-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Macbeth, the victim or the villain? – Arron's Blog on Macbeth: Victim of Fate?
- Professor Berggren on The Curse of Macbeth aka The Scottish Play
- Ronie Sharma on Scene Study-Troilus and Cressida Act 3 Scene 1
- Ronie Sharma on Does the end justify the means?
- Ronie Sharma on “The poison of that lies in you to temper.”
Archives
Categories
Meta
Historical sources
Imagery
Links
Macbeth
Pastoral themes
The Taming of the Shrew
Tags
- Achilles
- agamemnon
- appearance
- Beatrice
- Chorus
- Claudio
- Cressida
- deceit
- disguise
- disguises
- dogberry
- dupe
- fair
- foul
- free will
- group 5
- Helen
- Helen-Paris
- Henry V
- Hero
- induction
- irony
- lies
- love
- Lucentio
- Lust
- Macbeth
- Margaret
- Much Ado About Nothing
- music
- Paris
- predestination
- prejudice
- reality
- scene study
- Shakepeare
- shakespeare
- shrew
- taming
- The Winter's Tale
- the witches
- Troilus
- Troilus and Cressida
- Troy
- Ulysses
Monthly Archives: October 2011
Scene Study-Troilus and Cressida Act 3 Scene 1
http://youtu.be/iuFuZ3VJnKM
Posted in Helen and Paris at Home -- Group 5, Troilus and Cressida
Tagged Helen-Paris, music
3 Comments
Troilus and Cressida, Troilus’ self-speech
Among the numerous back and forth dialogues, this one stroke me as quite dramatic so I will briefly talk about it. It occurs on page 8, lines 92-108, I won’t retype it here because it can easily be found within the book.
Anyway, there are a lot of things packed into this harangued uttering which are quite notable to mention:
After calling them some names, he starts with saying “Fools on both sides!” This goes hand-in-hand with what our teacher said in class about the meaningless war – well from our point of view. Back then Helen was considered a major prize and represented a whole country, a symbol, so all the valiant soldiers were up in arms to rescue her, not only for her patriotic representative beauty but also for their country’s emblem.
Furthermore, the character here uses some dramatic metaphorical imagery such as the line, “When with your blood you daily paint her thus.” This means she is painted in blood, because well, war is bloody and this will be no exception, even though technically they are fighting over one woman hehe.. well also their pride as well.
I mean there are many lines here of discussion here, also when he says “It is too starved a subject for my sword,” which was another mentioned line in class. I remember our teacher paralleled-compared this line with recent warfare events – something that societies have been looking into justifying war acts.
These are just some of the briefly worthwhile things to mention in this speech which seems to be directed at one self.
Well any comments, discussions, questions .. feel free to contribute.
-Thanks.
Posted in Troilus and Cressida, Uncategorized
1 Comment
Much Ado About Nothing parallels to Real Life
Shakespeare was amazing at making parallels to real life. He was a master and I believe to be very progressive in the sense that he predicts what modern life will be like. For this reason is why I like “Much Ado about Nothing.” The modern day bustling of real life filled with moments that tend to be small. However, when these moments are combined they form what we know as real life. The wild goose chase, the gossip, the lies, sex, betrayal, etc are a bunch of themes and parts of this play. Not every person has these types of things in their lives. When you are bored and in need of excitement you tend to tell a few fibs to get what you want. This happens in real life, and happened in “Much Ado about Nothing.” I am in awe of Shakespeare for his ability to make transitions from his literature to real life seamless.
Posted in Much Ado About Nothing
2 Comments
Henry V and his multiple personalities
From the moment Professor Berggren explained to us how Harry or should I say Henry V altered his behavior from vagabond to true royal model seemingly overnight I thought there was something odd about his personality only to be proven right. He takes on a different role depending on who is speaking to or the situation he is in.
He pretends to be merciful in Act 2 scene 2 when he finds out about the treachery of his officers. But he is shown as heartless in Act 4 scene 7 when he commits a war crime by ordering the war prisoners to death. He is brutal in his war speech in act 3 scene 1 yet inspiring in act 4 scene 1. He is harsh on the people of England when he speaks of them in private in act 4 scene1 but empathetic of them when he speaks to his cousin in act 4 scene 3. Then we have the smooth talking arguably deceitful Henry V in act 5 scene 2 as he tries to woo Katherine.
We only see a sliver of the real Henry V and how he is truly feeling when he is alone and does not have to put on a mask. I can’t say I don’t like what I see under the mask because I know we all wear them in our modern society. Henry V being faced with greater responsibilities has many more faces than we do. Shakespeare captures his different faces well among his emotions.
Posted in Henry V
Tagged brutal, deceitful, emotions, empathetic, feeling, harsh, heartless, Henry V, merciful, personality, role
4 Comments
Katherine: What is she to Henry?
What I found very curious about the exchange in Act V, scene II between Henry and Katherine (or some may argue, a monologue on Henry’s part) was the overdone and flowery language used by Henry to express his seemingly overwhelming love, although this was the very first time they had met. What I also found strange was that throughout this exchange, Henry had not bothered to speak in a way in which she would understand. Most of her answers throughout this scene were “I cannot tell,” meaning that she doesn’t understand him. Yet despite this, Henry continues on his raving about how much he loves her. On top of this, when he attempts to kiss her, and she tells him its against her customs, he immediately brushes it off, and seems to force her to kiss him. This is telling of not only Henry’s arrogance, but also disregard for Katherine’s feelings and his selfishness when it comes to making connections with other people. It is evident through this example, as well as through the strong language he uses when encouraging his soldiers to fight the French army, he views people as commodities, or resources. I wonder, what do you all think about Henry’s character when it comes to dealing with other people?
A Vampire in Henry V
Pistol did not have much of a major part in the play but he is still an interesting character. He is most definitely a fool who does not amount to a man, as the Boy have noted and observed in Act 3 Scene 2, and makes promises he cannot keep. He has a killing tongue in which he speaks things he cannot do. He says he will fight and kill many men but in reality, he will never draw his sword. After all, things are easier said than done.
But has it every occurred to anyone that he speaks a lot about sucking blood? Although he may only mention it twice in 2.4 and 4.4, it’s still an odd statement. It is understandable that they are fighting in a war but we all know Pistol would not suck any blood. If he keeps his sword in one piece by keeping it in its sheath, how can he suck the blood of his enemies without having to kill them first?
“Let us to France, like horse-leeches, my boys, To suck, to suck, the very blood to suck!” (2.4.56-57). Maybe Shakespeare intended Pistol to have vampire-like qualities (except the daylight quality). As in Dracula, no one knew he was a blood-thirsty creature. Dracula went about his duties acquiring land but doing so during the night. He appeared like a normal being to others until Jonathan (a man staying at Dracula’s castle to complete some business with him) noticed peculiar things and when his wife Mina started to worry when Jonathan did not come home during the expected week he said he would.
Was it normal for soldiers to drink the bloods of their enemies? If not, is it normal for one, such as Pistol, to speak about doing so? Does saying so show pride for his country? Does anyone else think it’s weird that Pistol mentions it more than once?
Henry V’s soliloquy
In Henry’s soliloquy from Act 4 Scene 1, I thought it was interesting how he was defending his position as a king. As much as he put his country through an “unnecessary war”, we realize that a lot of decisions made by those who are supposedly “wiser and smarter” really are just human decisions that are spurred by pride and the need for recognition. He also juxtaposes two very difficult places to be in: either you take responsibility and you have the high position (being a king) or you have less to no responsibility and you live like a peasant. When trying to decide between the better of the the two, it’s basically being stuck between a rock and and hard place. It also made me realize that leadership is really a trade off. Sure, it’s a lot of sitting down and planning rather than being in the action and being killed, but it requires a huge burden (whether warranted or unwarranted) that must be addressed. It’s more of a psychological burden to bear rather than experiencing what maybe war feels like, first hand.
Posted in Henry V
5 Comments
The Imagined Other
Like Petruchio in his war on Kate’s inner shrew, Henry V employs an “us v. them” tactic in an unexpected way. In addition to the requisite French bashing, Henry rouses the troops in the opening of scene 3 by inviting them into his noble circle. He talks about their fathers’ honor and valor insisting “there is none of you so mean and base that hath not noble lustre in your eyes” (3.1.29-30). Neither the emotional push nor pull of these arguments are unique. When at war, the enemy is vilified and the soldier is glorified. What is interesting about Henry’s speech, and also very relevant today, is the secondary other that Henry creates. It is not enough for the “us v. them” scenario to encompass one body of “them.” There are also the “men of grosser blood” who stand across the sand line (3.1.24). Who is Henry talking about? Despite his grand linguistic gestures, the men whom he addresses in this speech are at the very bottom of the totem pole. This speech is not for his horsed noblemen but for the common foot soldier. There are no men of grosser blood. Henry creates a social fallacy to further manipulate his soldiers’ emotions.
Consider the stance of the poor white southern anti-abolitionist in the nineteenth century. For someone who didn’t actually own slaves and therefor had no economic stake in slavery, an anti-abolitionist stance is purely emotional. No group of people wants to see themselves as being the bottom of the social hierarchy and so they push another group beneath themselves. In the case of Henry’s soldiers, the social implications are far less disturbing as the men of grosser blood are an imaginary group of people, but the attitude is the same. Henry smoothly uses a complex model of “us v. them” to accomplish his aims, without actually alienating any English people.
Posted in Henry V
3 Comments
