Mr_Shank

Colin Easter

Apparently this didn’t post on Saturday when I hit publish.  I apologize that I only realized this now.  We have learned that Petruchio’s behavior towards Kate is because of his plan to tame her.  It has been successful as well.  Lucentio married Bianca, but his scheme was uncovered.  Hortensio married a widow.  At the end of the play, we learn that Kate is now the most obedient wife.  This raises some interesting questions. Do you think that Petruchio used the right methods to tame Kate?  What kind of punishment do you think that Lucentio will receive for his scheme?  Why is Kate the most loyal wife now?  Is it because of fear or because she learned loyalty and values from Petruchio?

First off: LAST BLOG! FOREVER! Now that that’s out of the way, here is my actual post. This week we only read one scene, so this will probably be short.

Act V, Scene I

So the main drift of this scene was Bottom and co. performing their play about Pyramus and Thisbe and for the most part being mocked by the couples. But before that, there was an interesting quote from Theseus. As I mentioned in previous blogs, Theseus is the exact opposite of everything else that has been going on in the play: logical, down to earth, and sensible. Here is the quote:

More strange than true. I never may believe

These antique fables nor these fairy toys.

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,

Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend

More than cool reason ever comprehends.

The lunatic, the lover, and the poet

Are of imagination all compact.

One sees more devils than vast hell can hold—

That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic,

Sees Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt.

The poet’s eye, in fine frenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to Earth, from Earth to heaven.

And as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen

Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing

A local habitation and a name.

Such tricks hath strong imagination,

That if it would but apprehend some joy,

It comprehends some bringer of that joy.

Or in the night, imagining some fear,

How easy is a bush supposed a bear!

(By the way, I don’t know why the quote is double spaced. Sorry! The blog hates me.)

Back to the discussion. Basically this quote is talking about how Theseus thinks that lunatics, lovers, madmen, and poets are all the same – they hallucinate, have overactive imaginations, and say crazy things. But if Theseus is in love, isn’t he calling himself crazy? Anyway, I was wondering what you all thought of this quote. Is there any truth to it, considering what has happened in the play? Also, how does this quote sum up the play in general? (Sorry if that question is a little confusing.) That’s really all I could find to write about for this post, unless you guys want to talk about all the grammatical errors made in the “play” the actors put on…

I’d also like you to think about the play as a whole. Not specific details out of the plot, but how the acts fit together. To put it simply, how is the play structured? (Which act is the climax, etc. And do NOT just say that there are five acts with scenes.) Also, how does the overall structure of the play contribute to its being put into the “comedy” category? (That question might be confusing too.)

Recap:

1. What did you think about Theseus’ quote?
2. Is there any truth to the quote, considering what happened in the play?
3. How does this quote sum up the play in general?
4. How is the play structured?
5. How does the overall structure of the play contribute to its being put into the “comedy” category?
6. What did you think of the play?

And that concludes my final blog.

Erin B

THIS IS OUR LAST POST OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!  Ok so in the last two scenes of the play, a lot happened to the plot and the characters. First of all, the scheme of Hero appearing as a whore comes into full play when Claudio announces it at the ‘to be’ wedding. A little while after, he finds out it is not true and much to his dismay, finds out that Hero has already died. Now the audience know this is not true, for it is yet another scheme the family is conjuring. In the end, everything comes to a comedic end, for there is laughter, dancing, proposals, confessions, and poking fun at one another. Overall, this play was much more enjoyable than Romeo and Juliet, if I do say so myself! Ok so for the LAST POST…

1. Did it surprise you that Leonato went along with the the trickery some of the characters were thinking about doing? Why or why not?

2. On a scale of one to ten, how romantic would you consider Benedick’s proposal to Beatrice? Explain your reasoning.

3. Compare and contrast Romeo and Juliet to this play. List at least five things for each category.

4. Why do you think Hero didn’t try to plead her case of being innocent more at the wedding?

5. If you had to put this play into a category, would you consider it to be a comedy? Why or why not? If not, come up with another appropriate category to place it in and explain its significance.

~Megan Douglas     (did i mention this was our LAST POST?)

Act III, Scene I

Act III begins with a scene involving the “actors”.  While the six are rehearsing their play they run into some problems that Bottom starts to point out.  He believes that the women in the audience will be scared if his character kills himself with a sword.  This shows how they are continuing a belief that the audience will not be able to separate the fantasy of the story from the reality that it is just a play.  If you remember, in my last post, I said that Shakespeare was using two different settings to merge the fantasy world and real world together in order to make the audience believe in what is happening.  Why does Shakespeare use two completely different views within the same play?

The next problem that comes up in the play is how they will be able to portray certain things such as moonlight and a wall.  The actors decide that the way to deal with this is to have someone put into a costume that represents the moon and to have someone play a wall and hold their fingers apart to represent the cracks in it.  This brings back the idea that the men believe the audience has a strong imagination: with any costume, they can play any object.  The idea of visually having someone represent the moon makes me wonder if the actors lack their own imagination.  The way they are planing to portray the moon shows how they take everything too literally, instead of using their “acting skills” to let the audience imagine the moon (which they are certainly capable of, seeing as the women will grow faint when Bottom is “killed”).  This, once again, shows the incongruity of the actors which brings me back to my original question – why does Shakespeare use two completely different views with the same play?

Act III, Scene II

In this scene, the action of the play is at its height and is ultimately the most confusing scene so far.  All the characters are interacting with the others, or believing they are, without even seeing them.  Again, the theme of the scene is love and all the different forms it can come in.  Here is an example, using a quote from Helena.

Is all the counsel that we two have shared, 

The sisters’ vows, the hours that we have spent 

When we have chid the hasty-footed time 

For parting us—oh, is it all forgot?

All schooldays’ friendship, childhood innocence? 

We, Hermia, like two artificial gods, 

Have with our needles created both one flower, 

Both on one sampler, sitting on one cushion, 

Both warbling of one song, both in one key,

As if our hands, our sides, voices, and minds, 

Had been incorporate. So we grew together, 

Like to a double cherry—seeming parted

But yet an union in partition— 

Two lovely berries molded on one stem;

So, with two seeming bodies but one heart, 

Two of the first, like coats in heraldry, 

Due but to one and crownèd with one crest. 

And will you rent our ancient love asunder 

To join with men in scorning your poor friend?

It is not friendly, ’tis not maidenly. 

Our sex, as well as I, may chide you for it, 

Though I alone do feel the injury.

Here Helena is talking about the bond of friendship that she and Hermia once shared and how Hermia is throwing it all away for a person she loves.  This love between two friends is like the one shared between Titania and the Indian Women.  In both cases, the friends have to put their friendship before their love for their partner.  Titania had to suffer the wrath of Oberon in order to preserve her promise to keep the Indian boy safe and Helena is asking Hermia to remember their bond while she walks away from her love, Demetrius. In both cases, the women are the ones who have a strong friendship and are the ones who are taking the hits for it.  What do you think about this?  Is friendship a more important part of a woman’s life than it is a man’s?

Act IV, Scenes I + 2

I am combining these two scenes together because my discussion applies to both.  When Bottom comes back to the troupe, he realizes that something incredible has happened, but he can’t remember what – it’s like a dream that he is trying to recall, but keeps slipping through his fingers.  This is like all of the lovers in Scene I – they can’t remember how they got into the woods or why they were there, but still some vague clues of what happened that night linger in their minds.  I would like to relate this back to my first post (again).  I posted a quote from Lysander talking about how true love faces all kinds of obstacles and it can disappear as quickly as a dream.  In this scene, everyone is waking up from a “dream” after losing their “true loves”.  So, in what ways was the foreshadow fulfilled throughout the play?  In what ways was it incorrect?  

Recap:

1. Why does Shakespeare use two completely different views within the same play? (Answer for fantasy/reality and incongruity of the actors)
2. What do you think about friendship suffering for love?  Is friendship a more important part of a woman’s life than it is a man’s?
3. In what ways was the foreshadowing in Lysander’s quote fulfilled throughout the play?  In what ways was it incorrect?  

That’s all for now!

Erin B

Colin Easter

Acts 2 and 3 focused mostly on the wedding of Petruchio and Kate, with a side focus on Bianca’s suitors.  Petruchio and Kate were married very quickly, and it was against Kate’s will.  Petruchio also came to the wedding in attire that was not befitting of the occasion.  At the wedding, he misbehaved.  He hit the priest and swore.  Bianca’s suitors have started fighting amongst themselves, although not physically yet. What do you think of Petruchio’s actions at the wedding?  Was he doing this to try to get Kate to behave, or was there a different motive?  Who do you think is the best suitor for Bianca to marry?  Finally, what do you think of Kate being married against her will?

Ok, so in Act 3, a lot has happened that we should consider. First of all, Hero is trying with all her might to try to get Beatrice and Benedick together. She is successful in doing so by having a conversation with Ursula and Margaret that is meant for Beatrice to overhear. Beatrice has the same initial reaction as Benedick, she is a bit caught off guard but not at all opposed in giving a romantic relationship a try. They both figure that it wouldn’t hurt to take pity on the other one, an excuse bound to lead somewhere. Don John is busy in this act trying to break up the marriage plans of Hero and Claudio. He is also successful in tricking Claudio into thinking that Hero is truly a whore and that she is not worthy of his love. This is all an awful set up and the wedding in the next scene will not be pretty!

1. How do you guys think Beatrice and Benedick will express their love for each other to each other?

2. How is Claudio going to humiliate Hero at the wedding? And lets be really creative here!

3. Even though it is unknown, any other ideas about why Don John wants to break this relationship up so badly?

4. What is it that makes both Beatrice and Benedick so ‘witty’ and stubborn? How they were raised? And could their interaction with each other have ‘boosted’ their wittiness and in turn their stubbornness?

5. In the world today, how well would the plans and schemes thought up in this play so far work? Would they be successful? Is there anything today in the world that is an equivalent to either of the schemes played out in this act?

~Megan Douglas

Ok, so I think we can all agree that this play has become even more dramatic. Lucentio and Hortensio have begun their courtship battle over Bianca and it seems Bianca has taken a liking to Lucentio. Petruchio and Kate have gotten married…but in the most bizarre way.

Bianca and Lucentio seem to have a relationship blooming, but there is one small matter that stands in their way: the lie Tranio pulled to win Bianca from her father. How in the world are they going to pull off someone acting as Lucentio’s father and promising money he doesn’t have to an expecting Baptista?

Now on to the big topic, Kate and Petruchio. Why in the world did Petruchio dress and behave the way he did for his wedding? If this is part of his idea of ‘taming’ Kate, do you think he’s going a little overboard?  Also, when he was late to the ceremony, Kate is crying when she exits. Why is that? She never wanted to marry Petruchio. Shouldn’t she be happy?

Kate and Petruchio or Bianca and Lucentio? After what’s happened in this scene, which couple do you think is going to be happier together?

I am so sorry guys! I don’t know how I forgot what play we chose, but whatever! Let’s try this again.

In the play, Much Ado About Nothing, it seems like Beatrice and Signor Benedick have a constant battle and do not really get along much. It mentions that there is “a skirmish of wit between them”. This I take to mean that they are both very clever and neither one of them is able to ‘outwit’ the other. Before I even read Act two of the play, I had predicted that they would end up falling for each other, for that is what usually happens with lovers that do not know know they love each other. What do you guys think will happen? Will the plan work or will they end up hating each other even more?

It seems as if most of the characters in this play are very cunning and devise many plans to try to make people fall in love. Do you think this happened a lot in Shakespeare’s time or is this idea what contributed to the play actually being a comedy?

With all of the many plans, there are sure to be flaws, as seen already with the plan to hook up Hero and Claudio. Will there be any major flaws do you think with the rest of the plans the characters devise? Could any possibly affect the plot greatly? If so, what could an example of one be?

Again, sorry about the wrong initial post!

~Megan Douglas

Colin Easter

So far, we have learned that a drunkard has been tricked to think that he is a noble watching a play.  The play he is watching involves suitors trying to court the younger daughter of a rich man.  They are unable to marry her because the elder daughter must be married first.  However, the elder daughter has a terrible temper and scolds often.  Only one man wants to try to marry her.  He wants to because of the wealth that will come with her, not her personality.  The other men agree to help him court her so they can marry the younger daughter.  This brings about some interesting questions that can be asked.  Why do you think that the overarching story about the drunkard being tricked is included?  What do you think of the man who only wants to marry for wealth?  Do you think that there will be physical fighting over the younger daughter since there are several men trying to win her over?

OK, first off, I’d like to say that this play isn’t that bad – that is, once you get through all of the language.  I’m actually kind of liking the plot line.  Also, the jokes are slightly funny.  They aren’t that funny, but they’re decent.  What do you guys think of the play so far?

For this blog I’m deciding to go a different direction with how I direct the discussion.  I’m going to pick one thing from every scene that I think is a relevant discussion topic.  So…

Act I, Scene I

One of the more interesting part of the scenes (for me) was the conversation between Lysander and Hermia after Egeus, Theseus, and Demetrius leave.  The two talk about how true love always has obstacles around it. There was one particular quote by Lysander that caught my interest:

Or, if there were a sympathy in choice                                                                                                                 War, death, or sickness did lay siege to it,                                                                                                           Making it momentary as a sound,                                                                                                                        Swift as a shadow, short as any dream,                                                                                                              Brief as the lightning in the collied night;                                                                                                           That, in a spleen, unfolds both heaven and Earth,                                                                                               And ere a man hath power to say “Behold!”                                                                                                         The jaws of darkness do devour it up.                                                                                                                 So quick bright things come to a confusion.

Basically what Lysander is saying here is that even if the two people were truly compatible things like war, death, and sickness could make it end quickly – as short as a dream.  This was interesting to me because the title of the play is A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  I may be reading way too far into this quote, but it seems to me that Shakespeare could be foreshadowing that the love between Hermia and Lysander will end quickly (without Puck’s interference).  What do you guys think?  Explain what you think the quote means (and do NOT use my explanation of the quote).

Act I, Scene II

I don’t know about you guys, but I really don’t understand why this scene and its characters is important to the play at all.  But one thing I did pick up on was a possible reference to Romeo and Juliet.  I don’t know if this was written after said play, but I do think it is possible that Shakespeare was making an allusion here.  

So the main part gist of this scene was that this group of actors is performing at the upcoming wedding for Theseus and Hippolyta.  This introduces the element of a play within a play (Taming of the Shrew, anyone?).  The play the group is performing is entitled A Very Tragic Comedy About the Horrible Deaths of Pyramus and Thisbe.  Obviously, Romeo and Juliet was not a comedy, but the same plot line seems to stand in both plays.  Quince says that Pyramus is, “A lover that kills himself, most gallant, for love.”  This is almost identical to Romeo and Juliet in which Romeo poisons himself because he believes that Juliet is dead.  Another similarity between the two is the title.  Shakespeare based Romeo and Juliet on a narrative poem called The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet (yes, the spelling is correct – even “tragicall”).  Both titles involve the word “tragic” and mention the names of the two lovers – first the male and then the female.  Finally, a similarity between both is the theme of duality.  The fictitious play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream has the words “tragic” and “comedy”.  The idea that both a depressing story could be funny to watch is totally contradictory and leads back to the thought that good and evil coexist.  So once again, I ask, am I reading too much into this or am I onto something here?  Do you see any other allusion to Shakespeare plays in this section?  I would also like you to think about Lysander and Hermia.  How do they fit into the star-crossed lover archetype?  

Act II, Scene I

Act II of the play introduces a new setting – the woods.  This is what I wish to discuss.  The change of setting also changes almost everything that is going on in the play.  Act I took place in Athens, a city-state which is watched over by Theseus, seemingly one of the most rational characters so far in the play.  Act II takes the audience from the calm, controlled, and practical environment of Athens to the the wild and unpredictable woods.  This change of setting leads to a change in the atmosphere.  The logical thoughts of Theseus are instead replaced by the magic and fantasy of the fairies.  Suddenly, all the action seems out of touch with reality, such as Puck being able to “put a girdle round about the Earth/In forty minutes”.  And yet, despite all of these changes, the theme of the play still exists – love, in every way possible.  There is Helena’s obsessive love for Demetrius, Demetrius’ obsessive love for Hermia, Hermia and Lysander’s true love, Oberon and Titania’s not-so-smooth-at-the-moment love, and love in the form of friendship between the Indian woman and Titania.  Why do you think two such different settings and characters are used?  Why is the theme consistent although everything else is not?

Act II, Scene II

Scene II develops the idea that love is not so much about compatibility, but about outward appearances. This begins when Puck puts the flower juice on Lysander’s eyes to make him fall in love.  Helena wishes throughout the scene that she could be as beautiful as Hermia because she believes that is why Demetrius is in love with her.  Specifically, Helena is jealous of Hermia’s eyes, “For she hath blessèd and attractive eyes.” Helena also says, “What wicked and dissembling glass of mine/Made me compare with Hermia’s spherey eyne?”  Lysander is another example of this concept.  When he falls in love with Helena he tells her, “Who will not change a raven for a dove?”, indicating that she is far more beautiful than Hermia.  He also comments on her eyes where he says, “your eyes, where I o’erlook/Love stories written in love’s richest book”.  Why do you think Shakespeare is concentrating on the idea of appearances forming love?  I’d also like to mention that I used the word “eyes” several times, each time in italics.  The juice that Puck puts on Lysander’s eyes is supposed to make him fall in love with the next thing he sees.  This, in combination with the eyes, suggests that Shakespeare is returning to the idea of love at first sight (Romeo and Juliet alert).  This play, however, has a comical, almost satirical quality about it.  What do you think about the love at first sight idea?  Do you think that Shakespeare was trying to perpetuate this idea or ridicule it?  Explain your opinion.

Recap:

1. What do you guys think of the play so far?
2. What do you think about Lysander’s quote?
3. Is my Romeo and Juliet theory correct?  Are there any other Shakespeare allusions to be found?
4. How do Lysander and Hermia fit into the star-crossed lovers archetype?
5. Why do you think two such different settings and characters are used?  Why is the theme consistent although everything else is not?
6. What do you think about the idea of love at first sight?  Do  you think Shakespeare was trying to perpetuate or ridicule it?
   

Erin B.

P.S. - I don’t know what’s up with that big quote I posted at the top.  For some reason it’s coming up really weird looking.  I swear, I didn’t write it like that.