DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.
Weekly Journal:
In the weekly journal section weekly reading assignments and discussions in class are discussed further by myself, by drawing upon former knowledge and analytical processes to draw ideas together that may not be discussed in class. This will also serve as a reference in my Introduction and how I analyze class readings as a writer.
DRAFT: This module has unpublished changes.
6. Kristin Smith
Comment for Journal 9:
Olivia is an odd young lady. Technically, she must mourn for a year before she can marry, but she seems to be taking things to a bit of an extreme by refusing to speak to men.
Viola's methods are unclear, especially since she seems to have no intention of showing herself as a woman and Orsino can't very well marry a man.
Aguecheek/Agueface might be a printer's error, or it might be a character's error (the character is dumb/doesn't care about Andrew).
Maria is smart - crafty-smart. Viola isn't quite "deadly," though. She's conniving, certainly, but she isn't "evil" like Tamora or Margaret - she's a "good guy." In fact Viola is one of the better portrayals - Maria may be smart, but she's sexually rampant, which is also a problem in the 17th century. Certainly social understandings of gender have something to do with this. Otherwise, there is some question whether Shakespeare is really being negative with Viola...
Cheers.
K. Bezio
11/13/09, 06:47 pm
5. Kristin Smith
Comment for Journal 8:
The final act is a bit rushed, but that is a comment often also associated with many of Shakespeare's plays (including Titus). However, generally speaking, at least Shakespeare's final acts are a bit more logical than Sweeney Todd's.
I think you might be on to something with your idea of demystifying cannibalism - "furthering the plot" isn't ever really a reason for something (all things do this), as there has to be a reason why cannibalism instead of some other way of killing someone.
There is something going on with the idea of cannibalism, though, you're right. Our culture is seemingly obsessed with it - perhaps because it is so taboo to us. Of course, there are other things that are taboo that we DON'T spend so much time with (incest, rape, child abuse), particularly in a comic (or at least entertainment) venue.
Cheers.
K. Bezio
11/02/09, 06:28 pm
4. Kristin Smith
Comment for Journal 7:
Sweeney is very odd. He is abrupt, much like his "introduction" in the play. We know very little about him, only that he murders people for their money.
In some ways, apprentices were often treated badly - they were sometimes viewed as slave labor. Now, Sweeney is a particularly horrible person, so his treatment of Tobias is probably more extreme (for instance, you were not supposed to kill your apprentice for disobedience) than most, but it does show that being an apprentice was not necessarily a "fun" thing.
Mr. Smith dies both because he "messes with" the chair, but also because he knows that Sweeney is "up to something," even if he doesn't quite know what right away.
Cheers.
K. Bezio
10/28/09, 05:58 pm
3. Kristin Smith
Comment for Journal 6:
You do a great job to link endocannibalism with Ravenscroft's Titus - certainly, while Aaron is meant to be perceived as barbaric, there must be something else going on there. What happens in Shakespeare's play is, as you say, something different than either that or exocannibalism - it's something in between.
Shakespeare would have been familiar with "travel accounts" of cannibalism - people who had been to the "New World" and seen what the native peoples of North and South America were doing, people who had been to Indonesia, and so on. Certainly, there were cannibal tribes that European explorers would have encountered - but whether the accounts Shakespeare read were completely accurate are another matter. "Travel accounts" tended to be nationalistic and exaggerated, but there was some truth to most of them. They would have viewed it as barbaric, certainly, and not have been at all understanding of even funerary cannibalism.
Cheers.
K. Bezio
10/22/09, 03:24 pm
2. Kristin Smith
Comment for Journal 5:
There isn't much else for Titus and Marcus to talk about - though I can see your point about Lavinia. Constant discussion of her pain and humiliation has to be horrifying. Especially since she can't tell them to stop.
Well, nothing in this play speaks against Elizabeth or her reign - simply putting lots of gore on stage isn't offensive to the monarch, especially since the hero is rather pro-monarchy. There is, of course, the idea that things will be "fixed" in the end, but this is one of Shakespeare's less subversive plays, for all its gore.
Cheers.
K. Bezio
10/05/09, 06:10 pm
1. Kristin Smith
Incest was taboo, but not as much as it is today. Cousins were acceptable - uncle/niece was less so. This is why historically he was encouraged NOT to go after Elizabeth by Parliament... and they wanted him to publicly say that he never wanted to. Whether he really did or not, we don't know - we just know that Richmond put out the rumor that he did.
Cheers.
K. Bezio
09/23/09, 01:47 pm