"Lord, what fools these mortals be!" (Puck, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii)
PASSAGE / LANGUAGE COMPARISON ANALYSIS
TITANIA:
I pray thee, gentle mortal, sing again:
Mine ear is much enamour'd of thy note;
So is mine eye enthralled to thy shape;
And thy fair virtue's force perforce doth move me
On the first view to say, to swear, I love thee…
-A Midsummer Night’s Dream, II.ii.137-141
LUCENTIO:
O Tranio, till I found it to be true,
I never thought it possible or likely;
But see, while idly I stood looking on,
I found the effect of love in idleness:
And now in plainness do confess to thee,
That art to me as secret and as dear
As Anna to the queen of Carthage was,
Tranio, I burn, I pine, I perish, Tranio,
If I achieve not this young modest girl.
-The Taming of the Shrew, I.i.148-156
MIRANDA:
I might call him
A thing divine, for nothing natural
I ever saw so noble…
FERDINAND:
Most sure, the goddess
On whom these airs attend! Vouchsafe my prayer
May know if you remain upon this island;
And that you will some good instruction give
How I may bear me here: my prime request,
Which I do last pronounce, is, O you wonder!
If you be maid or no?
-The Tempest, I.ii.413-415, 419-425
In all of these passages, the characters discuss the effects of love at first sight. Titania’s magically-induced love makes her thrilled with everything about Bottom- even his donkey head. Lucentio says that, after seeing Bianca only once and never even speaking to her, he will die if he does not have her for his own. And Ferdinand asks Miranda if she’s really human because he’s stunned by her beauty. All of these characters, without knowing the other person at all, seem to know that they are meant to be together. Personally, I believe the whole concept of love at first sight does not exist in real life, but having it exist in these books aids in having the comedic effects of love without writing a nine-hour play.
COMMENTARY ON THE GENRE
As a whole, I really enjoyed the comedies. They were light-hearted and funny, and you didn’t need any background to be able to understand and enjoy them. I particularly liked the use/misuse of the juice of the “love-in-idleness” (pansy) in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It’s amazing that the juice of one little flower can cause so much havoc- Titania and Bottom, Helena and Demetrius and Lysander and Hermia. However, the blocking figures were, I believe, the most amusing. While reading, you kind of knew that the blockers- Hermia’s dad in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Kate in The Taming of the Shrew, and Prospero in The Tempest- were going to be defeated, that they were only putting off the inevitable for a short while. But while they were there, preventing what would eventually happen, it was very funny.
PERSONAL REFLECTION
My favorite play in this genre was A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I love the fantastical aspects of it. I really did not like The Taming of the Shrew, partly because of the misogynistic themes and partly because I found it harder to get through than the other two. I also really liked The Tempest, but the elements of fantasy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream pushed it over the edge for me.
Friday, December 12, 2008
History
“Despair and die!” (Multiple people, multiple times, Richard III, Act V, Scene iii)
PASSAGE / LANGUAGE COMPARISON ANALYSIS
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
| Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide, Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit To his full height. On, on, you noblest English. Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof! Fathers that, like so many Alexanders, Have in these parts from morn till even fought And sheathed their swords for lack of argument: Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you. Be copy now to men of grosser blood, And teach them how to war. -Henry V, III.i.15-25 |
In these two parts of speeches by Richard and Henry, the many differences between them becomes obvious. Richard’s speech reveals to the audience what an evil, twisted man he is. He admits that he is “subtle, false, and treacherous”, that he plans to make his brothers hate each other, and that he actually WANTS to be an evil person. Henry’s speech is meant to encourage the soldiers who are going to be fighting for his rightful land in France against tremendous odds. Henry wants everyone to believe that they are the best, the most fabulous soldiers of all time; Richard wants everyone beneath him and wants them to know it. Henry calls upon patriotism and family pride, while Richard schemes to screw with the ruling class and kill his family. These speeches show that Richard and Henry are on totally opposite ends of the spectrum in almost every way.
COMMENTARY ON THE GENRE
The histories were not quite as interesting for me. In order to make sense of the play and the relationships between the characters, a lot of background reading had to be done. I prefer being able to simply pick up a book and read and enjoy it without having to perform research in order to understand the characters.
PERSONAL REFLECTION
I found Richard III to be more entertaining. With Henry, you knew what was going to happen- because he was portrayed as the hero type, it was obvious that he was going to overcome great adversity and win whatever game he was playing. With Richard, you never knew if someone would finally say, “You’re a scumbag who lied and murdered his way to the crown.” The hope of someone exposing Richard for what he was made Richard III more fun to read, even though I despised Richard as a character.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)