Self Evaluation

Alright, so here is an evaluation of my blog, using my own evaluations and some suggestions/comments from Natashya who did a peer review for my blog:

• Posts

• Quantity:  I have 39 blogs, 18 of which are specific to my research topic.  I think this has been a sufficient amount of blogs to explore Shakespeare, and also research specific to Myths and Archetypes in Shakespeare. 
• Content:  I have a variety of different posts.  Some posts I have just had fun with (silly, but I had a blast writing this one), while in others I try to really examine Shakespeare's texts and analyze his plays. I've learned a lot using media, and tried to use pictures in most of my blogs, and have added videos before.  I think the media use is applicable to the blog, and also livens it up a bit so it isn't boring to look at.  As well as textual analysis I do have media analysis. 
• Format: My titles have become more specific (such as Myth: Witches, or Archetype: Shadow).   I've tried to consistently use jump breaks if my blogs are longer than a screen length.  Some blogs are tagged, I've tried to make sure that there is at least one blog tagged per learning outcome requirement (although for outside readers these kinds of tags will make little sense.) 

Shakespeare in Performace

today I wanted to write about a play I was in in high school.  One of our learning outcomes is to perform Shakespeare, so I thought I'd blog about my experience with acting.  I was one of the maids in Much Ado About Nothing.  It was really fun, I got lines to memorize and spent months rehearsing.  I'm trying to remember if I bought a video of the play because it was recorded.

We also learned dances, which I thought was fun.  It was really interesting to learn about the different styles in clothing, and to really study Shakespeare's language.

Archetype: good and bad

Alright, today I wanted to get in one more blog on Myths and Archetypes before I finished my blog.  I wanted to look into good and bad - I know these seem pretty basic, but they are an archetype.  As Hamlet 2:2 says, "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

I remember once watching Much Ado About Nothing.  In case the audience couldn't tell that Prince John was a bad character he was dressed all in black, with long shaggy hair.  Often we connect certain things with good and bad.  White is good, black is bad.  Male is strong, female is weak.  etc.

Peer Evaluation: John Kendrick

I have been looking over John Kendrick's blog.  His focus is on Shakespeare's influence on the literary cannon, specifically his influence on Faulkner. 

Posts:

• Quantity: There seem to be a good amount of posts (34). 

 
• Content: Good analysis, although I might suggest putting more depth/time into a few blogs.  Some of the content in your blogs seems disjointed, see if you can connect the different ideas to make a cohesive whole both within individual blogs and using the blogs as a whole to support your argument.  

• Format: The titles are all have something to do with Faulkner, they will mention his name or his works, but they could be more specific - like in"The Lighted Fools of The Sound and The Fury," you could perhaps preface it with Faulkner and Shakespeare, and then put your title.
   
• Good use of jump breaks.

Research:

• Thematic Focus:  Nicely developing theme. 

• Thesis & Cohesion:  good use of linking to connect different posts to the thesis statement.
• Sources used in posts could be listed more obviously, and adding page numbers would be useful where applicable

• Sources: Sources Page looks good

Personal & Social:

• Author identity: Personality in the blogs - I might suggest trying to separate the blogs in which you are listing info on what you are planning to do and accomplishing, and the blogs where you analyze Shakespeare. 

• Documentation of Process:  Good job on documentation of your blog theme's 'evolution'

• Interactions:  Also, good job with peer/social interactions (one example in your Night Letter to the Reader post).

Design:

• Appropriate to Theme: Great design on the blog.  - if you put a few pictures on your blogs that might help to brighten it up a little and make the blogs look more interesting  

• Side content: seems good, I didn't find it distracting, or wanting.

Hub Post: Mythological and Archetypal Criticism in Shakespeare

Focus:
I’ve been looking at Shakespeare’s works through Mythic and Archetypal Criticism (which I look into in my preliminary hub post).  I have come up with 4 main myths in Shakespeare’s works, these are underlying beliefs that make up or even create Shakespeare’s world, and hence the worlds he creates.

• Fate and Fortune

• The gods

• Magic (which includes a variety of things from witches to fairies to spirits in The Tempest like Ariel)

• Stars and Constellations

Archetypes are made from myths, they are specific patterns in a work.  An example of this would be an earlier post I made that examined many of these archetypes. There are many, many archetypes that Shakespeare uses.  Some other Archetypes I have identified are: Light and Dark, Witch, Blackness, Shadow, Hero, and Good and Bad.  

Thesis: 

Myths and Archetypes in Shakespeare’s works create a depth of understanding.  There is underlying meaning that Shakespeare purposely includes in his plays, using his awareness of myths and archetypes.  There are also myths and archetypes embedded in his plays which Shakespeare himself may not have been aware.  Shakespeare’s plays evidence use of myths and archetypes to layer and interconnect the texts. 

Engaging Shakespeare: Skype

Last week everybody should have heard our AWESOME call over skype, where we read the last act of The Tempest.  I actually was surprised how fun it was.  

Analyzing this digital mediation: Firstly, it took much longer to pull this thing together than you would think.  Besides all the time spent, dealing out parts and finding a time where everyone was available.  It took us almost half an hour to figure out skype.  This helps me feel for directors and realize how much they really put into movies, as well as all the work the technician do to make things run smoothly.

A few things I wrote down in notes about my experience were the stage actions, for one thing, were impossible to follow.   I noticed that people would just pause for a few seconds when they were supposed to do something and then continue on - in that way I felt a little less engaged in Shakespeare.  Also, the girls reading guys parts threw me off, especially where I wasn't able to see the other actors and random voices simply voiced their lines.

Overall though, very fun.  I think it's really great all the new ways of engaging Shakespeare using technology.  It really says a lot for someone's plays when they're still being not only read, but changed as the culture around them changes!

Myth: Witches

As I continue to look at Myths and Archetypes in Shakespeare, another interesting myth, or underlying belief, in Shakespeare's time is that of witches.  This is especially evident in plays like Macbeth.  As well as the historical context of this novel as King James was obsessed with demonology and witches, witchcraft was a very common belief during the Elizabethan Era.  Some estimates say that 16,000 women were killed on charges of witchcraft. 

Myth: Fairies in a Mid-Summer Night Dream

I believe that fairies would be included under Myths, in Mythological and Archetypal Criticisms.  I was trying to study up on how Shakespeare and his audience would have believed in fairies.  In this 'modern age' we don't believe in fairies and magic that are displayed in this play, but back then people were much more superstitious.  

The main fairies in A Mid-Summer Night's Dream are: Titania, Oberon, and Puck(!).  I found a really interesting article that talked about the fairies in Shakespeare.  I wasn't quite sure what to think of them just reading through the play.  This article, Shakespeare's Fairies: The Triumph of Dramatic Art edited by William J. Rolfe, views the fairies as children, "They are not diminutive human beings with superhuman powers, though in some respects they are like human children. Like young children before they have learned the distinction between right and wrong, they have no moral sense, and little or no comprehension of such sense in the mortals with whom they are associated. Like children, they live in the present, and are quite incapable of reflection."

Archetype: Hero

As I study Shakespeare through Myth and Archetypal Criticism I decided to take a closer look at the Hero Archetype.  Joseph Campbell talks a lot about this Archetype in his book, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces."  The Hero is a 'stereotype' we all can associate with, we all have a definition of what a hero is or does (be it Mr. Incredible, Batman, Sir Galahad, or Jimmer).  A hero is usually the main character or a story or a plot line, is faced with a problem or a complication, and then must overcome that complication.

Shakespeare uses this Archetype in some very interesting ways.  Instead of simply giving us a 'hero' figure, he gives us a main character who could be a hero and then puts him under pressure - but these characters don't always succeed.  It is left to us then to decide if these characters are actual heroes or not.  Since we've all read Hamlet, it is easy to see what I mean.  He is a prince, he has a complication - but he doesn't face it nobly or heroically.  This leads us to ask the question or our Heroic Archetype, "what really makes a hero?"

As Joseph Campbell's book sates, "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won" (23). Thus Shakespeare questions our very view of what being a hero really is.  As strange as it sounds, I actually really like this because it makes me look closer into the story line and character, making my own judgments and actually taking something influential away from the text.

Bibliography

Joseph Campbell. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968. Print.  

Myth: Stars, Planets and Constellations

In my last post on Mythological and Archetypal Criticism I focused on the role stars plays in Shakespeare's works.  Both Joanna Barker and Brooke Randell commented that it would be interesting for me to look into this myth deeper and make another post, so I decided to study stars and constellations a little more. 

I found an Article on this very subject that I really liked entitled "Shakespeare and Astrology."  It discusses stars and planets in Shakespeare and how they worked in that time period.

Myth: Stars

As I am studying Mythic and Archetypal Criticism in Shakespeare's plays I thought I would look up some history on stars and astrology.  In many of his plays Shakespeare's characters believe their fate is laid in part by the stars, or the month they were born.  This is somewhat superstition, but it also plays into the idea of fate and how much control people really do have over their lives.  In Shakespeare's time it really was a question.  But, as he states himself, "It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves."


The role stars play may seem crazy, but think about it.  One of Shakespeare's most famous quotes is of Romeo and Juliet being, "star-crossed lovers."  this means they didn't have a choice, fate meant them to be together and they couldn't help themselves.  Throughout the play this struggle against the uncontrollable is shown in quotes like, "Some consequence yet hanging in the stars" (1:4),or "is it even so? then I defy you, stars!" (5:1).  Juliet is even compared to a star, "Juliet is the sun" (2:2).  

One of the best plays to look at to see this struggle between being in control of your destiny or not is King Lear.  Edmud states this problem eloquently, "this is the excellent foppery of the world, that, when we are sick in fortune, -- often the surfeit of our own behavior, -- we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the moon, and the stars: as if we were villains by necessity."  Many times it was easier for people to believe they didn't have control of their own destinies.


The tragedy of King Lear is all about choices and fate.  In the end there is still a continuing argument between destiny and choice. 

Archetypes in Shakespeare

Big words like "Archetype" and "Shakespeare" are scary - especially when you have no idea what an Archetype is.  So, first things first.

What is an Archetype?

An archetype is like a code that we use to help us understand things - it helps us lean what to expect: what is normal and what isn't.  One of the most common archetypes is the prince and the princess - not only fairy tales, but lots of other stories as well, end with the prince marrying the princess.  Another common archetype is the prince saving the damsal in distress - why does he kill the dragon and kiss the girl?  Because everyone expects him to.  Killing the dragon is right, saving the girl is right.

However, archetypes go a lot deeper than the surface value you may see at first.  People like to play with archetypes, they like to follow them sometimes, and other times they like to break the "rules" and do something unexpected.  (Whether you like the movie "Enchanted" or not, it is a good example of breaking rules.  Does it break any real rules?  No . . . and yes.  It breaks the rule that the prince marries the damsel in distress.)

So we've answered the first question.  The second question could be who is Shakespeare - but hopefully you already know.  He is a famous playwright.

Archetypes in Shakespeare:

• Black and White.  Black is evil.
• Light and Dark.  Dark is bad, light is good.
• Stars and Constellations.  The universe exerts its will over others wills.  A prime example of this is Romeo and Juliet as star-crossed lovers.
• Magic and Bewitching.  Women have been portrayed as witches or other creatures with magical powers for centuries (think of sirens or mermaids).
• The Hero.  Whether you think it or not, archetypes teach you to look for a hero.  There is always one person set up to be the protagonist, the hero.
• Good and Bad.

This is a good start, although by no means a comprehensive list of the archetypes Shakespeare uses in his plays. 

There are many different Archetypes that we don't think about, or even seem blatantly obvious.  I hope this helps explain how archetypes work in Shakespeare's plays.

Romeo and Juliet: the story

As I was trying to think of ways to engage Shakespeare creatively I decided to write a chapter on a section of play, kind of flesh it out.  I picked Romeo and Juliet as the play I wanted to write about - I know everybody makes fun of Romeo and Juliet because they're so young, but I wanted to give them some real feelings and emotions like I like to imagine they shared.  I set it right after Romeo killed Tybalt and is being forced to flee for his own life.  It's kind of long, but I hope you like it.  I've modernized it a little bit, as there are quotes from Keats (who wasn't alive at the time) and references to chocolate, but I think it gets the emotions I was trying to convey across. – sorry, I know it’s kind of cheesy. 

Archetype: Light and Dark

Continuing with my theme of looking at myths and archetypes in Shakespeare's works.  I looked at the archetype of darkness a few posts ago.  Jennifer Prusse wrote a comment on my blog guiding me to a blog Hanna Pulley had done on the same idea of light and dark.   She talked about Rosaline verses Juliet, and how Shakespeare cleverly compares Rosaline to darkness, and Juliet to light - like "Juliet is the sun."

I thought the use of archetype specifically as applied to a character was interesting.  I looked up an article at the BYU library about the archetype compared to a person.  I found one by Anson C Flyer called, "Self-Unification: An Archetypal Analysis of Prospero in Shakespeare's The Tempest."  This article talks about light and dark inside of Prospero, melding in nicely with the arcetype of light and dark as well as another post I did on the shadow archetype as Prospero battles with himself to become a 'unified' person.  Prospero struggles to find a balance between animus and anima,  finding this balance in the old sage, or wise old man, figure in the play. 

I thought this was an interesting idea and I hope others do as well.  The shadow archetype as well as archetypes of light and dark fascinate me and I'm really enjoying taking a closer look into them.

Archetypes: Shadow

As I've been looking at myths and archetypes in Shakespeare's works recently, I thought that an interesting Archetype to study more thoroughly is an idea of Archetypal Critic, Carl Jung.  Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist, one of his main Archetypes, which he studied extensively, was that of 'the shadow.'  Jung believed that each person had a shadow inside of themselves.  The shadow was that suppressed, artistic, almost radical part of people.  He believed that if the shadow was ignored, the person repressing it would only be 'half of a person.'  I did a post earlier in the semester on the shadow archetype in Richard III, examining how Richard was destroyed by his shadow because he let it overrun him.  Instead of ruling his ambition he gave into it and became a very cruel and almost lost character in Shakespeare's tragedy.

I was looking up quotes in Shakespeare I found one that really intrigued me in Hamlet 2:2.

Hub Post: Mythological and Archetypal Criticism

I've been looking at Shakespeare's plays through Mythological Criticism and Archetypal Criticism, which I explained in one of my earlier posts.  Shakespeare's plays have some very interesting underlying stories and beliefs.

Some major myths are:

• Fate
• Fortune
• Magic/Mystical
• Gods
• Stars and Constellations 

There are also some very interesting archetypes which Shakespeare uses.   One example would be his connection of 'black' to bad in his plays, contrasting good and evil.

I'm going to be looking at different conventions Shakespeare uses in Myths and Archetypes.  Many times Myths in Shakespeare are not beliefs we share with Shakespeare's characters, such as belief in Apollo.  Frequently Archetypes are harder to notice, as two things seem logically connected, but are actually only connected in our minds.  I also want to look into different criticisms such, as Carl Jung and his shadow archetype.

Through Myths and Archetypes we are able to find a richer deeper world inside of Shakespeare's plays, realizing social constructions and beliefs that help us realize the world we have created around ourselves.  As well as using many of these constructions, Shakespeare also contributes to them, including ideas such as 'star-crossed lovers.'

Archetype of Blackness

For my blog post today I decided to do a close read of a play, looking for specific archetypes in that play.  I've decided to look at Macbeth.  One association we make almost sub-consciously is that black = evil. This is a convention, or an archetype that Shakespeare uses in his play Macbeth.

A prime quote from Macbeth that shows this is in Act 1 Scene 4:

"Stars, hide your fires; let not light see my black and deep desires: the eye wink at the hand; yet let that be, which the eye fears, when it is done, to see" (emphasis added).

Fortune's Wheel

Looking into mythological criticism.  Another 'myth' I have found very common in Shakespeare's plays (to go along with the fate in my previous blog) is that of Fortune, or the Wheel of Fortune.  The Wheel of Fortune is associated with the idea of Fate.  The goddess Fortuna spins this wheel to bring some people good luck and others bad randomly.

The Wheel of Fortune is very much another way for people to blame what is happening to them on something besides themselves.  There is nothing that can be done about what Fortune's wheel sends to its recipients.  In Shakespeare's plays Fortune is personified as an actual person or player, who 'puppeteers' the characters under her control.

An example would be in Henry V 3:6, "cruel fate, and giddy Fortune's furious fickle wheel, that goddess blind,that stands upon the rolling restless stone--"


King Lear also exemplifies this when Kent speaks of fortune in  Act 2 Scene 2, "Fortune, good night, smile once more; turn they wheel!"

Fate

As I'm trying to view Shakespeare from a Mythological viewpoint I was trying to think of myths that work throughout Shakespeare's works.  One of these myths is fate.  Just to give everybody an idea of how prevalent the idea of fate is, here are some quotes from different plays about fate.  These are by no means all of the examples, but this is a long list.  (don't read them all if you don't want to, I just thought these were some good examples showing how fate was viewed.) 

Apollo

Apollo is one of the deep interwoven 'myths' that all the characters in The Winter's Tale believe in.  The god's and fate are a large part of the accepted world around these characters, as well as even Shakespeare.  There are many, many references to fate and the gods in Shakespeare's plays.

It was believed that people couldn't always control their lives, fate had a handle on them and no matter what they did, fate would win the fight.  Examples of this would be Romeo and Juliet as they are 'fated' to fall in love - star crossed lovers.  Or in King Lear when Kent bemoans his unavoidable 'fate.'

In The Winter's Tale the gods play a very active roll, as Hermione calls on Apollo to be her judge.  It seems very natural in the play, but if anyone tried that in today's courts they wouldn't get anything except maybe called crazy.  Hermione boldly cries, "Apollo be my judge" and is even seconded in this motion.  Leontes also eventually admits that he has been rejecting the gods will.  "Apollo's angry," he morns after his son has died suddenly. 

Lastly, the play itself supports this belief in the gods.  Hermione is innocent, and so when the Apollo (through the oracle) declare this, his existence as an all powerful being is supported.  When Leontes son dies suddenly, just as prophesied by the oracle, this also supports the idea that the gods are an unstoppable force in the world of The Winter's Tale.

Appeals and Approaches

As I read through Mark Antony and Brutus's arguments I was trying to see the different approaches they took towards the people.  Brutus is defending himself, he explains to the people why he killed Caesar - because he loved Rome, more than Caesar. 

Mark Antony appeals to Caesar himself and to the people's duties.  Where Brutus is constantly talking about how much he loved Caesar, and why what he did was right, Antony tells everyone that he is only an unimportant man, but that Caesar's wounds will have to speak for themselves.

Mark Antony's use of opposites is very interesting.  He uses irony to guide the people's opinions.  He praises how "noble" Brutus is in such a way that he makes Brutus become a "traitor" in the people's eyes.  Brutus' approach is one that states 'if anyone is not a Roman - they will not appreciate what I have done.'  Mark Antony smoothly guides the people's emotions, while letting them believe they are shaping their own conclusions. 

In the end Brutus leaves the people, thinking he has told them his motives honestly and that they believe him and will support him.  Mark Antony stays after the people have left, and at the end states, "Belike they had some notice of the people, how I had moved them" (Act 3 Scene 2), openly admitting that he knows he has led them.

 Brutus is run out of town as a murderer, Mark Antony is praised as an honorable hero.  Why this difference.  Is it simply the order of the speeches?   If Mark Antony had spoken first and then Brutus, would the conclusion have been different.  Or is Mark Antony a more moving speaker?

Also,whereas Brutus speaks to, "Romans, countrymen, and lovers," Mark Antony addresses himself to , "Friends, Romans, countrymen."  Why this change, what difference does it make to have friends instead of lovers?

Mythological Criticism

I decided to do a 'refresh' on what mythological Criticism is so I read up about it and here are some basics:

Myths: are defined as stories which are accepted as true and significant by members of a culture.  In their most pure form they are found in ancient or 'primitive' societies.

Myths are the parts of cultures that make them up, or hold them together.  They are the underlying stories that 'make' the world around people, by telling stories about origins, such as the beginning of the world, or the origin of the cosmos. 

Myth happens in "Premordial Time" - which is a different time, a "sacred time or origins."

In the mythical method one large influence is C. G. Jung.  Jung is a very prominent archetypal critic and is also known as the founder of analytical Psychology. Archetype plays into the collective unconscious, a view about human nature and the dimensions of our beings.  Who we are is not limited to our personal unconscious, but is connected to others as well.  Together all beings create a "sphere of unconscious mythology."

Another of Jung's major influences in mythology is his idea of the shadow.  Each person has a shadow of themselves.  As The Psychology of the Unconscious states of the shadow

It is a Frightening thought that man also has a shadow side to him, consisting not just of little weaknesses - and foibles, but of a positively demonic dynamism.  35

Mythic and Archetypal criticism is fascinating and I'm excited to focusing on this aspect in more depth as I read Shakespeare's plays.

Bibliography

Cowles, David.  The Critical Experience. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company (1994). Print.

Archetype: Witch - Bewitching the shrew

I've been trying to feel out what focus I would like to use for my final project.  Because I did a post earlier on archetypal criticism I decided to take another look into archetypal criticism, I read an article called, “Bewitching The Shrew,” by Robert M. Schuler.  He writes that the view of women as witches is a myth that is found in many of Shakespeare’s plays.  One of his earlier plays that shows this archetype is “The Taming of the Shrew”.  Schuler writes that this play, “exploits these linkages by representing Katherina through the Elizabethan cultural practices, the popular literary and dramatic types, and the political and theological discourses that identified scolds or shrews with witches” (387).  In Shakespeare’s time witches became equated with ‘unruly housewives’ or unruly women, thus Kate becomes considered ‘demonic.’ 

Myself

1. Learning Outcomes: 

My goals were to, reading a play each week, research interesting topics highlighted in each play, make connections between plays and other media about the plays, post my insights and research about topics I read about and found interesting and enlightening, interact with fellow classmates, and Enjoy Shakespeare

I have read one play each week (Hamlet, Richard III, Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra, and The Tempest), researched articles, analyzed characters using different critical lenses, looked up historical background, watched Antony and Cleopatra as well as 10 Things I Hate About You, posted at least twice every week, enjoyed class discussions/lectures as well as reading fellow classmate’s blogs and commenting on them.

2.      Reading and Research:

Hamlet, Richard III, Measure for Measure, Antony and Cleopatra, and The Tempest have all been great plays, as well as the sonnets I’ve read.  I’ve looked up a few secondary articles about different aspects of the plays (Robert B. Pierce’s article, "Being a Moral Agent in Shakespeare's Vienna), and historical context (such as the class systems during Shakespeare’s time, and the Globe Theater), as well as used some critical ‘lenses’ such as mythological and archetypal criticism with Jung.  Reading others blogs has really helped me learn and grow, as well as just spending time and having a reason to look at the characters, the settings, the customs, imagery, speech etc. in Shakespeare’s plays.

3. Links and Connections:

I’ve been bad about linking; I’ve decided I’m technologically impaired.  I have set a goal to try and figure out how to actually link to things during the rest of the semester.  I have mentioned other bloggers from Eng 382 in my blog, and I have referenced things, like scholarly articles I’ve read.

4. Personal Impact:

It’s been really fun to look at Shakespeare.  I’ve read a TON of his works, and one thing I notice that I like to do is compare and contrast different characters or pattern inside of Shakespeare’s works.  There are a lot of things that are different in his plays, but a lot of things crossing and connecting as well.  Learning how to engage Shakespeare critically and interact with people are lifelong skills I can use for the rest of my life, and doing so in an interesting way (like blogging, and class discussions) makes it much funner and more interesting. 

5. Personal Evaluation:

I get two good blogs in every week, so that is good.  I try to delve into the texts and examine them.  I need to work on my linking and on watching plays.  I’m excited about working with Brooke to make a ‘Shakespeare movie.’  And I’m just going to make time to watch more plays.  I have been enjoying reading and studying the plays, as well as looking up historical context, and even info about Shakespeare’s time – like the globe theater. 

6. Peer Influence:

Brooke Randell – is always interactive and doing things like the putting together the Shakespeare video.  Her blog is always interesting and engaging as well, with a fun sense of humor like in, “Stop Acting Like Bohemians!”

Brooke Knutson – is constantly connecting everything she writes and reads to the outside world.  Everything is explained in an easy way to understand and that makes things seem more applicable.  For example, her post about the willow tree song in Othello, or her explanations of things from an actor’s point of view.  

Lindsay Brock – commented on one of my posts, suggested to explain a little bit more about something I’d written.  I ended up writing another post about the subject because she’d suggested that.

Blog Reviewing

For my ‘peer blog review’ I’ve been reading through Claire Hopkin’s blogs.  Here are some things I noticed/found:

1. Number of Posts
   16 blog posts currently.

2. Quality of Posts
   With the 2 posts per week quota in mind, I figure everyone needs at least 12 substantial posts.  I think Claire meets this quota. . .

3. A Strength
   

Claire has a fun voice, and good ideas for what to write about.  The blog is interesting and reads well.  Very interactive, mentions lots of different bloggers in our class and what they are writing and thinking about, and also uses lots of links outside the class.

4. Suggested Improvement
   Go into more depth.  There are a lot of good discussions and ideas, but a lot of the time they are only mentioned on the surface.  For example, Claire wrote about wanting to examine imagery in Romeo and Juliet, so I think it would be interesting to actually pick one and look at it more closely. 
   Also, the blogs are fun and I’m a lot better about reading the shorter ones than the longer ones, but a few more longer length blogs interspersed in the shorter ones would be nice.