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!