known as Annus Mirabilis. It was decided to reopen the Globe Theater in April 1994 which was just in time to celebrate the 430 anniversary of Shakespeare's birth. Close to the Globe Theater there is a plaque talking about him, across the river there is a bust of Shakespeare and lastly theres is a statue of him in Westminster. When the Globe theater was found they discovered human remains inside more specifically a human skull, scholars believe that it was part of a primitive building ritual known as Macabre. Scholars are also unsure if the Globe Theater was the place where, Othello, King Lear and Macbeth were first acted out. Michael Javier
ReplyDeleteI found the section titled " The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable" to be the most interesting because it compared the works of Shakespeare and his personal life together. Many of Shakespeare's work portray a dark and sometimes controversial plot making the works interesting. His life compared to this, the life that scholars assume he had, also portrays a certain unconventional tone towards society. The complexities of Shakespeare lived a life with a, as Nabeel said, "mysterious aura". Shakespeare is believed to be a homosexual with fancies for boys yet he married a woman and had a child. Like most of his plays, there a several contradictions in his life that seem to be out of the norm in the past and present day society, it might even still live on till future generations. The fact that Shakespeare's work has controversy makes his pieces interesting, Amina stated that Globe Theater, the stage for some of Shakespeare's work, "about three thousand spectators." He captivated a vast number of audience during his life time till the present. This makes others put him in a pedestal; assumptions about his life being complex are made, which may or may not be true connects the both complicated world in his plays and his own. The passage says that we might find Shakespeare to be "disappointingly ordinary", begs the question about the complexity of his works. Since the life of Shakespeare cannot be fully understood due it happening in the past, the question becomes: does his work really deserve this much credit? Shakespeare is undeniably one of the most able writers in the English language, but is his work that important. The lack of proper knowledge about the subject regarding his plays might be over-hyping the values of the play. Human shortcoming might be able to justify how his plays survived for so long. His work presents controversies about forbidden love, vengeance, and insanity; all of these are interesting to society since it is deemed forbidden. There is a vast number of interpretation that can be made out of Shakespeare's plays, but is this just due to over active imaginations of the readers? Regardless of the answer to this question, Shakespeare was still able to capture his audience throughout the ages, making him a stupendous writer. I believe the truth about Shakespeare's works and life will forever be a mystery, remaining infinite like the possible forms of Venus de Milo's hands. These secrets will be kept by the past for the present to ponder on and the future to never discover.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I can see how Michael found "The Globe Excavation" to be interesting in its revelation of the social divisions of England at the time, the section that I found to be the most interesting was “A Look at The Elizabethan Stage”. The first Elizabethan stage was called the Theatre. It was “the first time the word was used to refer to a building specifically designed for the staging of plays”. I was also surprised by the amount of controversy surrounding the erecting of the building. The Theatre was initially built too close to a monastery, and so needed to be moved. After that, the puritanical leaders of the time were against the building due to concerns that the Theatre was a den of sin or that play companies were ”’secret conclaves’ of sodomy”. I was intrigued about the conflict about a “new” form of entertainment or, rather, a new venue in which plays were being performed. People often dislike change, especially when they are in positions of power. This is probably the cause of most of the controversy about the playhouse; after all, the Puritan clergy were a religious group at a point in time in which religion was a main point of life and form of social control and stratification. Also, the clergy had every right to call the new play houses dens of sin in that “near the theatres, bawdyhouses, pubs, and taverns did a booming business”. Though this was most likely not their true purpose in condemning the playhouses, there was an actual reason that they were able to use.
ReplyDeleteLike Franz, I also found the section titled, “The Shakespeare who makes us uncomfortable”, to be one of the most intriguing sections from the article. In this section I found it interesting the fact that Shakespeare portrayed himself as being a mysterious guy through his style of writing and usage of language. Shakespeare is not known very well but most prefer him to be a mysterious guy opposed to being disappointed that he may not be as interesting as he makes himself seem through his words. This section compares the life that Shakespeare lived to that of the characters in his works. Through his writing there is a glimpse of who Shakespeare was and the type of life that he may have led because there are still some unknown facts about Shakespeare. Like Ester mentioned, Shakespeare is depicted as being bisexual in this section and also shows how back then incorporating cross-dressers into a play was not considered to be taboo. I agree with Ester when she mentions the fact that although they mention he was bisexual, in his plays he incorporates women with power and like in Hamlet, Shakespeare gives the females an upper hand over the male characters.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Caroline when she states that they often speculated his life outside of the theater and wondered who was the man behind the words in his plays or sonnets and poetry. The people back then were not fully satisfied with his poetry and playwrights they wanted to know the man behind the name Shakespeare. Like Franz I think that the life of Shakespeare and what he planned for himself would continue to be a mystery and will eventually evolve into a made up story after the constant re-telling and revisions upon many opinions that have already been written about. Back in Shakespeare times the things that he wrote about were as relevant as they are here today. Shakespeare wrote about morals and things that have continued to reside today. The way that he portrayed his characters, he made them be everything that we try to hide that hatred and anger that we are sometimes afraid to show to the world was revealed by Shakespeare through his writings.
-Jasmine Berrios
The Shakespearean plays have had an effect on audiences for centuries and the Globe Theater was the hub and originating home of the Shakespearean performances. During my reading, I found the section that was an interview with Sam Wanamaker. This American actor was attempting to get a Globe Theater. The intrinsic history and culture of that theater truly adds to the atmosphere of the play. I am lucky enough to say that I have actually said I have attended a play in the redone Globe Theater which gave me added insight into his position. It is definitely true that the theater really added another dimension to the environment.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of the article that was interesting was the interest London has in their history. I did feel that they were sensitive to their history and preserving it to their utmost ability. In America, if you can make money off anything, even our history, it will be used for money. It is interesting that they feel it is important to keep it and not end up becoming just another theme park.
I also found that Caroline’s comment on how revealing the true character of Shakespeare would make him too ordinary and relatable. It is the genius of Shakespeare and our lack of knowledge of his personal life that makes him so interesting through the intrigue, and revealing these details would make the mystery solved and the interest would definitely dissipate to an extent.
The section that I found the most interesting was “Shakespeare and the globe” this was one of the most interesting part because without reading this I would have thought the globe theater was an amazing place. Now after reading this I found myself thinking that the globe theater was a shit hole, because there was no rest room so the spectators had to hold it in are pee themselves so after a while it would smell like “urine as well as ginger, garlic, beer, tobacco, and sweat.” Very few people also did not bathe. But many people would come from all over to see these acts, one example would be to see the machinery like used in The Tempest where Ariel is brought up to heaven. People back then would be amazed to see such a thing. This is why I agree when mike brings up “gives the world a bigger view on the world of the peasants and high class people.” This is why the globe theater I believe put two groups of people together and made the peasants feel high class and the high class just felt the same.
ReplyDelete-Inol Santana
Responding to Inol above, I would have to agree that the Globe Theater seems much more glorified than it actually was. In the movies, such as the one the class watched last week, it was not obvious that the theater was trashed. In fact, it seemed to be upper class for the most part, and the only place that appeared to look poor was the commoners section.
ReplyDeleteOne particular section in the Shakespeare packet entitled “Useful Shakespearean Terms” interested me, as it applies to both the literary devices that we have been discussing in class, and the difference in terminology in Shakespearean time. Of the terms listed, Braggart soldier/miles gloriosis, Great Chain of Being, Vice, and War of the Theatres. The Braggart soldier is defined as “a standard comic figure dating from antique Roman comedy”. The term makes me think of the Shakespearean clowns and Polonius because both offer some form of comic relief, and Polonius accurately fits the description of “the braggart soldier talks a lot, but his actions are mostly confined to words”. The great chain of being appears to be the philosophical approach to understanding life as a whole, functioning under a hierarchical order. Similar to many modern religions, a God is seen as the top of the chain. Vice relates to literary terms Allegory and Personification, as it is a combination of both. The use of vices is evident in Macbeth with the witches, and king Hamlet persuading his son to avenge him. Both ultimately contribute to the conflict, leading to the downfalls of both tragic heroes. The War of the Theaters reminded me of battle of the bands, both of which consist of rivalry between two different groups of people. The idea of it being a war suggests that the tensions were extremely competitive, maybe even a bit harsh. It can be directly related to the competitive nature in modern life, including school, jobs, and modern acting.
~ David Roccapriore
The section that I found most interesting was the section about Shakespeare's life. This is mostly because how horrible the record keeping was that it allows for people to debate over aspects of his life. It made me think that in 400 years when the future is looking back onto know they'll be able to pull up every Facebook post, every text ever sent, and every document ever signed. If Shakespeare was now and we were the future then we would know exactly how Shakespeare was kicked out of Stratford due to a very informative Twitter update. What mostly grasped my attention was how "there's no record that Shakespeare attended school, but since such records were not maintained, there isn't any evidence against it either". This playing into the scandal of "did Shakespeare really wright all his plays?", similar to the concept of the movie Anonymous. If Shakespeare was never schooled then its hard to believe that he was the one who wrote all these plays but since the record keeping was so horrible back then it's all up to speculation.
ReplyDeleteI like the point that Ester made in her post about how in the Shakespeare time, since women were not allowed to act, most parts were for men. However, Shakespeare plays have very strong and key women roles and yet he was still able to capture the audience members of his time.
The section I found interesting was "Shakespeare's Audience" I feel that to fully understand Shakespeare's work, you need to know who he was writing for. These plays were meant to entertain everyone from "unskilled laborers" to "gentry and lords." Shakespeare needed to write in terms that the common folk could understand, but also so that it entertained the wealthy. As Josh said, “it was a means of social gathering.” Shakespeare’s plays provided a time when friends and families could get together and enjoy themselves. I find it extremely impressive that “10 percent of London’s population regularly attended the theater.” This shows how much the people of London loved Shakespeare’s plays. While women were not allowed to perform in his plays, women of every status would go to see Shakespeare, even having a “major presence” at his shows. Shakespeare wrote for the people. He told stories of rich and the poor that everyone in his audience could relate to or know about. His ability to relate to his audience still resonates today. We might not be able to relate to having a king or queen but the underlying issues of society and human nature are still present today. This is why Shakespeare is still remembered today.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about Shakespeare I think about plays with questionable language which most people during this time and day can not understand the first time around without reading it a second time. And to me because of this lack of understanding and necessity of higher vocabulary in order to read Shakespeare is what makes his plays so popular in education. So because it is very difficult to understand Shakespeare, one may try to approach the readings in many different ways or styles in order to gain an advantage when reading the plays. This is what is being talked about in the article "Forget the Footnotes And Other Advice". This article talks mainly about certain ways that you should approach reading Shakespeare, and there are some methods I agree with and some that I do not. I understand that for some parts when it says "the worst way of interpreting Shakespeare is to say he meant this, and just this, and to give a formula" which makes sense but this is not always true. Sometimes an interpretation could be completely wrong in an argument. In continuation, "some experts advise not to start reading Shakespeare until you're at least sixty-five" which brings up the point that I feel as though that you should read Shakespeare on your own time and not at a specific date and time, just begin reading and see what you could pick up. When Shakespeare presented these plays they were for people of all different kinds and so similar to what Dillon said you need understand the audience that it was presented to and understand that anyone could read Shakespeare.
ReplyDelete-Brandon Simone
I agree with Kiara when she says that if Shakespeare lived today and we lived 400 years in the future, we would probably know more about him than we know about Albert Einstein. That is, unless some global electrical calamity struck and the internet and everything was wiped or lost. As Einstein said, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Within the next 400 years this may well come to pass and it would likely cause most modern technology to be lost, forgotten, or destroyed.
ReplyDeleteI also found the first article "Forget the Footnotes! And Other Advice" to have some interesting things to say. Even the very first line is some very interesting advice I've never seen before, "Some experts advise not to start reading Shakespeare until you're at least sixty-five". Following this advice would suggest that most English teachers and almost all students should not be reading Shakespeare. Another person says "If there's a production near you, see it. If you're bored at the halfway point, leave. But don't blame Shakespeare for that production. Don't think that because you're bored, he's boring." This suggests (to me, anyways) that Michael Tolaydo, the person who wrote that, thinks that often modern day productions of Shakespeare's plays aren't as good as the originals were.
Andrew Bauer
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Ester when she says "modern society finds the practice of cross-dressing to be taboo." While modern society does find cross dressing in public for no apparent reason severely taboo, cross dressing in the context of the article (i.e. in theatre and acting) has been and still is a widely accepted practice. Some notable and more modern examples include Hair Spray (it is tradition in any format that Edna Turnblad is a male in drag), Some like it Hot, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and many comedy acts from like SNL and Monty Python. That said there is still some merit to Ester’s argument because Shakespeare was far more risqué with what was required of the cross dressers while many of the modern examples of drag in acting are mainly there for shock value or comedic purposes
ReplyDeleteThe piece in the reading I found the most interesting was “The Plays” in the “Chronology” section. Like any historical statistic the exact writing and release of many Shakespeare’s plays either wasn’t recorded, recorded poorly/vaguely, or the recording has been lost in the annals of history. So I find the idea that by using contextual clues in Shakespeare’s writing scholars believe they can accurately and precisely predict when the plays were written. One example of this is when they were “Titania’s description of torrential summer weather in A Midsummer Night’s Dream presumably refers to the notoriously wet summer of 1594 to 1596