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 should be 200-250 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...
Due date: Tuesday, November 22, 2011.
As I read the Shakespeare packet, the topic that was most intriguing was the Elizabethan stage. There are numerous contrasts between what the stage was like about 400 years ago and what a modern theater is today. From the beginning of the article, there was already a glaring difference. In the Elizabethan era, the people commonly, “hooted, smacked, and chatted throughout the performance” whereas in modern theaters, it is considered a rude gesture to interrupt a performance, nonetheless talk to an actor on the stage. In my opinion, theaters then seem more amusing and enjoyable due to the interaction and relationship between actors and viewers.
ReplyDeleteAnother great and shocking difference is the size of the theaters. The Globe theater for example, could hold upwards of 3,000 viewers which in modern times is probably the size of a football stadium, not a theater! Also, the pubs and taverns that were in close proximity to the theaters then are still a normal occurrence in modern times. Most people and actors are definitely going to want to enjoy a drink after the performance!
In general, there was a much different vibe in Elizabethan theaters. Religion was highly prominent as noted by the three tiers to the stage symbolizing earth, heaven, and hell. It was also deemed immoral for women to be on the stage therefore allowing acting positions to the “prepubescent boys”. Another surprising aspect that alters the vibe in an Elizabethan theater is the idea that there was an absence in a director and the actors controlled all aspects of the show. To me, I am intrigued by that idea due to the fact that since the actors portray the play to the audience, they should be in charge of what occurs throughout the preparations, not a person who will not be displaying himself on stage for thousands of people to see.
Another thing that I found most intriguing was the elaborate costumes worn the actors. I feel as if over the years, people have lost the beautiful and Victorian interest for elaborate costumes due to the thought that that attire is not stylish and only strappy clothes and lingerie are deemed custom nowadays.
Lastly, the actors had to practice and memorize their lines to a play in just under a week which proves to me the determination and drive that these Elizabethans have for success. Because the audience interacts with the actors, the play has a more relaxed affect therefore the actors need not to worry about reiterating their lines perfectly.
All in all, I feel the Elizabethan theater proves itself to be a much more sophisticated and rewarding theater compared to the theaters of modern day. I would have loved to sit in the Globe and witness one of these prestigious plays in order to experience what these people had the opportunity to so long ago.
One of the topics that I found most interesting after reading the packet given to us in class was the topic on William Shakespeare’s sexuality.
ReplyDeleteI want to start off with the title of the passage that concentrates on this subject, “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable.” From the use of the word “uncomfortable”, we can assume that the author of this passage is a little taken back when it come to homosexuality. I don’t believe this was an appropriate title to use, and I also believe this is a little bias. However, we all have our opinions in regards to this topic, and it should be respected.
Critics and biographers have tried for years to put the puzzle pieces together to Shakespeare’s live and believes. Some eighteenth-century “biographers ignored certain details of Shakespeare’s life” to make him seems as the person everyone wants him to be. On the other hand, Victorians wanted to explore beyond the surface of Shakespeare. There is some evidence that scholar use to try to figure out Shakespeare’s sexuality. For instance, there is a business letter that was found written to Shakespeare from Richard Quinney, asking him to lend him money. Richard’s father warned his son that Shakespeare will give him the money, but “at a price”. Some may take this with a sexual reference and others take it with a business reference, but who for sure knows what Richard’s father was referring to with this advice? Another piece of “evidence” that critics base their knowledge of Shakespeare on is his writing. Shakespeare is believed to have written some of the most romantic lyrics in history, and according to this passage, they are mostly addressed to a man. Some writers do not write base on their personal lives, but we can assume that some do base some of the things they write on topics that interest them or on what they believe. I don’t think this was the case for Shakespeare because, as the author mentions, “There’s not one line you can point to and confidently assert, “ah, that’s Shakespeare there,” without finding another line to contradict it.”
The real Shakespeare will never be completely understood unless he is brought back to life. Maybe he was gay, and he tried to hide it by getting married because he was afraid to be criticized, just like some think he was secretly catholic because like Kaelyn said, “Religion was highly prominent” and he didn’t want to be judged. Just like J.D Salinger critics, many will make judgments and create an ideal persona of who they want these authors to be.
After reading this article, I found so many things to be interesting and wonderful (in the literal sense of the word) mostly the piece entitled Transvestite Theatre and Boy Actors because, while I was already aware that boys were generally cast to play the role of women in plays, I don’t fully understand why. I suppose this could be because women were viewed as having a role only in the house, but this seems as though it would be something that a woman would be better suited for. I feel as though this would be the case because a woman can better get into the mind of another woman, such as Juliet, than a man could. Also, I feel as though there would be better chemistry on stage because I would think that a man would feel more comfortable getting intimate onstage with a woman rather than another man.
ReplyDeleteI was also shocked by the narrow-mindedness of the previous actors once women began to take on a larger role in theatre, claiming that “no woman, they insisted, could possibly play Juliet as well,” as a young boy that they had seen before play the role. I presume that I was just slightly aggravated by this piece and history for suppressing women in this manner.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI chose to respond to “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable” this section addressed Shakespeare’s uniquely enigmatic writing style, and how people of the Elizabethan era made a point to gloss over some aspects of his life deemed unsuitable. It mentioned how Shakespeare was not an extreme as many famous authors are; rather he dwelled in a sort of middle ground, a happy medium. This interpretation has changed over the ages, for instance the section mentions how in Elizabethan times he was almost unacceptably liberal, while in modern times he is actually viewed as conservative. These changes are the case for many authors, but none so many as Shakespeare, interestingly enough, literature as a whole is often treated this way, and you can see the evolution of popular trends throughout history. The fact that this can also be observed may indicate tremendous ability on the part of Shakespeare. However, I would actually argue that it just shows a lack of creativity on the part of authors since his rise to fame. I think the piece Morgan selected was also fitting, seeing as some of the most famous actors of our time are women, when in Shakespeare’s women were never allowed to act. I also liked her point that men were forced into intimate situations with other men for the sake of the play, being that there were no women allowed. I found this ironic, considering homoerotic verses were considered disturbing at the time.
ReplyDeleteAs I was actively reading and annotating this interesting packet, the topic that seemed to interest me the most was the, "Transvestite Theatre and Boy Actors," part. I say this because in the Shakespeareian days, women were not allowed to act on stage, and if they did they would be punished. So instead of the women playing the women parts, the male actors would take their role. I agree with morgan, when she said, "boys were generally cast to play the role of women in plays, I don’t fully understand why. I suppose this could be because women were viewed as having a role only in the house." Something that was also interesting was that their were no directors or anyone who was in charge of the play, the actors took the responsibility of that, and they were in charge of what happens in the play. A part I found humorous in this section that, when women started acting the role of Juliet in the play Romeo and Juliet. The old timers would recall a boy playing the role of Juliet and they would also say that they guy was a better actor than a women at a women’s role. Also as children the actors would receive rigorous training in dancing, music, singing, elocution, memorization, and weaponry. This would also be a reason why there were more male actors than women actors because male actors received more training and preparation to become into an actor as a child. And the child would often hang out with the adult starts, learning from them, but as a child they wouldn’t be known as a star, only until they reach the adult stage.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI chose to respond to the section of the packet titled, “The Globe Excavation,” because I felt the theater was a significant aspect of the theater experience for the people who first viewed Shakespeare’s plays in the Elizabethan time. Earlier in the packet, the theater was described to hold over 3,000 people, which is much larger than theaters today. I was surprised that such an enormous theater could have been lost to time so easily, but in that time, the Puritans were protesting vehemently to theaters being allowed at all, which makes the eventual destruction of the theater less surprising. The article went on to say that “the second Globe was pulled down in 1644 when all the theaters closed, and it was forgotten. In fact, it had a brewery on top of it until 1984.” I found it intriguing that something with such significance to the legacy of Shakespeare could be hidden under a brewery, seemingly without anybody realizing, as the Globe was only rediscovered in 1989. Considering the way Shakespeare’s plays are acclaimed today, it is fortunate that the remains were found. In fact, a reconstruction of the theater was built that allows modern audiences to see what it was like to attend a play for Elizabethans. Kaelyn noted that she “would have loved to sit in the Globe and witness one of these prestigious plays in order to experience what these people had the opportunity to,” and I agree that it would certainly be an interesting experience, which drew my attention to the part of the article describing the reconstruction of the theater.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the packet the topic that I found to be the mort interesting was the Forget the footnotes and other advice. Even though there were other topics that were very interesting what I like most about this topic is that I could relate to it and actually take most if not all of the advice it gives you. In the article David Hare said, “Shakespeare was thinking while he was working through the plot.” In other words, a reader should read without always trying to interpret Shakespeare and giving his writing a formula. Many people tend to just look up in the internet what Shakespeare meant by this phrase and that phrase but just like Alexander Anikst says “[you] should just believe in Shakespeare- in his greatness, in his wide outlook, his ability to put into one play a whole world with all its contradictions, contrasts, and problems.” A lot of times people want quick satisfaction and go straight to the internet but if you stop and think about what Shakespeare is saying you might get the most out of his plays because after all great art is things you can not always understand.
ReplyDeleteAnother advice that I really liked was “reading a play alone allows you to proceed at your own pace, giving you time to dwell on poetry and the complex images that might fly right by you if they were only heard.” Once again I relate with this advice a lot; most of the time I can concentrate more if I’m alone reading rather than surrounded with noise. One thing I do disagree with is that reading alone is better that hearing someone reading it to you like actors for instance. Because Shakespeare has an old fashion way of writing for me it is easier to listen to someone because they pronounce the words better than I ever could. Shakespeare has a very interesting way of writing and he shows this from the types of words he uses to the type of actor he has in the plays which were predominantly males playing female role. I agree with Morgan I too knew that men where cast to play the role of woman but I didn’t know why. But all in all Shakespeare does everything for a reason and this is what made his plays the best but the most confusing and this is why the advice given in this article is very helpful.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I found "The Globe Excavation" the most intriguing. It was interesting to read how Shakespeare's plays would be executed during Elizabethan times. One of my favorite aspects was how they were "three tiers to the stage, corresponding to earth, heaven, and hell." Many of Shakespeare's plays have multiple references and symbols of heaven and hell, so having physical representations of heaven/hell would create a dramatic effect for the audience. What I also found interesting was how "female roles were played by prepubescent boys-one reason why there's so little actual sex in the plays." I liked how Shakespeare was able to take advantage of this restriction by using dramatic language and actions to create intimacy.
ReplyDeleteWhat I also found interesting was how Shakespeare was "unable to rely on authentic female beauty and made his heroines interesting, witty, and intelligent." I respect Shakespeare for portrayed his heroines this way because woman in Elizabethan times had many restrictions and were seen as not nearly as powerful compared to men. I prefer most of Shakespeare's heroines (my personal favorite being Lady Macbeth) as to alot of females in literature, who are portrayed as "submissive damsels in distress."
Overall, I find how plays at the Globe were preformed and how Shakespeare took advantage of many things interesting. Like Lauren and Kaelyn, I agree that it would be a wonderful experience to see the prestigious plays preformed during Elizabethan times. They sound somewhat more interesting than modern plays!
I found the sections titled the lost years very interesting. This is because there is so little existing records from 1585 to 1592. Additionally, there are many rumors as to what occurred during this time period. Some say Shakespeare supported his family by being a moneylender, solider, gardener, tutor etc. One strange supposed incident was the deer poaching on Lucy's estate. Apparently, Shakespeare got caught poaching on private property and was persecuted. After which he wrote an insulting balled to Lucy. What makes this lack creditability is that many different versions of this story came up during his scholarship. At one point the there was no deer and instead it was a rabbit that he poached. People even said he went up and nailed the ballad to the gates of Lucy's estate. However, it is said that some version of this event may have happened due to its sighting in several sources. There are many assumptions about Shakespeare that are still under dispute today. As James stated Shakespeare's popularity at the time and political mind set have changed over the ages and from author to author. This brings to question the creditability of the authors as some aspects and stories about Shakespeare as each person recollects it. As mentioned before different versions of the stories may also arise bringing further scrutiny as to what really occurred during this time.
ReplyDeleteOne of the more interesting passages was "The Globe Excavation." I found this interesting probably because it shows how greedy and stubborn people can be. Rebuilding the Globe theatre is a great idea, yet Southwark felt that "Shakespeare was 'posh' and that culture was overrated. They wanted the land for a housing project." I found this rather amazing, as a housing project can be done anywhere else, yet for some reason the city felt it was imperative to use the land of the remainders of the Globe theatre for the project. Moreover, they didn't even respect Shakespeare's work, which is rather astonishing, calling the restoration of the Globe "a quixotic vision of a young actor." After taking their lease on the site, Southwark's city council was sued and lost nine million pounds, which could have been used for the housing project somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteLike Lauren, I find it flabbergasting how such a place could be hidden under a brewery and parking lot. Also, it is interesting that the Globe may have had twenty sides, as opposed to six or eight, as we often see in depictions of Shakespeare's plays. The article also says that a human skull was "found lodged in one of the walls of the stage area." Overall, it was a nice read.
What I found most interesting in the article was the atmosphere of the plays and of Elizabethan society in general. While today play going is a quiet, almost somber affair, in Shakespeare's time it was loud and boisterous, much like a sporting event, with hazelnuts being a favorite snack. What also surprised me was the fact that plays at the Globe Theater catered to all walks of life and attracted audiences from all social classes. Now, Shakespeare tends to be something left for the educated.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Elizabethan England was similar in many ways to modern New York City or Amsterdam's Red Light District where pubs, taverns,, prostitutes, and pimps all made booming business, against the advice of the people's Anglican, Puritan, or Christian leaders. In a time noted for its apparent lack of anything interesting, audiences had an immense amount of variety: the playhouse, the theater troupe, the genre, and the specific play itself.
What I also found interesting was that the plays were so strongly opposed by city and council leaders. Not only was the play business able to stimulate the local economy by attracting people to stores and shops near the playhouse, but they also made people more cultured. We see reading printed Shakespeare and attending performed Shakespeare as a high class activity. Perhaps for this very reason, the social leader attempted to restrict the knowledge of the lower classes, enabling them to be ruled more easily. Shakespeare, then, could be thought of as a man who attempted to free society from this control, in addition to writing beautiful pieces of literature. I strongly agree with Saban in that the article paints a very vivid picture of Elizabethan life.
What interest me the most about the packet was the first page, “Forget the Footnotes! And other Advice.” I enjoyed this the most because it gave me a few ways to approach Shakespeare’s writing. But the best thing that I read throughout this entire packet was “Some experts advise not to start reading Shakespeare until you’re at least sixty-five…” I favor that one sentence because hopefully by that age some of his writing would make sense, and wouldn’t sound like a foreign language to me. Even if by that time I still didn’t understand his writing it would be too late in my life to really care, because my profession would have nothing to Shakespeare and I would possibly be retired. Anyways, besides that I really liked when Alexander Anikst stated," The worst way f interpreting Shakespeare is to say he meant this, and just this, and to give a formula.” Basically that is stating, no one way is correct, and I believe that Shakespeare did that on purpose, that way an individual can interpret the characters such as Gertrude in Hamlet the way they wanted to, based on the context clues and events that occurred. This topic also suggested that everyone has to approach Shakespeare in which they think is best for them and will help them understand. The reason why I liked this so much is because it gave me more ideas to use to try to help myself understand his writing and I shouldn’t be discouraged when I don’t have the same interpretations as my peers.
ReplyDeleteOne other topic that was very interesting and stood out as Angela mentioned was “The Shakespeare Who Makes Some of Us Uncomfortable.” And I agree with her when she says, “we can assume that the author of this passage is a little taken back when it comes to homosexuality.” And because we are now in the 21st century that doesn’t really matter to us anymore it really isn’t a big deal. We like who we like and that doesn’t change the kind of person we are.
In the article, The Shakespeare who make some of us Uncomfortable I nearly completely agree with. In this article Shakespeare is called a “Man’s man” and “slightly erotic”. I agree with him completely because I can understand the surface level humor, As well as picking up on social cues like Hamlets short sentence, no crap, no fluff way of talking. As to him being called bisexual moneylender, im rather confused on. I don’t know much about his affairs but throughout the books I have read, I haven’t found any evidence yet that have said he is a bisexual. As this would make an interesting rumor, I can’t see him being bisexual with all of the sexual, erotic and social unfavorable jokes laced throughout the story. On top of being a sexual playwright, he had dramatic and timeless humor throughout the years. W.T. Montcrieff said “The organ of the robbery and the organ for forming good dramatic plots, are proven he a great adept in the latter, and no doubt was so in the former”. Like James mentioned,”Gloss over some aspects of his life deemed unsuitable.” In the Elizabethan era, there are lots of differences but Shakespeare subjects are still not social expectable like Having a lust for your mom… which I am complete sure Hamlet has for his mom.
ReplyDeleteSincerely,
The Boss
After reading the article, the topic I found most interesting was “A Look at the Elizabethan Stage”. I found it most interesting because of the way they ran their plays. One fact that interested me the most was that performances were given every day except for Sunday. I believe they didn’t perform on Sundays because Sundays were and still are very pious days. I felt like this forced people into being religious since they are not showing a play, there is nothing much left to do.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, what interested me was the way they treated their actors. For example, rich people couldn’t be performers because actors were at a lower level than them. In the article, the author said “Vendors offered beer, water, oranges, nuts, gingerbread, and apples, all of which were occasionally thrown at the actors.” It fascinated me that people didn’t have respect for the actors, even though they are entertaining them. Like Kaelyn said, the actors had to practice and memorize their lines in just under a week. This proves how determined the actors were, but they would still get food thrown at them by people at times.