I am now blogging on my final blog and I can say I am delighted. We have been reading Shakespeare for a semester and I can truly say I have expanded my knowledge. We just finished reading "Twelfth Night" in class and even though I did not like it as much as previous plays I thought it was interesting. The topic I want to talk about that relates to this play is not very big but it is important. The theme of a man or woman dressing up as the opposite sex and then being involved in an elaborate plot is a reoccuring theme in plays and popular movies.
Obviously in "She's the Man" this occurs because the movie is loosly based on the play. But what I am trying to say is the play does not seem to me to be one of Shakespeare's most interesting and unique plays. While reading it I felt I was just along for the ride and not truly involved in the plot. This may have been because I did not like the subject so much, but I am also very sceptical of the theme of the play.
I want to know how a woman, even though she is dressed like a man, can fool everyone and make them think she is a man for so long. I find it very hard to believe that even though Viola can pass as a man especially after she cowers when she is challenged to a duel and after she will not accept the love of a beautiful woman. I think it may look good for the play and be somewhat comedic but having Sebastian show up in the same clothes as Viola and to then have everyone think he is Viola is obsurd to me. I am just a sceptic but thats the way I think. This play is definately not my favorite but it was good to read it to be able to say I have read it and also now I am a little bit knowledgeable about the play.
I really dont like talking about this play because I did not like it as much as the others so I really dont have much to talk about for it. I cant think of any good positive topics and I dont want to talk negatively anymore so I am just going to end my blog even though it is short and I couldnt think of a good topic.
Maybe watching the movie will change my mind about the play, but from what I have see so far with the movie I would rank this play and movie combo at the lower end of all the Shakespeare plays I have read.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Shylocks The Jew
The Mercant of Venice is one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, but there is something about the play that many people disagree on. I have decided to take the task and once and for all determine whether or not Shakespeare was a true conservative anti-semite or if he was just a normal person who embodied moderate views of his time. In examining the character Shylock I have come to my conclusion and in this blog I will enlighten you with my wisdom.
It all started with the church. Of course the church during the Elizabethan age could not have been civil and respected all religions. Instead they had to pick on the little guy, the Jew, and spread rumors about him so people would not like any Jews and would stay faithful to Christianity. They used the argument that Jews killed Jesus a long time ago and so that makes all Jews bad people and we need to disrespect them. The only thing the church didn’t realize then was Jesus was a Jew and all of the people Jesus lived around were also Jews because Christianity did not exist because Christianity stemmed from Jesus after he died. So of course if someone killed Jesus it is only common sense that person was Jewish, but in fact the bible says the Romans killed Jesus; which is actually plausible because crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Since the church made this excuse to dislike Jews they also made others such as Jews are physically different and things like that. Actually this view still existed recently when the Nazis killed millions of Jews because they were thought to be actually different people who were not genetically the same. I believe the church had the biggest influence on the people because religion was the most important aspect of a good Christian’s life during Shakespeare’s time. To make up such rumors as the “blood libel” and then to expel the Jews from England for three centuries only created a false stereotype that still exists to this day.
I also believe the anti-semetic beliefs of the people stemmed from some jealousy. Christians were not allowed to lend money with interest because it was a sin, and for this reason all of the bankers were Jewish. This made many Jews well off and this most likely made many Christians very angry and jealous.
I am not sure but maybe another factor that made people thinks Jews were different was because of their diet and their prayers. They prayed in Hebrew and did not eat pork. This might have influenced the anti-semetic views in some way just because many people do not like what is different and only like what they think is proper.
Now it is important to discuss the character of Shylock and examine if he is portrayed to support anti-semetic views or if he is just a normal character.
I believe Shakespeare was somewhat of an anti-semetic person. I do not believe his views were right-wing, but I do believe he embodied some anti-semetic traits because it was only natural that he was taught what to believe growing up as a Christian in England. The way he portrays Shylock does not make Shylock look like an all around villain, but more like a very headstrong man who likes to see things through.
Shylock is a well off banker in Venice. He also has a daughter that runs away to be with a Christian man; which shows the viewers it is ok to convert and it is better to be Christian. Shylock only wants what is in his bond and nothing else. He is forced to convert to Christianity. All of these and more aspects of Shylock all have a purpose, but I do not believe the purpose is to create and anti-semetic play. I do believe the purpose is to make Christianity and Christians look merciful and to portray it as the best religion.
Shakespeare may not realize it, but since there was anti-semitism in England that influenced him he does portray Shylock as an unequal at some points, but this can be balanced with other parts. Shylock is mostly referred to as “Jew” and is even demonized. This is anti-semetic but also normal for their time period. Shakespeare also has Shylock say lines that make the viewer think Shakespeare is not putting down Shylock all the time, but just following conformity. Shylock says lines like “does a Jew not bleed” and in that speech Shylock shows the viewer that Jews are the same as Christians.
A key issue is that Shylock loans money and in so is a sinner because he charges interest. I believe Shakespeare is trying to portray an aspect of sin and also an aspect of kindness and the goodness of Christians because Antonio also lends money but without interest. This makes Antonio look like a charitable Christian and especially after Shylock will not accept anything but his pound of flesh, it makes Christians look like better people than Jews.
If the play was like Michael Radford’s film of the play then Shylock is definitely not used to totally put down Jews as a theme of the play. It is somewhat of a propaganda piece for Christianity, but it is also simply a romantic comedy. Shylock is put down just like any character that plays the part of a selfish person or a “Bad” guy but the fact that he is a Jew is only because a Jew fit the part for the character when the play was made.
Overall Shakespeare was most likely not a perfect person with the view that everyone was equal, but I do not believe he is a total anti-semite. The character of Shylock just fits the part because when the play was made Shakespeare incorporated the themes of Jews in the play and if he wanted to he could have made a Christian play that part, but why would he make a fellow Christian look bad when he can make a Jew look bad?
1010 words
It all started with the church. Of course the church during the Elizabethan age could not have been civil and respected all religions. Instead they had to pick on the little guy, the Jew, and spread rumors about him so people would not like any Jews and would stay faithful to Christianity. They used the argument that Jews killed Jesus a long time ago and so that makes all Jews bad people and we need to disrespect them. The only thing the church didn’t realize then was Jesus was a Jew and all of the people Jesus lived around were also Jews because Christianity did not exist because Christianity stemmed from Jesus after he died. So of course if someone killed Jesus it is only common sense that person was Jewish, but in fact the bible says the Romans killed Jesus; which is actually plausible because crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Since the church made this excuse to dislike Jews they also made others such as Jews are physically different and things like that. Actually this view still existed recently when the Nazis killed millions of Jews because they were thought to be actually different people who were not genetically the same. I believe the church had the biggest influence on the people because religion was the most important aspect of a good Christian’s life during Shakespeare’s time. To make up such rumors as the “blood libel” and then to expel the Jews from England for three centuries only created a false stereotype that still exists to this day.
I also believe the anti-semetic beliefs of the people stemmed from some jealousy. Christians were not allowed to lend money with interest because it was a sin, and for this reason all of the bankers were Jewish. This made many Jews well off and this most likely made many Christians very angry and jealous.
I am not sure but maybe another factor that made people thinks Jews were different was because of their diet and their prayers. They prayed in Hebrew and did not eat pork. This might have influenced the anti-semetic views in some way just because many people do not like what is different and only like what they think is proper.
Now it is important to discuss the character of Shylock and examine if he is portrayed to support anti-semetic views or if he is just a normal character.
I believe Shakespeare was somewhat of an anti-semetic person. I do not believe his views were right-wing, but I do believe he embodied some anti-semetic traits because it was only natural that he was taught what to believe growing up as a Christian in England. The way he portrays Shylock does not make Shylock look like an all around villain, but more like a very headstrong man who likes to see things through.
Shylock is a well off banker in Venice. He also has a daughter that runs away to be with a Christian man; which shows the viewers it is ok to convert and it is better to be Christian. Shylock only wants what is in his bond and nothing else. He is forced to convert to Christianity. All of these and more aspects of Shylock all have a purpose, but I do not believe the purpose is to create and anti-semetic play. I do believe the purpose is to make Christianity and Christians look merciful and to portray it as the best religion.
Shakespeare may not realize it, but since there was anti-semitism in England that influenced him he does portray Shylock as an unequal at some points, but this can be balanced with other parts. Shylock is mostly referred to as “Jew” and is even demonized. This is anti-semetic but also normal for their time period. Shakespeare also has Shylock say lines that make the viewer think Shakespeare is not putting down Shylock all the time, but just following conformity. Shylock says lines like “does a Jew not bleed” and in that speech Shylock shows the viewer that Jews are the same as Christians.
A key issue is that Shylock loans money and in so is a sinner because he charges interest. I believe Shakespeare is trying to portray an aspect of sin and also an aspect of kindness and the goodness of Christians because Antonio also lends money but without interest. This makes Antonio look like a charitable Christian and especially after Shylock will not accept anything but his pound of flesh, it makes Christians look like better people than Jews.
If the play was like Michael Radford’s film of the play then Shylock is definitely not used to totally put down Jews as a theme of the play. It is somewhat of a propaganda piece for Christianity, but it is also simply a romantic comedy. Shylock is put down just like any character that plays the part of a selfish person or a “Bad” guy but the fact that he is a Jew is only because a Jew fit the part for the character when the play was made.
Overall Shakespeare was most likely not a perfect person with the view that everyone was equal, but I do not believe he is a total anti-semite. The character of Shylock just fits the part because when the play was made Shakespeare incorporated the themes of Jews in the play and if he wanted to he could have made a Christian play that part, but why would he make a fellow Christian look bad when he can make a Jew look bad?
1010 words
Monday, March 3, 2008
King Lear
This blog is about King Lear becuase we are suppose to write a blog about the play. I want to talk about Lear because even though he is a selfish person I think he is intersting. I feel bad for him becuase he has two daughthers that are not respectable. Cordelia is his only daughter that truly loves him, and it is a shame that she did not just humor him by saying " i love you more than anything in this world including ice cream." Lear goes crazy and his crazyness is what i want to talk about.
I think it is understandable that Lear goes crazy. It is basic psychology that tells us why Lear goes crazy. I believe he goes into a deep depression that is just compounded and made worse by everything encounters after he gives up his land. I think Shakespeare wanted to make Lear look insane, but also portray him as a normal person because normal people have been known to "snap" and go crazy after a significant event. I would say going from a king to nothing is pretty significant. Lear goes crazy because he has nothing to lose by acting insane. His life has gone to ruins and his two daughters are bitches who have plotted to get rid of him even though he raised them and has given them everything.
Lear is just a normal person who is obcessed with himself. At first I did not like him because i thought he was to cocky. Then after he lost everything i felt bad for him because of what he had to deal with in such a short amount of time. Then once I found out Cordelia was going to come back into the story and help him i saw a light at the end of the tunnel for Lear, but this was put out by all the other bad things happening in the book. At the end i thought it was somewhat sad what happened, but i was expecting something sad to happen because after all it is a Shakespeare tragedy. King Lear is definately not my favorite play because it is not my type of play, but it really was not that bad to read. I kinda liked Hamlet more than Lear because he was more outgoing, but both are not bad characters to base a play on.
I really don't know of anything else i want to talk about because the only aspects of King Lear that i found interesting were the secret plots and how Lear went insane.
I think it is understandable that Lear goes crazy. It is basic psychology that tells us why Lear goes crazy. I believe he goes into a deep depression that is just compounded and made worse by everything encounters after he gives up his land. I think Shakespeare wanted to make Lear look insane, but also portray him as a normal person because normal people have been known to "snap" and go crazy after a significant event. I would say going from a king to nothing is pretty significant. Lear goes crazy because he has nothing to lose by acting insane. His life has gone to ruins and his two daughters are bitches who have plotted to get rid of him even though he raised them and has given them everything.
Lear is just a normal person who is obcessed with himself. At first I did not like him because i thought he was to cocky. Then after he lost everything i felt bad for him because of what he had to deal with in such a short amount of time. Then once I found out Cordelia was going to come back into the story and help him i saw a light at the end of the tunnel for Lear, but this was put out by all the other bad things happening in the book. At the end i thought it was somewhat sad what happened, but i was expecting something sad to happen because after all it is a Shakespeare tragedy. King Lear is definately not my favorite play because it is not my type of play, but it really was not that bad to read. I kinda liked Hamlet more than Lear because he was more outgoing, but both are not bad characters to base a play on.
I really don't know of anything else i want to talk about because the only aspects of King Lear that i found interesting were the secret plots and how Lear went insane.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The 2 characters who would win a battle of wit
Write a blog about a character you find either interesting or appealing. Think of characters from other stories who have something in common and explain the similarity. Think of a real person you are reminded of and explain why.
The Characters that most interest me in Much Ado About Nothing are Benedick and Beatrice. Some moments of the play may lack some amount of exitement, but when these two hit the stage, it is like lightning. You just can't ignore them because it is so entertaining to listen to them. Especially in the first half of the book the two characters are hateful of each other and get into such funny word battles that you don't want to stop reading. A short but good example is this little bit from one of their conversations.
BEATRICE
I wonder that you will still be talking, SigniorBenedick: nobody marks you.
BENEDICK
What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?
BEATRICE
Is it possible disdain should die while she hathsuch meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain, if you comein her presence.
This is almost like listening to a conversation on a high school campus. Two people involved in a conversation and then one makes a witty remark to the other. It is almost even worse than listening to high schoolers because they act like little kids at first. The only part that enables you to know they are actually really smart is the words they use. Even though they are bickering at each other, it is a very entertaining form of conversation. Each line they say to the other is like stabbing a metaphorical knife in the others back, but in reality they are just having a battle of the brains.
I think it is awesome that they are set up together because they really are so good at arguing against each other, that they would make a good team. I can truly say I would not want to debate against them even if my partner was Mr. Guthrie. They would most likely take so many personal stabs at anyone they debate that you would not want to be near them.
Another thing I thought about was how cool their child would be. I can imagine their child being good at everything and being a really good debater. It would be like putting both Beatrice's and Benedick's wit into one person. I would definately want to be friends with the Benedick family because I would not want to put up with all of the word battles. Plus, I am not as fast as either Benedick or Beatrice when it comes to a response to something someone says to you.
The Characters that most interest me in Much Ado About Nothing are Benedick and Beatrice. Some moments of the play may lack some amount of exitement, but when these two hit the stage, it is like lightning. You just can't ignore them because it is so entertaining to listen to them. Especially in the first half of the book the two characters are hateful of each other and get into such funny word battles that you don't want to stop reading. A short but good example is this little bit from one of their conversations.
BEATRICE
I wonder that you will still be talking, SigniorBenedick: nobody marks you.
BENEDICK
What, my dear Lady Disdain! are you yet living?
BEATRICE
Is it possible disdain should die while she hathsuch meet food to feed it as Signior Benedick? Courtesy itself must convert to disdain, if you comein her presence.
This is almost like listening to a conversation on a high school campus. Two people involved in a conversation and then one makes a witty remark to the other. It is almost even worse than listening to high schoolers because they act like little kids at first. The only part that enables you to know they are actually really smart is the words they use. Even though they are bickering at each other, it is a very entertaining form of conversation. Each line they say to the other is like stabbing a metaphorical knife in the others back, but in reality they are just having a battle of the brains.
I think it is awesome that they are set up together because they really are so good at arguing against each other, that they would make a good team. I can truly say I would not want to debate against them even if my partner was Mr. Guthrie. They would most likely take so many personal stabs at anyone they debate that you would not want to be near them.
Another thing I thought about was how cool their child would be. I can imagine their child being good at everything and being a really good debater. It would be like putting both Beatrice's and Benedick's wit into one person. I would definately want to be friends with the Benedick family because I would not want to put up with all of the word battles. Plus, I am not as fast as either Benedick or Beatrice when it comes to a response to something someone says to you.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Past Shakespeare experience
So far in my life I have not been the best of friends with Shakespeare. I have always wanted to read some of his popular works because they are so famous, but I usually have trouble understanding his writing style. I have read some Shakespeare throughout high school because it has been part of my English classes. I like the story idea's behind his works and I enjoyed reviewing the books in class, but I do not like reading his books because I have a hard time following the text. I liked reading Othello and Hamlet because my English classes always reviewed the plot during class which helped me follow the story. I think it is mainly the vocabulary and the sentence structure that I have a hard time following sometimes, but when the stories are in plain English I enjoy the story.
One of the reasons I am taking this Shakespeare class is so I can get better at understanding Shakespeare's plays. I figure that if I read more of his works and get some practice translating his works to regular English in my head, then his works will be easier for me to read in the future. It is also good to be able to say that you have read Shakespeare and know a lot about his popular plays.
Overall in the past my experience with Shakespeare has not been the best and that is why I am taking this class. If i can further my knowledge and ability related to Shakespeare then I will be happy that I took the class.
Another experience related to Shakespeare is that when I went to London I went to the new globe theater. I did not see a play, but I went on a tour. I thought it was kinda cool and would have been better if I knew more about Shakespeare. I think Shakespeare produced some good plays and I think it is important that I learn something about them.
One of the reasons I am taking this Shakespeare class is so I can get better at understanding Shakespeare's plays. I figure that if I read more of his works and get some practice translating his works to regular English in my head, then his works will be easier for me to read in the future. It is also good to be able to say that you have read Shakespeare and know a lot about his popular plays.
Overall in the past my experience with Shakespeare has not been the best and that is why I am taking this class. If i can further my knowledge and ability related to Shakespeare then I will be happy that I took the class.
Another experience related to Shakespeare is that when I went to London I went to the new globe theater. I did not see a play, but I went on a tour. I thought it was kinda cool and would have been better if I knew more about Shakespeare. I think Shakespeare produced some good plays and I think it is important that I learn something about them.
Monday, December 10, 2007
CDF Blog
In this blog I am going to discuss my feelings toward some aspects of the book Chronicle of a Death Foretold.
First I would like to talk about how ignorant the culture portrayed in the book is. In this regard the one thing that stood out to me was the aspect of being a virgin before marriage. This does not pertain to everyone in the community and is very sexist because it only mandates girls in the community to not have sex. This topic is even bigger when examined more carefully because it is socially acceptable for the “pleasurable mulatto girls,” to have sex with the men and not be married. The men can be seen as pigs because they are so sexist and have relations with prostitutes on a regular basis. The men actually get accustomed to the prostitutes in Maria Alejandrina Cervantes' house at a relatively young age while the girls have to remain pure until their wedding. I personally do not like this aspect of their culture because it seems so foreign to the culture we are used to, but it is a good reality check because it reminds us that not everyone has the same viewpoints when the topic is being a virgin before marriage.
I also would like to talk about the Angela Vicario. In the book we are told that the “Vicario girls were brought up to be married.” If this is true I can only imagine why Angela was not a virgin on her wedding night. If she was raised in a fashion that was getting her ready for marriage, because marriage is important for women in that culture, then why would she not remain a virgin. To me it seems that she would not even consider having sex with anyone until her marriage, and this is why I am surprised that she had sex before her wedding night. The other thing I do not get is why she named Santiago Nasar and would not provide any explanation. The only thing I could think of is that she possibly had sex unwillingly, but it seems to me that in their culture she would have told her family and then her brothers would have gone and killed Nasar after they had intercourse. Marquez does not elaborate at all with this subject in the book and it is left for the reader to obtain his or her own assumptions as to what actually happened in Angela’s past.
One more aspect of the book was most of the people that knew about the threat to Santiago’s life did absolutely nothing to prevent it. On the contrary they went outside in the morning to witness it. The only reason so far I have come across as to why no-one did anything was because Santiago was rich and most of the townspeople were jealous of him. To me this argument is void because someone’s life is being threatened and no person is truly trying to help save Santiago’s life. The police don’t even do anything except take the brother’s first pair of knives away. Even after the murder the brothers only go to jail for a couple of years and then are released. Their justice system is definitely flawed when someone obviously committed murder, even if they did have a reason, and got away with it. The people of the town should have taken responsibility for helping their fellow citizen who did nothing serious to hurt the community. If he did truly take Angela’s virginity then an investigation should have taken place in which both parties are interviewed, but instead the brothers just go and kill Santiago. I do not believe this reason was sufficient enough to kill another person, and I think the people should have either stopped the brothers once they knew what was going to happen, or had everyone run to find Santiago to help him. Either way the community had some bitterness towards Santiago and I do not get why they would get pleasure from seeing another man die for a not so serious crime where no-one else was killed.
687 words
First I would like to talk about how ignorant the culture portrayed in the book is. In this regard the one thing that stood out to me was the aspect of being a virgin before marriage. This does not pertain to everyone in the community and is very sexist because it only mandates girls in the community to not have sex. This topic is even bigger when examined more carefully because it is socially acceptable for the “pleasurable mulatto girls,” to have sex with the men and not be married. The men can be seen as pigs because they are so sexist and have relations with prostitutes on a regular basis. The men actually get accustomed to the prostitutes in Maria Alejandrina Cervantes' house at a relatively young age while the girls have to remain pure until their wedding. I personally do not like this aspect of their culture because it seems so foreign to the culture we are used to, but it is a good reality check because it reminds us that not everyone has the same viewpoints when the topic is being a virgin before marriage.
I also would like to talk about the Angela Vicario. In the book we are told that the “Vicario girls were brought up to be married.” If this is true I can only imagine why Angela was not a virgin on her wedding night. If she was raised in a fashion that was getting her ready for marriage, because marriage is important for women in that culture, then why would she not remain a virgin. To me it seems that she would not even consider having sex with anyone until her marriage, and this is why I am surprised that she had sex before her wedding night. The other thing I do not get is why she named Santiago Nasar and would not provide any explanation. The only thing I could think of is that she possibly had sex unwillingly, but it seems to me that in their culture she would have told her family and then her brothers would have gone and killed Nasar after they had intercourse. Marquez does not elaborate at all with this subject in the book and it is left for the reader to obtain his or her own assumptions as to what actually happened in Angela’s past.
One more aspect of the book was most of the people that knew about the threat to Santiago’s life did absolutely nothing to prevent it. On the contrary they went outside in the morning to witness it. The only reason so far I have come across as to why no-one did anything was because Santiago was rich and most of the townspeople were jealous of him. To me this argument is void because someone’s life is being threatened and no person is truly trying to help save Santiago’s life. The police don’t even do anything except take the brother’s first pair of knives away. Even after the murder the brothers only go to jail for a couple of years and then are released. Their justice system is definitely flawed when someone obviously committed murder, even if they did have a reason, and got away with it. The people of the town should have taken responsibility for helping their fellow citizen who did nothing serious to hurt the community. If he did truly take Angela’s virginity then an investigation should have taken place in which both parties are interviewed, but instead the brothers just go and kill Santiago. I do not believe this reason was sufficient enough to kill another person, and I think the people should have either stopped the brothers once they knew what was going to happen, or had everyone run to find Santiago to help him. Either way the community had some bitterness towards Santiago and I do not get why they would get pleasure from seeing another man die for a not so serious crime where no-one else was killed.
687 words
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)