Blog self evaluation

Michael Madden
Dr. Paul Gleason
Shakespeare: Tragedies
12/10/08
URL: http://maddenshakespearetragedies.blogspot.com/
Blog Self Evalauation
This class began with a discussion on the “New Historicism,” so right from the beginning, there was no focus on the “Text-Self” sphere for me. This was not hard to discard, as I usually don’t react to a text based on whether it is pleasant to me or not. That way of looking at things provides no room for growth as an individual, and therefore seems useless to me, unless one is reading or watching something just for the joy of the experience. I’ve tried to look at everything I do in life - hobbies, work, etc. - and I’ve found that work is the only activity I do where I’m satisfied to simply be done with it. Whereas when I play tennis or write short stories, I want to be the best that I can be; I want to be better than the competition. So when I read, similarly, I want to read in a way where I can, not necessarily compete as in tennis, but at least be able to competently debate with my classmates. However, there is no way to debate with somebody about my feelings on a text. That would be for naught. To each his own. We all have are own personal responses to phenomena, but the only way to constructively and productively criticize a text is through an objective medium. That is, a text, when read with a group of people in academia, needs to be explored within in the context of it. This is not to say that talking about texts on a personal level is not great fun and cannot sometimes be a means to growing as a person, but it is to say that there is a lot more a text offers than a personal connection. After all, texts are meant for everyone.
As far as intertextuality is concerned, Shakespeare is fun to interpret through modern adaptations. As you’ve pointed out in class many times, he does not give much stage direction, so much is left up to the reader or director to discern. Looking at Luhrman’s adaptation in congruence with the text allows us to compare and contrast, then make a decision based on the text whether we believe that interpretation to be accurate or not. I found myself, as did everyone else in class, that Luhrman’s depiction was overwrought. While it may have been for good reason, as the movie is stylistic rather than realistic, there are yet other ways to adapt the players of the play. For example, Romeo does not come across as such a stalker in the text to me like DiCaprio does in the modern version. However, maybe Luhrman sees something that I don’t in Romeo, and now I’m afforded a point of view to make my own decision on his character.
Later, in blog post four, I examine Titus in relation to the three camps of satire that you introduced in class: parody, pastiche, and camp. I write, “it might be that [Shakespeare] was both condemning the tragedy for its overwrought plot structure but venerating it for its entertainment value at the same time.” If we did not look at Titus Andronicus compared with the Journey and Cher music videos, I may have simply overlooked the silly plot as a product of the time and not considered it to be nothing more than, as I wrote in blog four, “another great play by the greatest playwright of all time.” It is very hard to discern tone and style of the sixteenth century when we have nothing to compare Shakespeare to; traditionally, in our high school and undergraduate studies, Shakespeare is the only author we study arduously from that time. By looking at other texts or art, as we did with Titus, I felt that I had a much greater grasp on his intentions.
The most employed method of reading Shakespeare seems to be the third sphere, “Text-World.” In blog post five, I write “When [Aaron] regrets any good deed he’s ever done, it is not only hatred of the world that comes through, it is also self hatred; being brewed from his forced position (in life), which is immutable...” Here, I’m looking at both the socio-political condition for Aaron as a Moor in the 1500s, condemned as less than human by the Anglo race. Moreso, I’m contemplating Aaron’s psychology when he utters that prolific statement as it compares to his social and racial status. In this way, Aaron is very much a character that is topical for modern readers. Racism still thrives, as well as class structure. Looking at Aaron as simply an angry man being condemned for his wrong actions would be offensive to the roundness of his character. There is much more at stake than evil and good, there is cause and effect to be considered with Aaron; and Shakespeare conveys that.
Again, in blog post six, I am concerned with Hamlet’s psychology as it is concerned to his sexual health. I write, “He is, then, blinded with rage/dejection, and cannot see outside of his unitary (phallic) sphere of thought... man’s greatest weakness: his inability to converse with a woman without thinking about getting into her pants.” In this case, I am able to bring all three spheres into one. I personally react on my experience as a man, I use Irigaray’s criticism of Hamlet, but I’m also concerned with the affects the philosophical and religious ideologies of the sixteenth century had on his character. Furthermore, we can discuss Hamlet’s view of females contrasted with a female’s role in today’s society. Why does he treat Ophelia and his mother as if he has them in his best interest when all his interest is concerned with their sexual desires? It is a fascinating take on male psychology universally, but it also may be attributed to the limited view men had of women pre-enlightenment. Overall, this seems to be the way to look at text I’m most inclined, but also that which is most applicable to Shakespeare’s work.
To conclude, I’d rather look at a text as it pertains to world rather than worry about how I’m affected by it. Though I may judge my favorite books and pieces of art on that level, it is not productive to read a text that way; especially when the book is meant to be explored by a community. I feel that all texts should be realized for what they have to offer in a way that is applicable to both the larger group and the individual at the same time. Shakespeare is great in the aspect that his plays are both intrinsically concerned with the individual and the society as a whole, and the relationship between the two. Furthermore, there is plenty of modern adaptations that explore Shakespeare’s work, which allow the modern observer to gain a richer perspective on his work. Though he might be dead, he had a point of view that is still topical today. I really enjoy trying to figure out exactly what it was.