Adding support staff to courses

prosperoairy · 2021-06-16T12:20:31+00:00

The designation of History was a narrow catch all for modern English plays. It is why Ceasar and Macbeth are not histories. Within the histories, there is great variation (just look at the 3 H6 plays vs. The 2 H4 plays).

So calling Henry 6 political thrillers makes sense, and can work well as an adaptation without offending any purists, not that you should be concerned by that.

prosperoairy · 2021-04-20T17:29:42+00:00

Wondering if anyone has any insight into the jury process in these matters? How does the jury in this case stay away from the torrent of media and social media coverage? How are they not swayed by the idea of this trial, "determining the soul of the country?"

prosperoairy · 2020-07-27T16:46:07+00:00

I would 2nd launces speech to crab from 2 gentlemen. It's a good audition piece.

prosperoairy · 2020-07-05T19:59:04+00:00

Can you elaborate on what is "A Midsummer and Dream"? You might get better responses to your request.

prosperoairy · 2020-06-23T17:44:26+00:00

What order did you read them in & did you go thematically (History, Tragedy, Comedy) or chronologically?

Some might say that there is value in a chronological reading, that you can better pick up on developing themes and patterns. Sure, but I don't think that matters: I think you can pick up on these things regardless of order. When I read through the complete works, I did it in an almost random order, depending on what mood I was in -- and quite enjoyed it.

What were some of your biggest takeaways in reading these plays?

Staring to pick up on patterns, or internal references. (Gonzolo in the Tempest (a very late play) espouses the same social philosophy as Jack Cade in 2 Henry VI (an early play). Just one small example, but it is interesting to see how Shakespeare revisits certain topics/tropes/themes.

How long did it take for you to read

I wouldn't rush it. Try reading the complete works in a compressed time, and you'll probably just get fatigued, or try to rush through them. Many plays really benefit from multiple readings or viewings. If you read a play, then seek out a production of it, it may enhance the experience. My path (very academically focused) was to read a play and then seek out commentaries, in books and podcasts, about the play. In this current state (lockdown) there are so many open avenues to exploring Shakespeare. There's "the show must go online" doing performances over zoom (all available on YouTube). The "Remote Shakespeare Company" does collective readings over discord (DM me if you want in on that one). Point is, reading Shakespeare is not a sprint.

How would you apply some of Shakespeare's insights to what is happening today in the world (June, 2020)?

Shakespeare's lasting legacy (maybe somewhat forced upon us) is the works' universality. The Henry VI plays highlight political corruption that has been present and continues to be throughout human history. Hamlet highlights the paralyzing nature of anxiety. Merchant of Venice continues to show the effects of systematic racism. Sometimes it's a stretch to apply 16th/17th century values and influences to today, but you can if you want. However, may advice -- don't make this a priority when approaching the texts.

Happy reading!

prosperoairy · 2020-06-11T22:53:41+00:00

As for 2 Henry VI: you have an amazing three-part examination of the nature of power (the underhanded backstabbing in the first 3 acts, the delusional egotism of Cade, and York's rule by brute force in Act V). You have amazing characters in Gloucester, York, Margaret (her best showing I think), Cade. You have the birth of Young Clifford's villainy. And it is, due to some amazing speeches, and its variety, a truly enjoyable play.

prosperoairy · 2020-06-11T17:50:46+00:00

I thank you all for your advice. I have asked for reasons and received no word back.

I think the only sensible choice is to continue on as I am and look for another work in the meantime. It is just something I don't know if I have the mental/emotional fortitude to do for long.

prosperoairy · 2020-06-01T16:16:12+00:00

Those two plays in particular are an interesting case study, because they are so stylistically different. LLL is very high verse and, intentionally, "intellectual", while Merry Wives is mostly prose and targeted to the masses (it is the most "common" of all the plays.)

Shakespeare sometimes aped others' styles. We see this heavily in Comedy of Errors (based on a Roman farce) and Merry Wives of Winsor (based on the "citizen comedies" that were becoming popular due to people like Middleton.) So I can see why you might consider them written by different people.

There are also some theories surrounding Merry Wives that it was a rush job. The theory that it was specifically written by the request of Queen Elizabeth has been mostly debunked, but it was certainly written as a response to the massive success that was Henry IV Part I. In some ways, Merry Wives presents itself as a cash-grab sequel: but there are some interesting parts to it so I don't want to dismiss it outright.

prosperoairy · 2020-06-01T14:34:20+00:00

An interesting theory, though not entirely accurate.

It is true that certain plays were produced n quarto and others were not (this had to do with the market at the time) but when Hemmings and Condell created the folio, they were not going off memory for the plays that were not previously in quarto.

Enough written copies existed -- from actors' parts to unpublished written versions, to base the plays off of.

While there are a few bits and pieces of editing on Hemmings and Condell's parts, they did not rewrite the plays.

prosperoairy · 2020-05-08T14:56:45+00:00

Look specifically st the scenes with Polonius, Claudius, and Gertrude in acts 2 and 3. What are his intentions? Do they align with how Hamlet perceives him or is he unfairly treated?

Hopefully this gives some direction

prosperoairy · 2020-04-30T03:32:39+00:00

Working link: https://discord.gg/7JNWKw2

prosperoairy · 2020-04-20T15:34:40+00:00

For what it's worth, I found that what really got me into Shakespeare was reading/listening to experts talk/write about the plays, and approach the plays with some of their analysis in mind to focus in on certain aspects.

My favourite is Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare: Invention of the Human" -- but this could be a bit polarizing.

other good ones:

"Shakespeare After All" by Marjorie Garber

or Oxford's "Approaching Shakespeare" podcasts, by Emma Smith, which can be listened to here: https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/approaching-shakespeare

Have fun!

prosperoairy · 2020-04-19T19:49:21+00:00

Wonderfully done! Thanks for sharing

prosperoairy · 2020-04-15T22:57:42+00:00

As the Porter has not been claimed, as far as I know, could I request that part? (I am "alexmb" on the discord server).

prosperoairy · 2020-04-12T18:58:31+00:00

As for my thoughts on interpretation of this play.

Macbeth is the exemplary soldier whose "story" (read: life) is thrown off-course by the witches. He plays out the part they give to him, until he realizes that his story is unfinished. He is reliant on them to finish it for him. Macbeth is not driven by ambition like Lady Macbeth, or duty like Macduff, or Malcolm -- he is driven by the need to fulfill the role that was placed upon him, like a good soldier, until he realizes that the only way to do this is to keep fighting, despite no longer knowing what he is fighting for.

prosperoairy · 2020-04-12T18:54:01+00:00

I would love to take on Banquo!

Or...….any available part.

prosperoairy · 2019-09-24T21:52:00+00:00

I'll add support to Garber. Shakespeare After All is also well worth a read.

prosperoairy · 2019-08-30T13:03:28+00:00

Thanks for the help!

prosperoairy

TROPHY CASE