Shakespeare...background - Due Tuesday, 9/25/12
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 must be a minimum of 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...
As I read about Shakespeare the topic that intrigued me the most was “Transvestite Theatre and Boy Actors”. I speculated that with Shakespeare being aware of the rule pertaining to female actors “Elizabethean England was unique among the nations of Europe in forbidding women to appear on the public stage” it inspired him to give his female characters features that could be attributed to males. With Shakespeare being aware of this, it could be an integral factor in why in a lot of the female characters in his plays had such masculine characteristics. In Macbeth if it had been up to Lady Macbeth she would have been King but being a female that could never happen so she desired to make a King out of her husband. Lady Macbeth was a lot more ruthless, ambitious, and courageous then her own husband Macbeth.
ReplyDeleteDue to the lack of young male actors at his disposal Shakespeare had to make sure that each female character included in his play had to play a very substantial role. Although, females might not have been incorporated into Shakespeare’s plays in the same ratio as men when a female was in a play her character played a very integral role. Referring to Macbeth again Lady Macbeth not only inspired and implemented the idea’s Macbeth had she sort of moved the story along. While Macbeth pondered Lady Macbeth decided and made things happen. Shakespeare desire to have “strong woman” in his plays could have also stemmed from the role of his mother in life. Shakespeare’s mother was known to be a very,strong, and bold woman and these characters served as a tribute of sorts to her. Overall, Shakespeare was able to create an ambiguous female one that was able to be independent but still had to submit to the societal pressures of her time.
Denisha
In the times of Shakespeare, it is apparent that there were certain things that were thought to be absolutely disgusting and unheard of and other things that were adored by the people of England and Europe in general. One thing that I found to be somewhat intriguing is was what is thought to be a possible scandal of Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton. In the year of 1594, Shakespeare publishes the “Rape of Lucrece”, which was dedicated to the Earl of Southampton. There is a theory that his sonnets where dedicated to the Earl as well. On page 6 of the Shakespeare packet, it says that people thought that when the theatre was closed “Shakespeare lived at the Southampton estate.” This can help lead me to the idea that Shakespeare had somewhat rebel tendencies. He married a woman who had a child only 6 months after marriage and he was written somewhat erotic things in his time.
ReplyDeleteA rebel of the Elizabethan time, I have to agree with the critics in the idea that Shakespeare possessed somewhat bisexual tendencies. As Shakespeare left his family for the glory of the English stage, it may have been loneliness for some sort of love that drove him to a possible affair with the Earl. Though there may be no positive evidence that points directly toward this affair, it can be observed that Shakespeare rushed into things sometimes. He marries and has a child 6, not 9 months, after marriage, and rushes off the London to pursue the theatre. It seems highly possible that he would rush off into something like this, and there is no denying that the sonnets he wrote are all directed to a person of the male gender. He always seemed to favor the Earl, possibly more than met the eye, and the Earl in turn seemed to favor him as well. It is not strange to think that Shakespeare would be involved in such things, seeing how his writing may have been a glimpse into his mind. It is true what Denisha says, “when a female was in a play her character played a very integral role.” It may have been a lack of female actors to work with that caused him to turn to liking people of the same gender.
When reading about the Useful Shakespearean Terms, specifically “Great Chain of Being,” I found it enthralling that in Shakespearean writing a king is ultimately the human form of God. For instance, it states, “In political affairs, the king parallels God in heaven and serves as His deputy on earth” in my point of view, common sense seems to reveal that Shakespeare has ultimately been writing about humans being God. For instance, in the play Macbeth, Macbeth’s ambition was to become king, so does that mean Macbeth’s ultimate goal was to actually become God?
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, it is also stated that, “In domestic affairs, man occupies a higher position than woman, for whom he is king of the hearth,” during the time period of Shakespeare that would seem correct, however that does not seem to apply to Macbeth; as Denisha mentioned “In Macbeth if it had been up to Lady Macbeth she would have been king but being a female that could never happen so she desired to make a king out of her husband.” Thus, Lady Macbeth actually has the hierarchy in domestic affairs, but she is not a man, she is a woman, yet she was controlling Macbeth like a king. However, why? Lady Macbeth having hierarchy in domestic affairs does not seem to follow the Shakespearean way. It seems as if the play Macbeth is adequately going against Shakespeare’s typical way of writing.
Furthermore, it is said in Shakespearean writing, “A central point in the chain is a man, who along of all God’s creatures has the freedom to choose between angelic virtue or degenerate bestiality.” In other words God’s creation of man has the option to choose between becoming a godly figure or become less than man. Although, why can man only become someone of a godly figure or be less than man. If man has the freedom to choose, why must it be those options, why cannot man only be man. In other words, with if he does not want to be a godly figure but also does not want to be less than man; what is the choice in between, which man cannot choose? If I were a man and had the freedom to choose between an “angelic virtue or degenerate bestiality” I would chose neither, since there seems to be no point of a godly figure if there is a King, and who would want to be less than man. Therefore, Shakespeare has an interesting style of writing, especially on the view of God and man.
When reading “Some Biographical Bones” by Shakespeare “Marriage” I notice that William Shakespeare name was Willelmum Shaxpere. He got married at eighteen to an older woman named Anne Hathaway who was twenty-six. This was shocking to me because at an age of eighteen you would be thinking about college instead of marriage. I did not like the point of marriage at such an early age because when you are young you do not understand the whole point of getting married.
ReplyDeleteThere were some confusion about Anne’s last name but Shakespeare wanted to marry her anyways. It states “but it was unlikely Shakespeare intended to marry another woman.” This was because Shakespeare loved Anne and refused to marry any other woman despites Anne’s last name. After they married they had a child six months later. They named her Susanna Shakespeare she was born on May 26, 1582 and later on like two years later they have twins named Judith and Hamnet. They were born on February 2, 1585.
Even though Shakespeare got married at a young age he still managed to be successful at writing novels and most likely had time for his family and friends and still did a good job at being a successful writer, father and a good husband.
Throughout reading about William Shakespeare’s life, I was especially fascinated by “Transvestite Theatre and Boy Actors”. It intrigued me because Shakespeare gives female roles a lot of power. Women, in his plays, are successful and know how to take charge and control a situation. So, he would not have a problem with men playing the female parts because men are strong and have the same characteristics as his female roles did.
ReplyDeleteIn Macbeth, Lady Macbeth was the man in the relationship. She had Macbeth kill the king but was upset that Macbeth cared so much. She stated, “I shame to wear a heart so white” because she was fulfilled by committing the murder while he was restless because he felt terrible. Lady Macbeth is strong, which allows Shakespeare to have men play his female parts because they would not be trying to act like women.
I find it interesting how the kings in Shakespearean language were considered God on earth. As Jenny said, “In political affairs, the king parallels God in heaven and serves as His deputy on earth” which is also related to Macbeth, in the fact that Macbeth and his wife were trying to reach their way to the top and become king and queen. Yet, while being king he becomes God on earth. In a sense, Macbeth, with Lady Macbeth behind him, wants to become a Godly figure.
While I was reading about William Shakespeare’s life, what interested me the most was how he dedicated “Venus and Adonis” to the Earl of Southampton. In the packet, under the Lost Years it states “ ‘Venus and Adonis’ was Shakespeare’s highly erotic and ornate mythological poem”, this was the beginning of the belief that Shakespeare was bisexual. Also, under the Lost Years it mentions that he was forced out of Stratford and into London because he was writing an insulting ballad about the Lucy family. When he left, he left behind his family and went to London by himself. Like what Sam said “ it may have been loneliness for some sort of love that drove him to a possible affair with the Earl”, I also think that it was loneliness that drove him to find love in a man and to start dedicating poems and sonnets to the Earl of Southampton
ReplyDeleteAlthough we do not have enough evidence that Shakespeare was indeed involved with the Earl, we can infer that they did have a special relationship because under the Lost Years it says “ some scholars speculated that while the theatres were closed Shakespeare lived at the Southampton estate”. For Shakespeare to be invited to live with the Earl there must have been a special connection between these two men. The Earl must have trusted Shakespeare to a great extent to have Shakespeare live with him while he was in a time of need.
As I read about Shakespeare, the topic that caught my eye the most is “who is Shakespeare?” I valued how in his marriage he got married at a very adolescent age, which in this case would probably cause the marriage to be a lot more unstable, compared to a lot of other marriages at that time. Shakespeare experienced the concept of marriage to be forced and submitted himself because of the suicidal pressure. “On May 26th, six months after the marriage of William and Anne, Susanna Shakespeare was christened. Two years later, on February 2, 1585, the twins Judith and ham net were born.” This evidence contributes to my theory that Shakespeare was never happy in his marriage, and used his poetry to visualize and explore his ideas of what love and marriage should be like.
ReplyDeleteIn Romeo and Juliet you see a much more positive portrayal of love, although they never get married. This could show Shakespeare believed that love was not confined to the societal pressure of marriage. In Macbeth shake spares more negative portrayal of love, even though Macbeth and lady Macbeth were married, they never truly loved each other. Their relationship illuminates the negative connotation that marriage has to Shakespeare.
In conclusion, reading who Shakespeare is, gave me valuable knowledge about why Shakespeare approached marriage and love the way he did throughout the writing of his plays. Love between 2 people was obviously much more meaningful then a marriage. As Denisha said, “Shakespeare desire to have strong woman in his plays could have also stemmed from the role of his mother in life.” This makes it very evident that Shakespeare was influenced by his wife experiences and incorporated the emotions felt from these experiences as he wrote his plays.
Sana Suhail
ReplyDeleteAP English-A Block
Mrs. O’Donnell
September 22, 2012
The Elizabethan Stage
It was very interesting to read about the different limitations and specifics of how Shakespeare’s plays were produced and watched by a diverse audience. For example, the stage had three tiers to it and included some basic machinery to act as props or special effects. The audience was also a diverse one that represented a good cross-section of society, and ironically, included women, while the stage did not allow actresses. When I read this, I immediately thought of movie theatres and the production of movies today. For example, movies are produced with costumes, makeup, props, and special effects, and the audiences that go to see them also represent a good cross section of society because admission does not cost as much as a concert, for example.
Shakespeare was also very passionate about his works and believed that they should be truly executed with poise. Furthermore, all the effort that went into producing one play is evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed rather than to be read. I can attribute the success of Shakespeare's plays to the fact that his plays included aspects of life and certain human emotions that the audience could immediately relate to, thus making his plays understandable, even by the lower, less educated classes. Women represented a large section of the audience. I believe the reason for this was because they were given very few freedoms and rights as it was, and perhaps going to see one of these plays was the only form of “acceptable” entertainment for them. As Denisha, Khadijah, and others mentioned before this, women in Shakespeare's time had very little public freedom and were confined mostly to their household, so Shakespeare’s plays provided a relief from the monotony of daily life for all members of society, rich and poor, and were greatly appreciated by the Elizabethan public. There was a certain novelty and connection between the actors and the plays in the Elizabethan times that simply cannot be recreated today, because it is hard for actors of today to completely embody the feelings and settings of when the plays were written.
~Sana
Mariam Mohamed
ReplyDeleteWhile analyzing about Shakespeare and his life the subject that fascinated me the most was “Transvestite Theatre and Boy Actors”. After all, Female actors did not appear on stage until the mid-1600 because during that period women were forbidden to appear on the public stage. Young boys from age 13 to 18 are usually put to play the female characters due to their high voice. In fact, most of the Shakespearean plays involve the men, but the plays are focused and motivated by the female characters. Even though there were not many women characters in the story as much as the men, the action in the play would not progress without the women because of the impact they have on men. As Denisha stated “Lady Macbeth not only inspired and implemented the idea’s Macbeth had she sort of moved the story along.” Therefore, this reveals that even If the character played by the female might be short but the influence they have is great.
The challenging part of this is even young boys and older men attempt to show their masculinity while women tend to show their femininity, so how did the young teenage boys manage to act as a female? These boy actors lived with the trained adult actors and “received rigorous training in dancing, music, singing, elocution, memorization, weaponry, and, as an acting manual stated, ‘pregnancie in wit.” Thus, the boy actors were well trained to act as females and also since most of Shakespearian plays had a women playing a bold and a dominant character it was better for the Boy actors to act a as female than a female playing the role.
~Mariam
While reading the article, the, “A Brief History” section especially caught my eye, for various reasons. The first thing that intrigued me when I read it was the immense effect that theaters had on business in the surrounding area. As the article said, “Near the playhouses, bawdyhouses, pubs, and taverns did a booming business” which means that regardless of what means one used to make money, a theater in the area meant good business.
ReplyDeleteI was also impressed when I discovered that, “Scenery and props were minimal” in theaters, making it necessary for the actors to clearly convey the scene to the audience. It is surprising to think of the skill it must have taken to bring scenes to life without more than basic equipment. It is even harder when one thinks about, as Sana put it, the many, “costumes, makeup, props, and special effects” that modern theater has come to rely on.
I was very surprised when I learned that women were not allowed to perform. It seems to me that female parts should be played by females as a rule. In the male dominant society of Shakespeare’s day, however, I can clearly see why that would be the case, and why, “prepubescent boys” would have been a preferred alternative.
Due to prior knowledge of the strict practices of the Puritan church, I was not overly surprised at their displeasure for theaters. I was, however, surprised that they would go so far as to inhibit, “theater managers from luring customers through advertising” as well as supporting, “an ordinance that shut down all theaters” in the August of 1642. Their fierce battle with theaters did not convey a simple dislike, but rather a deep hatred for theaters.
“The Shakespeare who makes some of us uncomfortable,” was the passage I found the most fascinating because it digressed from the usual topic of other passages, his work. Shakespeare’s life, albeit vastly documented, is surprisingly still somewhat of a mystery. This is mainly due to his multidimensional aspects. In the passage, several of these aspects are addressed many of which shocked me. Supposedly, Shakespeare was greedy with his money and “was a shrewd investor.” Although I knew that he came from a wealthy family, I was not aware that he was cupid to the point that he would actually hoard away grain for himself in a famine. I was also taken aback when Shakespeare’s sexuality was briefly discussed. It is believed that he is bisexual because all of his love sonnets were directed to a male, yet he was married to Anne Hathaway. He also branded his work more “important than his Wife and children.” Whether this is because of his love towards his work or simply because he did not like his family, I do not know, but Kadijah states a valid point when she approaches the fact that Shakespeare thought very little of his marriage. He had his love scandals and financial and social dramas. Shakespeare’s complex personality leaves everyone with a dynamic character who is, at times, comparable to stereotypes of modern day celebrities.
ReplyDeleteIt was very enlightening and interesting to read the brief yet informative passage, “A Look at the Elizabethan Stage” a keen insight is given towards modern audiences and Shakespearean audiences. There are undoubtedly major differences between the two and eras of theatre performing and was a completely different experience for each audience. The passage begins by saying, “Modern audiences passively attend Shakespearean plays, and for many of us, going to the theatre is a thankfully brief excursion into the realm of Culture”, expressing the idea that today audiences sit in their seats to escape the monotony of life. In many ways, this quote provides a true opinion of modern theatre because the audience is limited to ovations and an occasional laugh. Whereas, according to this passage, in Shakespearean times, there is a symbiotic relationship between performers and audience. For example, the passage states, “…actors directly addressed the audience through soliloquies and asides, and sometimes the audience answered back”, which affirms the interdependent relationship of performer and audience.
ReplyDeleteI found a Ryan’s comment very interesting and relevant to what I am discussing when he stated, “It is surprising to think of the skill it must have taken to bring scenes to life without more than basic equipment”, I am able to argue that there was much more involved in bringing life to a scene with minimal props because there was an interaction with the audience which has been lost today. Part of theatre during Shakespeare’s era was to work together with the spectators so they could comment or express their displeasure as well. Therefore, it can be speculated that performers made much with little props because they utilized the unique connection with the spectators allowing both the audience and performers to express their emotions entirely. Consequently, it may also be speculated that Shakespearean theatre has civilized in some manners because the audience is usually silent; but it has also changed in a negative way because it pushes away old theatre tradition. There was definitely a special bond that existed between audience and performers which will probably never return to theatre, but is this change for good or worse of the performing arts?
A very intriguing portion I came across was, “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable.” This part of the packet describes how there were parts of Shakespeare that weren’t as romantic as Romeo and Juliet, or as Dramatic and suspenseful as Hamlet. This part of the packet describes him as being a cheap, bisexual, money lender. As Sam said, it seemed as though Shakespeare was a risk taker. Even today with our advanced knowledge on the situation, it seems as though Shakespeare has been described in many different ways. A lot of the ways people mention him, is as being a prudent or smug. It might be surprising how often people would leave out the homoerotic sonnets he had written, or the fact that many of the women he writes about are usually portrayed as manly. Sam had also mentioned something I wholeheartedly agree with. She had said, “It may have been a lack of female actors to work with that caused him to turn to liking people of the same gender,” and it made me realize that everything fit: the supposed relationship with the Earl, the sonnets, and leaving his wife just after marriage. This goes to show that there’s a lot more to Shakespeare than meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteIn the packet of information, the one aspect of it which I took most note of was its position that one should put more emphasis on an actor's rendition of the plays than Shakespeare's own texts, a view most noticeable in the very first section, aptly titled "Forget the Footnotes! And Other Advice". This struck me as a very singular method of interpreting Shakespeare's plays - one cannot understand Shakespeare's message if they cannot understand his words, after all. The packet's "advice" seems to be rather succinctly summarized by the phrase, "Just believe in Shakespeare", from a quote by Alexander Anikst that the packet includes. Later, as part of another quote, this one by one Peter Sellars, the author writes, "There are some parts of the plays you'll never understand." This casual acceptance of incomprehension is rather glaringly incongruous considering the packet's purported purpose of giving advice that would presumably help one to understand Shakespeare's writing, especially when the solution to said incomprehension is quite clear - read the footnotes. Essentially, the problem here is that the packet not only passes off incomprehension as being inconsequential, but also actively argues against the use of footnotes, the primary use of which is to ensure understanding, whether through providing definition of words or providing context necessary to understanding Shakespeare's meaning. This context can be absolutely crucial to understanding - as Jenny Tang noted, Shakespeare's plays had a definite tendency towards matriarchal relationships (a fact which is potentially indicative of underlying factors which, one known, can be used to inform ones analysis of the play) that one could not have picked up on without knowledge of Elizabethan social mores. While one could certainly obtain this knowledge from other sources, a footnote that communicates said custom to the reader in the right place could be invaluable to an uninformed reader. Even a single sentence fragment could be enough to alert said uninformed reader that they need to read up on Elizabethan culture before the underlying themes of the play that they are reading become discernible.
ReplyDeleteArchit Singh
ReplyDeleteA.P. Literature and Composition
Mrs. O’Donnell
24 September 2012
The section of the article that intrigued me most was “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable.” Even though the personal life of Shakespeare has not completely unfolded yet, it is surprising to see that he was actually a greedy person, who was attentive when it came to money. The evidence of this is driven by the fact that “He took people to court to collect paltry sums.” I agree with Ronny when he points out that even though Shakespeare came from a rich and wealthy family, his greed and arrogance led him to hoard grains for himself during a famine. Furthermore, in one of the side notes in the article it states about Honigmann, a critic from Shakespearean times, stated that the fact that Shakespeare was a moneylender. He finds a letter written to Shakespeare that asks him for money. In return, Shakespeare writes he will do it for a price. This shows the extent that Shakespeare could go through to get a profit in everything he did.
It was surprising to see the resemblance between today’s culture and the culture that existed in Shakespearean times. Nothing was and is hidden from the public then and now. Public did find out he was bisexual by the fact that he had written erotic sonnets dedicate to a man. It is true that even though he was a celebrated author, poet, and a writer at the time, some were against his work. For example, the article states, “Victorians felt the need to explain away his “antenuptial fornication,” his homoeroticism, and his sordid affair with the Dark Lady, a married person of questionable repute.” This was a clear indication that Shakespeare was not the purest of all; neither was he the hero of society at the time, but he was a great writer.
In the article it states that he mostly stayed away from his family but that could be interpreted in any way. It could be his love for writing, and theatre that led him to stay away or maybe he just did not appreciate his family as much as he did theatre, but it is clear that Shakespeare was a person who did not have a normal life. He was a great writer, poet and an author but his actions and some of his sonnets made him unsuitable for society then and maybe now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJosaua Desai
ReplyDeleteAP Literature and Composition
Ms. O’Donnell
9/24/12
Throughout the course of the reading, “Forget the Footnotes! And Other Advice”, I was most fascinated by the section “Shakespeare And The Globe”, because it described the place where Shakespeare revolutionized theater through his creative play with words and his distinct style of acting on the stage. Shakespeare had put his money, hard work, and time into the development of this grand theater from the arrangement of the seating to the actors who were allowed to act on stage. As a result, “Shakespeare wrote, therefore, for a highly specific stage…not for any theatre in the abstract nor for the printed page…The Globe’s stage was the sole means of publication he expected” which in other words, indicates that Shakespeare only wrote for whichever he saw fit to perform his plays. Additionally, this demonstrates Shakespeare’s love and passion for the theater, which in turn allowed his plays to be recognized and appreciated. In addition, his arrangement of the stage also reflected the large religious aspects of his plays, because the stage was divided into “three tiers.” Through these tiers, were hell, through which villains of his plays fell through, earth, and heaven, consequently, enabling Shakespeare to better display his central message.
Moreover, I was also astounded that, “There was no producer or director; the actors were in complete control of the production” making it the actor’s own responsibility, as Ryan puts it, “to clearly convey the scene to the audience”, which demonstrates the skills in acting these men had to possess in order to really draw the audience into the play. On the other hand, I was surprised to discover that the theater itself was begrimed, with urine, beer, garlic, beer, tobacco, and sweat intoxicating the air. In a theater, with no bathroom for all three thousand people, no intermissions, and a public full of infrequent bathers, I am able to apprehend the existence of this vile odor.
While reading this passage, I also thought of today’s plays, specifically performed on Broadway because the theaters of both these ages were similar because they both involved the use of colorful costumes and stages arranged in a fashion that would increase meaning and suspense of the play. Yet, these two eras of theaters contrasted in several ways including now there is a director and a producer, scenery and props are now heavily used, women are now allowed to act, and there are intermissions in today’s plays. Nonetheless, while these two eras of theater were distinct in their nature, they both are similar in the way that they both serve the purpose of entertainment an idea that Shakespeare had revolutionized through The Globe.
The topic that caught my attention the most was “Who Is Shakespeare?” One of the first things that interested me the most was the fact that at age 18 he got married. In addition to Shakespeare’s marriage Khadija said “Shakespeare was never happy in his marriage”. I would agree with her statement because when Shakespeare wrights Macbeth and how he uses diction and contact clues in the play to show that Macbeth isn’t happy with his marriage to Lady Macbeth is what I think is similar to what Shakespeare’s marriage is in real life. This is one of the pieces of info that I would agree with. Another piece of information that was interesting to me was how there was no known records of Shakespeare attending school, but he turned out to be a famous writer. In addition, “Shakespeare’s early biographers wrote that before becoming a playwright, he took up his father’s trade”. Shakespeare getting into his father’s trade was very strange for me because his father’s trade was being a butcher and Shakespeare would turn out to be a writer. When Shakespeare loses his son Hamnet in 1596 I would think that his death would be a result of Shakespeare eventually writing the play Hamlet. Furthermore, in 1599-1608 I found it amazing that Shakespeare could on average wright one play per year. In those nine years Shakespeare wrote Macbeth, Othello, Hamlet, and many other plays. Another accomplishment for Shakespeare was that he got his group of performers and his company into the King’s Men or the group of people that perform in front of the king. My last piece of info would be how I do agree that there is a possibility that Shakespeare could be bisexual due to the fact that h was always around men because there was no woman allowed in the performance.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about Shakespeare’s life, I found a lot of things to be interesting, however, one thing that caught my eye the most was “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable”. It’s fascinating to know who Shakespeare really was because a lot of people may wonder about him. Shakespeare did have a wife, however, it turns out he was sending love letters to a man. For instance the author states, “They willingly acknowledged that the Sonnets contain some of the greatest love lyrics ever written; what they found harder to admit was that most of them were addressed to a man, and that some are frankly erotic.” This emphasizes how Shakespeare although he had a wife, it was just a “cover up” for him being homosexual.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Shakespeare might have had affairs with others even though he ended up being married due to his loneliness. Like Sam said, “it may have been loneliness for some sort of love that drove him to a possible affair with the Earl”. In other words, there’s not enough evidence for someone to actually say that Shakespeare was really having an affair with this man, however, this is one possible answer for why he wrote love sonnets.
- Jossie
Out of all of the topics discussed within the provided packet, I found the section entitled “The Globe Excavation” to very intriguing. Although it does not deal primarily with information pertaining to Shakespeare, it’s fascinating to learn more about the places his plays took place. Explained in this section is the probable discovery of remains from the Shakespeare’s original theatre, the Rose playhouse and, of much greater significance, Shakespeare’s beloved Globe. As Josh mentioned, Shakespeare had an immense love and passion for this theatre and it was entertaining to further my knowledge of the playhouse. I found the discussion of the history of the Globe and other such venues to be very enthralling. The interview with Andrew Gurr, the leading expert on the Shakespearean stage, provided a great deal of insight about the background and discoveries of some Shakespearean playhouses. For instance, he shares the fact that the only remains found at the site of the Rose were “a scabbard, a sword, shoes, a bear’s skull—and a human skull.” It’s appalling that only these few items were found from the remains of the theatre, but it’s even more interesting that among these items was a human skull.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the second portion of this section that involves Sam Wanamaker’s experiences trying to have the Globe playhouse rebuilt is also fascinating. I was surprised that so much controversy could be involved in the act of a simple task such as rebuilding a playhouse. As Wanamaker explains, “I was an American and an actor—and not a Shakespearean actor—so the Brits assumed that the only thing I could possibly have in mind was something like Disneyland.” This demonstrates how something as simple as nationality can play a key role in decision making. However, Wanamaker’s efforts did prove to be rewarding as the International Shakespeare Globe Centre was scheduled to be opened April 1994.
The part of “Who is Shakespeare?” that truly caught my eye was in the “A brief history” section. The part spoke of how “There were three tiers to the stage, corresponding to earth, heaven, and hell.” The passage was very interesting. It showed that villains fell through the trapdoor, called a hell mouth. The fact there was a heaven, hell, and earth was caused by the deep religious beliefs.
ReplyDeleteDuring Shakespeare’s time, almost everyone was deeply religious, in England especially, and most of these religious people were catholic Christians. Christians believe that those that are good in their life will move on to heaven in death. In a play, these good people would be protagonists. They also believed that if you were bad in your life, such as a villain or an antagonist, you would go to hell. Hell was believed to be beneath earth, where the living remained, which was beneath heaven. To show heaven in these plays, canopies were placed across the stage to the back wall, and were painted gold with stars to shape zodiacs.
Shakespeare made great use of these canopies in his play, Hamlet. As hamlet describes the heavens, the actor playing his part is supposed to point to canopies such as these. This leads viewers to believe that in any play, if an actor speaks of the heavens or describes them in any way, then they would point up to these curtains. It gives viewers a visual, so that if metaphors are being used then the viewers will know they’re speaking of the heavens. This paragraph shows that religious beliefs made their way into even the theater, though it was subtle.
Nikki
Shakira Thompson
ReplyDeleteThe debate last night was pretty interesting. The interesting thing was that Obama had some pretty interesting points. Obama stayed on topic and defended himself and proved Romney wrong. Romney tried to blame Obama about the ambassador and the American who die. Romney was saying Obama took 12 days which was a lie and Obama said it was a lie and the moderator said the most important thing which was “but he served though” and that is true, Obama found education to be the most important issue whereas, Romney wants to cut back on early education in earlier debate. However last night’s debate made it pretty clear as to who should be the president, but it is up to Americans to vote for who they for president. Overall the debate was interesting.