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.
    

Dynamics

In one of my earlier posts I was examining an interesting switch of gender traits in Antony and Cleopatra.  Antony, who should be a very masculine, strong hero actually seems more dependent and emotional than Cleopatra.  In the play Cleopatra constantly tries to excuse herself for her 'womanly' flaws, but she acts more rationally and logiacally than Antony most of the time.

Lindsay commented on the blog and suggested I do a follow up looking at this more closely.  We also talked about the different roles women play in Shakespeare's plays in class the other day.  I think it was Cara who was saying how woman's characters were strong and dynamic when Queen Elizabeth was the monarch, but then changed drastically (into weaker, suicidal characters) once King James took the throne. 

Ariel

When I first stared reading The Tempest I was intrigued by Ariel - after I got over continually thinking about the little mermaid.  So I thought I'd do a little research about  the supernatural in Shakespeare's plays.

 The first plays I think of as to supernatural elements are The Tempest, and A Mid-Summer Night's Dream, or Even Macbeth and the witches.  These three plays have magical characters, but they are also very different and work in very different ways.  The fairies in a mid-summer night's dream are silly and naughty.  Ariel on the other hand seems much more powerful and dangerous.

Antony & Cleopatra

Finishing up my over view of Antony and Cleopatra.  I watched the 1981 version of the play.  Watching the play adds a different feel to what the story is telling,  then just reading it.  In some ways Antony and Cleopatra's lines in the movie seemed to mushy, like they didn't really mean what they said.  While in the play, when I read it, they seemed more heartfelt and sincere.  Placing the play in a different time period, also adds different feelings to what is going on.  The politics seem different, and perhaps the players motives are different as well.

As I watched the play again, I thought about the downfall of Antony and Cleopatra.  In our discussion about tragedies, we talked about the 'flaw' that the protagonist/s find in themselves at the end of the play.

Antony's tragic flaw seems to be his love and dependence on Cleopatra.  But, looking deeper, it is not only his dependence on her, but his own weakness.  Antony cannot stand up for himself.  When Augustus suggests he marries Caesar's sister, he does - even though he knows he loves Cleopatra, and that it will make her terribly upset.  As well as betraying Cleopatra, he is constantly blaming her of being a traitor to him.  He seems to reverse the actual roles.  As he retreats after Cleopatra, or marries someone else instead of her - he blames her for all his problems!  When he dies, it is because of his failure as a person - he has deserted his followers, killed the woman he loves (he thinks), and lost all his prestige and fame.

Cleopatra is harder.  Although she loves Antony, she is ruled by more reason than he is.  (- which, as a side noet is interesting as the masculine feminine roles are reversed in this way.  Antony more emotional, Cleopatra more rational.)  She is able to think through her own problems and try to work through them.  When her kingdom is captured by Caesar, and Antony dies in her arms, she does not kill herself simply out of love and the knowledge that she has failed.  There is something deeper, more prideful about Cleopatra.  She sees her position as Egypt's queen and realizes that the only noble thing for her to do is kill herself.  Her motives seem much more complex.

As i was thinking about this, as tragic as it is.  Both of these 'heroes' are remembered in different ways.  Their romance is legend, of course, but Antony is still viewed as more weak, and Cleopatra's death as a more noble way to die.  Both situations at first glance seem similar, hope seems lost, the kingdoms are destroyed, they ultimately take the same courses of action - and yet, their motives are different.  And that seems to make all the difference.   

The true tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra is Antony's lack in being true to himself.  Just as many other tragedies, he does not realize where his true allies lie and where his heart should lie.  King Lear suffers the same realization, that he has put faith in and pleased the wrong people - and he now must suffer the consequences of his actions. 

I think Shakespeare likes to toy with our heads.  He wants us to think about this, think about relationships and what they really mean and are.  So, what do you think?

- Also, as a side note.  I really liked this clip of Antony and Cleopatra's deaths.  I think the actors did a really good job.

Watching the scenes, and hearing the lines with the actors putting feeling and expression to the words makes a big difference in how they are interpreted, and makes them mean more. 

foil

As I've been reading Antony and Cleopatra this week it kept reminding me of Romeo and Juliet.  The way Antony and Cleopatra end up killing themselves to be with the one they love is amazingly similar to Romeo and Juliet's plite.  The two main topics I want to discuss are loyalty to one another and faith in one another.

I wanted to look at some similarities and differences between the two plays.  For starters age and location.  Romeo is 14 and Juliet is 13, very, very young.  Antony refers to his age several times as older, and Cleopatra is more mature as well.  Despite these drastic differences in age and time periods though, both couples (especially the men) act irrationally about their love.

It always comes up very first in any discussions I have with my roommate, how young Romeo is, and how fickle.  He is in love with one girl on moment, and the next with Juliet.  He reminds me of Cleopatra, she has had lots of lovers too, but she and Romeo both seem loyal to Antony and Juliet respectively during the plays.

These are both major tragic romances.  These couples have something special between themselves, and yet . . . they act so strangely with each other.  In some ways I think Romeo and Juliet are more rational (and excusable) than Antony and Cleopatra.  Romeo loves Juliet - they get married.  Antony love Cleopatra - he marries Caesar's sister.  - What the heck?  If he loves Cleopatra, he should marry her.  Doesn't he know his own heart well enough to be true to it?

Antony ultimately causes the downfall of his empire because he isn't strong enough to stick with the fight.  He could be such a strong character, but he lacks the will to go on.  He runs away from his own battle when Cleopatra leaves, and then blames his losses on her.  Instead of trying to work things out he banishes her from his presence, threatening to kill her.  - Then, when Cleopatra sends word she has died of grief, he tries to commit suicide - even though he was planing on killing her himself.

On the other hand, Romeo makes a major problem when he kills Juliet's cousin.  He's young and hot tempered, but still.  - He just got married, what's the best way to show his love?  - he'll kill her cousin.

Both of these romances end because of mis-communication and, ultimately, haste.  Romeo runs of to meet Juliet and then kills himself minutes before she wakes up - ahh!  Antony falls on his sword, mortally wounding himself - once again, minutes before Cleopatra's servant arrives to inform him she really isn't dead.

Left on their own, the only thing that seems to be left for Cleopatra or Juliet to do is to kill themselves in order to reunite themselves with their lovers.  Cleopatra does it for Antony, but also for dignity - she is a conquered queen.  Juliet seems to kill herself purely out of love for Romeo.  No matter what people say - Romeo and Juliet really had something together, no matter how illogical.

Thoughts?

Every time I read these plays it drives me crazy!  Antony and Cleopatra, by the time they die, it almost seems fitting.  Antony has lost his standing in life, as has Cleopatra, and the only 'honorable' thing left to do seems to be death.  Romeo and Juliet on the other hand - are so much more tragic to me.  They are SOOOO close!  Minutes away - but then again.  Minutes away from what?  They're so young, and their families hate each other so vehemently. . .

Maybe the plays end in the best way they could.  Perhaps letting these lovers die, and live together in history forever is more charitable on Shakespeare's part than letting them live on. It's like a picture, frozen the way it is.  They will always love each other - no late night fights, no breaking up, no more battles, or tears.  They are saved forever, together.