Shakespeare for the Switcher of Sex

Boyet--a woman?  Or two?  Moth in love with Don Adriano de Armado? What?  Dang, I really wish that I had written this closer to when I watched Love's Labor's Lost--I'm having a hard time remembering all my thoughts now...but I went with my sister to see the play, and like Sarah, I found that knowing the plot was super helpful understanding what was going on, and being able to explain that to my sister was a good exercise for me.  And, like a lot of people said, watching it made me be able to relate to the play a lot more, and caused me to like it a lot more too.

Since a lot of people have commented on the setting already (which I though was terribly clever and very well adapted), I thought I'd mainly focus on other things.  I thought the gender switching was interesting how in both this play and the Merchant of Venice.  In Shakespeare's day, as we've discussed, the actors were all male and the female roles were played by men and boys dressed as women.  Then of course there was the additional layer of disguise when a character cross dressed in the plays.  In both of the plays we watched, the characters themselves were changed from male to female characters.  In the Merchant of Venice, I thought perhaps it was to avoid the whole homosexual thing.  But perhaps the motivation was the guy-to-girl ratio of the actors?  They had the opposite problem as Shakespeare--more female than male actors.  But rather than maintaining the gender of the character and having the actor play accordingly, they simply switched the gender of the characters.  Or, did they do that in Love's Labor's Lost in order to allow for even more matchmaking and love potential (as if there wasn't enough already)?  Or was it to match the setting by having certain characters fulfill certain social roles?  I couldn't decide.  But here are some of the gender switches I can remember from the play.  (There might have been another 1 or 2 I forgot.  Please make note of them if I did.)

Boyet--In the Shakespeare original, a man.  In this play: 2 woman.  This is one switch I could see being motivated by the social role thing--the setting for the Princess of France and her attendants to plan, plot, and discuss is a dressing room.  Very appropriate and believable setting too, in my opinion.  For Boyet to be a part of those discussions, would only make sense for him to be female.  There is a definite divide between the men and the women in the 1940s setting, which parallels the divide between France and England in the original, and making Boyet a woman (or 2) certainly fits this.  Another note on this--all the women are dressed in very bright and vibrant colors--the woman representing the princess is dressed in red--indicative of power, or at least social prominence?  The exception is the two women playing Boyet--they were both dressed in blue--the archetypal male color.

Moth--Again, this could be a setting-motivated switch also.  It makes more sense for the radio host's foil to be a woman.  This, of course, led to obvious match and romantic potential in the relationship, which changed the feel of that relationship.  And did it seem to anyone else like Moth had feelings for Don Armado that led to disappointed love in the end, when he ended up with Jaquenetta?

Holofernes--Call me slow but I didn't get this role at all in the 1940s version.  But, it did lead to some more romantic potential, and she ended up with someone in the end, didn't she?  Was it Nathanial?  There were so many matches it was tough to keep them all straight.

So maybe all this gender switching was motivated by the setting.  Afterall, if it really was just a lack of male actors, couldn't they just dress the women up as men like they did the men as women in Shakespeare's day?

Shakespeare for the Scholarly

Knowledge vs. Love? Those were the closing words of Nixon's post about Love's Labor Lost. That certainly is the dichotomy presented in this Shakespeare play. Or is it? It's certainly very silly, mocking just about everything under the sun; is it mocking this mindset as well? I'm not sure; to be honest I was struggling just to follow the plot and dialogue; perhaps further study of this play would reveal whether this was what Shakespeare intended or not. But Nixon's post, pointing out this mindset, as well as the discussion we had in class the other day, and Sarah's post about how society sometimes views love in the way it is mockingly portrayed in Love's Labor Lost made me start thinking about this mindset as well. In the play, the king and his buds all swear off women and make all kinds of strict vows including to fast once a week in order to become "scholarly" Act 4, Scene 3 really epitomizes this mindset: There's Beroune with his humorous internal struggle: "I will not love; if I do, hang me; i' faith, I will not. O! but her eye, — by this light, but for her eye, I would not love her; yes, for her two eyes. " And the King, with his misery loves company: "sweet fellowship in shame!" after each struggles with the temptation of women, and seeks to rationalize or find company in this "vice" they find out that each of the others has done the same. Then when they realize they are each in love, Beroune argues that experience is the best way to learn, or in other words, looking at a woman is the best way to learn beauty, and that their oath was inhibiting rather than complimenting their scholarship, and they go on to woo the women. But how often do people today have that same mindset? "My grades are bad because I'm in love." "I don't have time to date and be social." Academic and social endeavors are often set up as being exclusive. Maybe this is a idealistic view of the world and love, but I believe love and scholarship ought to be complimentary. When a balance exists between social and academic pursuits, they are mutually beneficial. Placing an extreme emphasis on either one certainly would lead to the detriment and eventual exclusion of the other, but if there is moderation diligent scholarship aids in the development of relationships worth perusing, and a relationship worth perusing would lead to increased motivation and focus on scholarship. I often hear of stories where people's grades improve after getting married. That is the kind of relationship look for and seek to develop: one where we help each other to become better and achieve our goals, rather than bringing each other down.

Shakespeare for the Speaker Clever

Love's Labor Lost--the whole time I was reading, I was torn between disgust at the utter silliness of the dialogue and admiration of the clever rhetoric. I am always one that has appreciated clever rhetoric--I think that is the thing I appreciate most about Jane Austen books, and my favorite part of reading Shakespeare. It reminds me of a friend I have who is always busting out the most ridiculous puns--you can't help but roll your eyes, but deep down you kind of have to admire the quick wit that draws forth puns on every topic at the drop of a pin. She knows it too, and thinks she's pretty punny (ha ha).

There is way too much good stuff to analyze all of it, but this one passage caught my eye,

After explaining to Armado how to "brawl in French", Armado asks Moth, "How hast thou purchased this experience?" Moth's response: "By my penny of observation." I don't know why this clever little metaphor tickled my fancy so much, but I liked it. Armado asks how he "purchased" experience, meaning how he obtained it; obviously experience cannot be purchased for a monetary amount, but is obtained via experience. But Moth keeps with the monetary theme and responds with a monetary reference--my (the ownership indicates that it was particular to him--his own observation) penny of observation.

This follows with clever reference to Hamlet, where the hobby horse represents something of little lasting consequence. Hamlet, in mocking the way his mother has moved on after his father's death, says that you have to build churches to not be forgotten 2 months after your death. If not, then you are like the hobby horse, whose epitaph is “For, oh, for, oh, the hobby-horse is forgot.” When Don Adriano de Armado says, "But O — but O, — ", Moth cleverly finishes the sentence with 'The hobby-horse is forgot.' It's like when we today quote lines from movies--he was

making reference to another Shakespeare play. In quoting this line, it seems like he's discounting the lasting value and reality of Armado's love, which Armado himself questions-- "Call'st thou my love 'hobby-horse'?" which Armado refutes--no, a hackney. So I looked up what a hackney is--it's a particular kind of horse specially bred in Britain intended for carriage driving. They are elegant, and known for their stamina. Pretty much the complete opposite of a hobby horse, which is not only not alive, (unless it refers to the Irish hobby, a breed of horses popular in the British Isles in the Middle Ages that is now extinct, but that's also dead) but particularly in the context of the reference to Hamlet, represents something of fleeting value.

*To add further to the association of the passing value of a hobby horse, I have a personal story that I think of whenever I think of hobby horses. When I was 2 or 3, there was a boy that lived across the street from me. He was, I believe, a month older than me--but when your 2 a month is a significant portion of your existence, and I looked at him the way 7th graders look at 8th graders. He had a hobby horse, kind of like the one in the picture, and I though it was so cool. He would not let me play with it, and I was quite jealous of his little horse. I just had this desire to have one of those little hobby horses, and this idea that they were so cool, even after we moved away from that house, and for quite a while after. Years later, my mom bought one for one of my younger siblings, and I told her that story; and she said she wished that she had known, and that she would have gotten me one. By that point I had grown up, and the idea of a hobby horse was no longer alluring--I was wanting a car, not a horse. My great enamoration for what seemed like such a desirable thing had faded, just as the memory of a hobby horse fades;

Shakespeare for the Saintly Sister

So I mentioned a while ago that I really wanted to do a parody of the St. Crispin's Day Speech Relief Society style, so I decided to work on it this week. In light of how we are developing material for our final project, I think this is quite appropriate--though we likely will not use this exact speech, I think a pump up speech of sorts is a must for whatever play we end up doing, and analyzing this one for themes and applying them to Relief Society in preparation for that seems like a productive exercise. I'm going to draw off some of the themes Austen talked about in his analysis of pump up speeches. I’ve also tried to maintain the iambic pentameter, but I’m really new to such a thing so it’s kind of rough. Assistance would be appreciated, if there are any experts in the realm, at least to point out where it’s lacking that special speech rhythm.

FIRST COUNSELOR

O that we now had here
But one ten tenth of those sisters in Utah,
That make no visits to-day!

RELIEF SOCIETY PRESIDENT

What's she that wishes so?
If we are mark'd to fail, we are enow
To do the kingdom loss; and if to serve,
The fewer serve, the greater share of blessings.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one sister more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if Facebook posts are made;
Such earthly things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet blessings,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, wish not a sister from Utah:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one sister more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it to'th Society,
That she which hath no spirit for service,
Let her depart; her route shall not be made
She can Facebook posts put on her wall:
We would not serve in that girl's company
That fears her fellowship to serve with us.
This time is called the time of Sisterhood:
She that serves well this day, and reports back,
Will stand a tip-toe when report is made,
And rouse her at the name of Sisterhood.
She that visits this month, and then the next,
Will oft think on her visits to sisters,
And say ‘I loved those girls so very much!'
Then will she think of friendships dear to her.
And say 'These bonds were formed from visits made.'
Humans forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But she'll remember with fond gratitude
What love she showed that day: then shall the names.
Familiar in her mouth as household words
Sister of the Green Jell-O, the Quilter,
Maker of the Great Funeral Potatoe,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the mother teach her dau’ter;
And vis’ting month shall never yet go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But visits to all shall be remember-ed;
We few, we happy few, we band of sisters;
For she to-day that lives this life with me
Shall be my sister; be she e'er so lost,
This day shall gentle her confusion:
And sisters back in Utah at the mall
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their friendship cheap whiles any speaks
That served with us in Sisterhood.

This is still in rough draft form (that’s appropriate for a blog, right?)—I welcome any comments or suggestions for improvement.

Shakespeare for the Scorched

"Woah, hang on, it's only 2100 degrees; that's not hot enough!" For my senior design class, my team was given the project to design a piece of hardware for Rio Tinto's copper refinery: a sacrificial enclosure to go inside a molten metal bath and keep the electronics it protects cool enough to survive. After working on this all year, we finally were ready to test our design in the heat treating ovens here at BYU. We got a steel enclosure and placed the insulating material we've been working to develop inside, and stuck it inside. The video below is me putting the enclosure in an oven very appropriately named Lucifer. (This has a tie to Shakespeare; just hang with me.)

The furnace has to get up to about 2200 degrees F inside; as a point of reference, a flame burns about 1800 degrees F. Without gloves and protective gear, I couldn't even get close to such heat. Even my gloves, just from being close start to smoke, and if they are close long enough burst into flame. Even something that you think of as being indestructible like steel can't take the heat forever; when the steel enclosure started out, it was a bright and shiny steel. After just a couple hours in the furnace, it was black and beat up. Every time we put it in, more of the metal oxidizes and more of it oxidizes and cracks and peels off. The picture shown is a pile of steel

shavings that came off after one of our tests. Although there are certainly metals that can withstand such temperatures, the analogy still was impressive to me. There are things in life that take their toll on human souls and no matter how toughened and hardened a soul might be, it cannot withstand forever the heat. This is a theme Shakespeare treats often in his plays, and one which I think would be very appropriate to include in our own version of Shakespeare. Lady Macbeth really is the inspiration for this analogy--even she, a tough and hardened character ("unsex me now") that wishes to be impervious to the weaknesses of a conscience can't stand forever the memory of the black deeds which she has committed and to which she contributed. Like the steel, though initially she appears untouched by her conscience, and curses her husband and his, eventually starts to crack under the pressure. She begins walking in her sleep, confessing her terrible deeds. She rubs her hands together trying to cleanse them. Macbeth calls a doctor and asks,

“Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,

Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,

Raze out the written troubles of the brain,

And with some sweet oblivious antidote

Cleanse the stuff’d bosom of that perilous stuff

Which weighs upon the heart?”

Isn't there something you can do to cure her of her guilt? The doctor's response?

"Therein the patient must minister to himself."

There's nothing any outside person can do about such guilt. The damage is irreversible unless repair is initiated by the guilty party. Unfortunately for steel, that pretty much seals the deal. For Lady Macbeth it apparently does too: she breaks completely and goes crazy and dies. Her guilt and suffering are a huge theme in Macbeth, and one Shakespeare treats so well it has drawn countless references over the years. (One of my favorites is a gospel classic from Elder Holland.) Anyway, thinking about themes from Shakespeare made me think of these themes of guilt and suffering, and how damaging they are to the human soul to the extent that they frequently lead to the end of the afflicted party's life. They are so well addressed in the tragedies. If we do end up doing a tragedy of some sort for our final project, this is a theme that must be included.

Shakespeare for the Sincere

"She is herself a dowry," says the French prince in response to the information that Cordelia would have no dowry. I would be hard pressed to find a more sincere expression of love in all of Shakespeare's works. Every husband and potential suitor ought to feel that way about the woman he loves. Contrast that with the countless other expressions of love in this play, many of which demonstrate a lack of sincerity, honesty, and integrity which is absolutely nauseating and heart wrenching. The play opens with declarations as nauseatingly sweet as they were blatantly false from Regan and Goneril. The king completely buys their falsity while casting out and disowning his sincere daughter who refuses to suck up. (I suppose it is fitting that the sincere Cordelia should receive such a sincere compliment from her lover. As we are so often told these days, light attracts light.) Before the scene even ends the 2 deceitful daughters are already plotting against their father. Of course there is the backwards relationship of Gloucester and his sons; again, the loyal and sincere son Edgar being ousted in favor of the deceitful and malicious son Edmond.

The French Prince's expression of love reflects more than just love but an understanding of the worth of man (or woman in this case). Such a theme is also addressed in this play, with Lear's question, "Is man no more than this?" (Act 3 scene 4) provoking further discussion of this issue. Present in the statement from the French prince is an acknowledgment of the inherent worth which Cordelia has, even without a dowry of money. Lear's question, posed after seeing poor Tom, who is devoid of all man made trimmings, implies the worthlessness of man. "Consider him well," says Lear. He points out that without the coverings that come from other animals and plants, Poor Tom demonstrates the essence of man. "Thou art the thing itself: unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art." A poor, bare, forked animal? That sentiment is a far cry from the French Prince's sentiment. The contrast reminds me of one of the best talks of all time, "You Matter to Him" by President Uchtdorf. He explores the
contrasting descriptions of the worth of man of man "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God" and "Man is nothing" with the statements "We are greater than you suppose" and "We are less than we suppose." I highly recommend the talk, and will refrain from saying anything else on the subject because President Uchtdorf says it better; but it sufficeth me to say that Shakespeare yet again hit upon one of the great questions of the soul, and yet again God's servants addressed that question perfectly with the light of the Revealed Gospel.

Shakespeare for Seeker of Striking Rhetoric

So our discussion in class this week motivated me to go back and finish a bunch of posts that I started but never finished, starting with this one. So when I was reading Macbeth, in addition to being super disturbed by Lady Macbeth, I made note of passages that stood out to me from a rhetorical standpoint, and here they are!

I read this just after our discussion regarding rhetorical devices and it caught my eye:

This supernatural soliciting
Cannot be ill; cannot be good: — if ill,
Why hath it given me earnest of success,
Commencing in a truth? I am Thane of Cawdor:
If good, why do I yield to that suggestion
Whose horrid image doth unfix my hair,
And make my seated heart knock at my ribs,
Against the use of nature?

The employment of alliteration here in the phrase supernatural soliciting draws attention to the strangeness of the circumstance with which Macbeth was informed of his destiny. To simply say soliciting, or supernatural message has less power than the phrase Shakespeare choose.

The following phrases also have rhetorical power—the anaphoric feel of the parallel statements he sets up with “cannot be ill; cannot be good” and the subsequent explanation of either case draws attention to the dilemma he is working through here. The witches approached him; surely he should/could act on the information which he received from their visit?

I suppose it’s not surprise to anyone that I am partial to alliteration; it seems to me the easiest of all rhetorical devices both to write and to recognize, and it lends a catchy feel to whatever phrase it graces. Consonance, the repetition of consonant sounds, not necessarily at the beginning of a word, has the same effect. The quote that follows, from Macduff, trying to convince Malcom that even though he is greedy, he has other good qualities, and other kings have been greedy, has plenty of alliteration. What is Shakespeare trying to accomplish here? What power does consonance lend this passage?

This avarice
Sticks deeper; grows with more pernicious root
Than summer-seeming lust; and it hath been
The sword of our slain kings: yet do not fear…

Maybe this is a stretch…but the thought I had was that the dominant sound in the word which is up for discussion (avarice) has an ‘s’ sound. The continual use of that same sound links the follow phrases back to that word and keeps the focus on avarice.

Ok, I admit, I mostly just like this quote because it struck my funny bone. But it’s a rhetorical device too…irony...paralipsis, anyone?

I grant him bloody,
Luxurious, avaricious, false, deceitful,
Sudden, malicious, smacking of every sin
That has a name:

Now, get ready for this next one. It’ll break your heart , once you realize the background. And the personification Ross uses here as he prepares Macduff for the news that his castle has been ransacked and his wife and sons killed struck me as quite poignant.

Let not your ears despise my tongue for ever,
Which shall possess them with the heaviest sound
That ever yet they heard.

Shakespeare for the Short-Attention Span

The other day in class we were talking about how in Shakespeare's day, though we don't know if they sat through complete versions of the play, we assume they sat through longer versions than we do now. Part of the reason, Professor Burton suggested, was that for them, words and speaking was their entertainment. They had longer attention spans back then and a higher tolerance for sitting through plays because that was what they did. They did not live in the world of quick and instant in which we all live, and they did not have TV, the Internet, or movies. We briefly discussed this phenomenon in class, but it reminded me of a form address given by Micheal Flaherty, president and co-founder of Walden Media back forever ago. After over half an hour of searching for this forum I remembered, I finally found his name, but could never find a transcript of his address. An MP3 of the speech can be found here or you can watch in on BYUtv here. It was a really interesting address that stood out to me because of the way that he portrayed the power that film can have in influencing people. But the thing that makes it relevant to this discussion is that he talked about how the attention span of Americans and the world is decreasing. We're starting to go away from even the 90 minute movies, and he contended the 90 second to several minute Internet videos would soon be the new medium for entertainment and sharing information. As evidence, look at the way YouTube has just appeared out of nowhere in recent years. He gave a much longer, more persuasive, and more argument than that, and I generally thought he had a valid and interesting point. So, more to the point, perhaps in this world of quick and instant in which we live, if people's attention spans really are growing shorter, Shakespeare will have to adapt to fit in with that kind of a world. Perhaps Shakespeare vignettes will become the new medium. Particularly in this class where we are exploring new mediums and cutting edge technologies along with Shakespeare, perhaps exploring how exactly Shakespeare could fit into this world would be worthwhile. I think blogging and the multitude of YouTube videos about Shakespeare are prime examples. Maybe creating several Shakespeare vignettes would be a good creative project. Mostly I'm just brainstorming, but I was intrigued by the idea trend of shortening attention spans that seems to be manifesting itself.

Shakespeare for the Social

Saturday was a day of Shakespeare for me. While sitting around with my roommates, we began discussing how many words and lines in the English language have come from Shakespeare. More on that later. Then I went to the Merchant of Venice with 2 old roommates and of the 2 of my friends from dinner last Sunday. I was unfortunately feeling ill and had to jet after the play and didn't have time to stick around for the post-play analysis. But such early jetting led to a facebook invite from one of my friends to come over and discuss Shakespeare later. Then that night, my attendance at the Merchant of Venice sparked a discussion of the play on my date, which was fortunate because I still wasn't feeling a whole lot better than I had been earlier that day and easy conversation was quite welcome. So, un-anticipated by me, Shakespeare is everywhere, and opportunities to discuss it are not only readily available, but lead to excellent and enjoyable conversation in a multitude of social situations. Who knew Shakespeare would be good for my social life?

Shakespeare's influence on the English language:

I noticed that the program for Merchant of Venice also contained some of this information, about how much of our language comes from Shakespeare, but the following quote my roommate found contains even more words than the program. It's fascinating how much of our vernacular we owe to Shakespeare, which is ironic since many people associate him with difficult to understand and archaic speech.

“If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ‘It’s Greek to me,’ you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is farther to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool’s paradise – why, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare;… if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then –

to give the devil his due – if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head), you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or blinking idiot, then – by Jove! it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.”

– Bernard Levin in The History of English by McCrum, et al

Children's Theater: Merchant of Stratford?

Having procrastinated buying my tickets, I ended up sitting on the floor, which was kind of fun, minus the fact that I didn't get to sit with the company I had invited. Like several other people have mentioned, I loved the interaction with the kids. I thought the actors were clever in their interactions with them and getting them to appear to say things even when the kids were too shy to say them. The way they cast the characters also very much highlighted which characters were essential to the plot and which were not. I was surprised when Nerissa was chosen from the audience because she seemed to me that she had been quite essential to the plot, and I was curious how they would have the little girl do everything she did, but it made me realize that she really was not that essential to the plot--she was just a side kick for Portia. The casting of Antonio as Antonia also surprised me, and like Rebecca, I initially thought it was because they had more guys than girls. But the scene in court where Antonia is facing her last moments and Bassanio is comforting her is definitely different when Antonia is a girl, rather than a guy. In the play they had Bassanio comforting Antonia in a physical way, and I happened to be sitting right next to them both, and I could see this interaction very closely. I could also hear Bassanio whispering things to Antonia, which nobody else could hear, or likely was intended to hear--to the majority of the audience, all they could see was them in very close and intense whispered consultation. I was super curious to hear what the actors would actually be saying, when nobody was intended to hear, but it turns out it was right in character with the rest of it. He kept saying, "Look at me, don't worry" and comforting her with similar phrases, which struck me definitely more the way a man would comfort a woman. I thought this was a departure from the way Shakespeare had written it, but Rebecca thought maybe it really was that way--intended as a homosexual relationship. I'm not sure, but it's an interesting thought for sure. That's how the company we were watching seemed to interpret it. And it certainly makes Portia's outrage at the loss of the ring more understandable. I'd been thinking she was kind of a jerk for reacting so dramatically. But if he was giving it on Antonia's recommendation...that makes it more serious.

Shakespeare for the Seeker of Quotes

I am discovering that I am obsessed with quotes--I love knowing their source, their context, what the have come to mean. While reading these plays, the oft-quoted lines are the ones that jump out at me first, and I love trying to figure out why they have become famous, or why certain gems of wisdom that strike me are not famous. Since we have all just read the play (and because this is a post about Hamlet) the source and context will be familiar to all, so I will not rehearse them here. But the rest of this post will be my thoughts and the thoughts of others about lines that caught my attention, especially why they have or have not become oft-quoted.

'Tis sweet and commendable in your nature, Hamlet,

To give these mourning duties to your father;

But, you must know, your father lost a father;

That father lost, lost his; and the survivor bound,

In filial obligation, for some term

To do obsequious sorrow: but to persevere

In obstinate condolement is a course

Of impious stubbornness; 'tis unmanly grief;

It shows a will most incorrect to heaven;

A heart unfortified, a mind impatient;

An understanding simple and unschool'd;

Famous because it is so outrageous, and so condemning of its speaker. A reader definitely begins to sympathize with Hamlet and despise Claudius.

Frailty, thy name is woman!

Famous for its poetic value? Certainly not because of it's broad application.

Polonious' speach:

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...

to thine ownself be true...

Famous for the gems of wisdom it contains (ironic, considering the talk he gives his daughter just moments later, lacking any kind of good wisdom.)

I do not set my life at a pin's fee,

And for my soul, what can it do to that,

Being a thing immortal as itself?

So this is one that is less famous--in googling the phrase I found other people have analyzed it and thought about it, but mostly they were just explaining what it meant--basically Hamlet is saying that he values his life as much as the cost of a pin, which is practically nothing, or in other words, that he doesn't value his life. The whole thing struck me as a poetic expression of bravery and a good lesson for all. Various sources I read pointed to it as revealing Hamlet's character--that he does not value his life (also citing his later contemplation of suicide), or that he is a very moral person who considers the value and immortality of his soul. How you interpret this quote depends on how you view Hamlet--is he a depressed, suicidal person, or a morally bound God-fearing noble person, trying to do what is right? This passage makes me think of Acts 20:24, " neither count I my blife dear unto myself", and I tend to think Hamlet more the latter, not that he doesn't value his life, but that he understands eternity and that this life is short and the events thereof less important by comparison.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Now, compared to the profound lines I just analyzed, such a quaint phrase seems trivial by comparison. Why on earth is this one famous? It has come to be used all over to indicate that something is wrong, particularly referring to corruption at an upper level, but why such a phrase has found such common use in our vernacular is beyond me. Spark notes and a couple other sources I looked at explains it in the following way,

"This line is spoken by Marcellus in Act I, scene iv (67), as he and Horatio debate whether or not to follow Hamlet and the ghost into the dark night. The line refers both to the idea that the ghost is an ominous omen for Denmark and to the larger theme of the connection between the moral legitimacy of a ruler and the health of the state as a whole. The ghost is a visible symptom of the rottenness of Denmark created by Claudius’s crime."

but this still does not satisfy me.

Brevity is the soul of wit

I had no idea this phrase, which has become a proverb, originated from Shakespeare. What a gift to the English language! I think the explanation for its fame is self-evident.

Words, words, words

Enough said.

That's as far as I have time for right now. The following are the other quotes I picked out while reading that stood out to me...perhaps in a subsequent blog post I will finish analyzing them. But the fact that so many famous quotes have come out of one play really says a lot for Hamlet, and the universality of Shakespeare...

For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in

faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in

action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the

beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what

is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor woman

neither,

To be or not to be...

Get thee to a nunnery!

Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.

The lady protests too much, methinks.

I will speak daggers to her, but use none.

Hamlet, thou hast thy father much offended.

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio;

Shakespeare for the Slave

Despite the fact that I think Antonio made a foolish loan that ended unfortunately for him because of unfortunate and unforeseen events, I cannot condone his apparent discrimination against Shylock. I do not see Shylock as a saint either, but I have to disagree with Antonio's treatment and attitude towards him. In an eloquent stand against discrimination, Shylock makes a very good point:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

That may have been his only good argument in the entire play--not a page later he's lamenting the loss of his daughter, not because she turned away from the faith or left him, but because she stole his money! He even wishes her dead! That was sickening. But however lousy of a father he is, he still was human and the passage he quotes makes me think of the slave trade (world wide, but my experience is with the history in the US), the Holocaust, child and elder abuse, the civil rights movement (again, world wide, but my experience is with our US history), Roman persecution of Christians, Christian persecution of Jews, Native Americans, and other groups, and countless other cases of discrimination and abuse throughout history and around the world rationalized because a group of people are somehow "different". I thought it ironic how, after this noble speech against discrimination and plea to treat all humans humanely, when Antonio is at his mercy and all around him are begging him for mercy, he sites the standard treatment of slaves as rational for why he should be able to do to Antonio whatever he pleased, because he "owned" him.

You have among you many a purchas'd slave,
Which, fike your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them; shall I say to you
'Let them be free, marry them to your heirs?
Why sweat they under burdens? let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their

palates
Be season'd with such viands? You will answer
'The slaves are ours.' So do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him
Is dearly bought; 'tis mine, and I will have it.

By using such treatment of slaves as justification for his own plans for Antonio, he is in essence condoning such a practice, which stands in sharp contrast to his plea for civility in the earlier quote. Perhaps he wasn't asking for civility outright--he was simply explaining why he felt the way he did, saying that he felt and reacted the same as anyone. But to me an underlying message of humane and civil treatment for all runs through that passage. It doesn't matter what people look like or where they are from or what they believe or from what socio-economic background they hie, all men are, as Jefferson said, created equal. But as some of those examples I cited earlier point out, though that phrase was a part of the Declaration of Independence, complete implementation of it did not come until much later in the history of the United States for non-land holders, blacks, and women. Perhaps it takes some time for that self-evident truth to go from being a sentiment with value which people recognize to being reflected in their actions and attitudes and practice. Thomas Jefferson himself was a slave holder, I believe, and Shylock himself felt he was justified in doing whatever he wanted to Antonio because he owned him. In Shakespeare's day it sounds like slavery was a generally accepted practice. Certainly there were huge distinctions of class. Their entire society, and many of his plays were based off of such a culture. It is interesting that people could recognize the truth of such an idea, that all men are created equal, but because of cultural norms be so blinded to blatant violations of it in their own lives. Are there similar violations in our own culture to which we are blind? And if we so blinded, are we not then slaves ourselves to that cultural norm?

Shakespeare for the Stately

Shakespeare for the Stately

After reading and discussing Henry V last week in class, I was thinking quite a bit about leadership and royalty. Whether you agree with Henry's actions and motivations or not, you can't argue with the fact that he was a royal, dignified, distinguished, aristocratic, noble figure. It was mentioned that in a book about leadership, Henry V was used as an example and I completely understand why. When I was watching and reading the play, his leadership was exactly what I was thinking about. I left thinking about what gives some people the ability to be natural leaders, and hold themselves in a particular way, and if it's something that's learned and practiced or natural and inherited, or some combination. I started talking to my roommate (sharing Shakespeare meaningfully) about it, and explained to her the premise of the play and why I was so impressed with Henry V, and we began talking about leadership and the manner in which one holds themselves. The conclusion we came to is that all of us have the potential to be stately. I think it primarily stems from what we think of ourselves (Johnny Lingo). And considering that we each hark from a divine heritage, every single person in the world has the potential to become just as stately as Henry V. Some people recognize that potential a little earlier than other people. Perhaps they are the ones who go on to be natural leaders. So for them, particularly for BYU students, who tend to go on to positions of leadership in the world, learning principles of leadership is especially important for their ability to make a positive difference in the world.

Shakespeare for the Statuesque

Whoa what a play! I loved Henry, and his depth of character. What a king!

Thoughts about the film

So I read half the play, then started watching the film adaptation, then read the rest of the play and watched the film at the same time, act by act. I had a few thoughts about the film...

Advantages: actors not pausing at the end of a line makes it easier to understand; humor, drama highlighted when actors laugh, react accordingly; flashbacks show how Henry's past interaction with Bardoff and the other gentleman who died, which gives greater depth of emotion

Disadvantages: the film omits some of the details--the forgiveness of the traitors, the invitation for the ambassadors from France to be Frank because they are with a Christian King--some of my favorite parts from the play that speak for the character of Henry.

Favorite Quotes

-Both Henry's speeches: "We few. We happy few..."

-When Henry hung Bardoff even though it was hard for him because he didn't want people to take advantage of the people. A moral dilemma we face--I faced such a dilemma in one of my classes just last semester--a classmate asked me to cover up for them. I could relate with Henry.

-"We are in God's hand brother. Not in theirs."

-When Henry speaks of the burden of a king it reminds me of King Mosiah from the Book of Mormon when he talks about the burden which a righteous king faces.

Shakespeare for the Smitten

What is Romance?

I really enjoyed the discussion we had in class on Wednesday about romance. The discussion about "love at first sight" particularly caused me to think. We were discussing how romance, in reference to a literature genre, particularly Shakespeare's plays, means something one fantasizes about, rather than romance in terms of romantic love. We talked about how anything exotic or with which we don't have a lot of experience or understanding can seem magical, and we tend to idealize, or romanticize, about those places or things. We talked about how books seem magical, and the dealings and language of any discipline which we do not understand can seem magical. In light of The Tempest, the characters with limited understanding of the island romanticize about it; Gonzalo dreams of a utopia, Stephano assumes it is exotic, and they begin to feel that almost anything is possible on the island. But hang with me--I have a point in recapping this discussion--its not just to give background to anyone who may not have been present in class. The discussion then turned to Miranda and Ferdinand, and how they romanticize each other, which lead to a discussion of love at first sight. This seems like the ultimate expression of romanticizing--off of very limited information, concocting an entire image of someone. Surely this is how the two terms were originally linked.

Romanticizing...

That got me thinking. Really, every perception that we have of people is only that--a perception. When we first meet someone, we immediately create an image of them in our minds. Hopefully its not a judgmental

or harsh image, but based off

of many different things, we form

some idea of what that person is like. The more we interact with them, the more refined our image becomes. Every additional data point we gather from interaction provides some feedback about the image we have of them. Some of those data points may fit with the image we have created. When they do, our image of them is reinforced. When the data points do not fit, we either ignore them (consider those data outliers) and gloss over them and stick with our original image of the person, or we change the image. I made a handy flowchart for your visual enjoyment (and as an attempt to use my engineering tools to analyze Shakespeare creatively). The more interactions we have with someone (if we allow the image to change with additional data) the more accurate our image of them becomes. That's called getting to know someone. But all we ever really have of someone is an image.

We like to think that people who hardly ever have data points that don't match our image we know very well, but all we really know is an image, and we believe that image matches reality. In romantic love, it works exactly the same. When you like someone, you romanticize or imagine an image of this person that is appealing to you. When you like someone, what you really like is the image you have of them. When you date, you are gathering data points. If you are infatuated with someone, you may ignore data points that don't match the image you have. "Love at first sight" is falling in love with the immediately concocted image of the person, because you can't possibly have enough data points to construct a realistic image of the person. Maybe that immediately concocted image is exactly right on, but most likely it's not. As you get to know them, you can either fall in love with your new image of them or fall out of love. But in any case, whether your feelings are for a person whom you just met or are for someone you feel that you know quite well, your feelings are really for an image that you have romanticized. That is what happened to Miranda and Ferdinand. This is a universal phenomenon to which all people can relate, which is why there are countless books and movies written exploring this very theme. Shakespeare, in the context of exploring all types of romanticizing in his romantic play The Tempest explores this very type of romanticizing in the relationship between this couple.