Term Paper

An Analysis of Multiple Productions of Hamlet
This fall our play company gave a performance based on Shakespeare’s Hamlet. We watched Franco Zeffirelli’s 1990 film Hamlet as a class assignment first, and then choose scenes for our play company to perform. My performance was King Claudius’s monologue in Act 3 scene 3, lines 36-72. Looking back on Zeffirelli’s presentation now, after my performance, brings up many interesting comparisons. Comparisons between both Zeffirelli’s production of Hamlet and Shakespeare’s original exists, as well as comparisons between Zeffirelli’s Hamlet and our play companies own production of the work. The analysis of Zeffirelli’s Hamlet shows an interpretation of Claudius’s monologue that is notably different from Shakespeare’s text, and our company’s performance. A closer viewing of Zeffirelli’s presentation begins to highlight these differences.
The analysis of Claudius’s scene in Zeffirelli’s presentation of Hamlet provides an interpretation that is much less sympathetic to Claudius than Shakespeare’s original text was. It is apparent when viewing the movie, that the scene containing this monologue that Claudius gives has become more about Hamlet than it does Claudius. As a result of this, the viewer never connects with Claudius in the same way as they might from the text, and the sympathy for Claudius that is present in the text is then lost as a result.
Claudius’s scene in the movie is transformed into a scene about Hamlet by pushing Hamlets lines up and over those of Claudius. In this scene of the movie Claudius only delivers the first and last few lines of his monologue, as Hamlet intervenes with an aside to the camera during the middle of Claudius’s lines. By taking Hamlet’s aside that appears after the speech Claudius gives in the text, and actually placing it directly over his speech, sympathy is lost for Claudius. With this act Zeffirelli bluntly conveys to the audience that he finds Hamlet to be the more important character, transposing his lines directly over the middle of Claudius’s speech.
This notion that Hamlet is a more important character comes through in other parts of this scene as well. One big difference between the speech Claudius gives and Hamlet’s speech over it is the point of view. The face of Claudius is hardly seen through his entire scene, while Hamlet has a large close up for the entirety of his overlapping speech. This is especially true of the end of Claudius’s scene, where he is crying. Here only his back is visible, during what is supposed to be the emotional build up and most important part of the entire monologue. This point of view makes it difficult to connect with Claudius in a human way. So much of communication is nonverbal, in the gestures and expressions on ones face. When all this is taken from Claudius, his scene is much less impactful on the viewer as a result. Because Claudius loses this human connection with the audience, much of the sympathy they would have felt is then lost.
Without the impact that Claudius’s speech has in the text, it now feels a little cheapened in the movie as well. Specifically, the scene feels cheaper because the play within a play scene is placed directly before Claudius’s monologue scene. As a result, the dialogue between Claudius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Polonius is cut from the movie. This speech helps to give Claudius more depth as a character in Shakespeare’s text version. It allows him to seem more like a real person, an individual with a personality, and less like just another piece in a play. This deeper characterization of Claudius comes through in the way he reacts to the play within a play while in dialogue with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Polonius.
Claudius’s dialog with Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, and Polonius before his monologue reveals the fear that he holds for Hamlet, which gives him a more human side. No longer does Claudius seem like a cold and calculating individual who made specific plans to further his own agenda. Instead a scared, reactive side of Claudius is seen; a side that seems to be responding emotionally to events around him with knee jerk reactions. These emotions begin to arise at the beginning of the act in the first few lines, where Claudius proclaims “I like him not, nor stands it safe with us / To let his madness range.” (III.iii. 1-2). Here it becomes obvious that Claudius doesn’t just dislike Hamlet, but that he is afraid of him. He is saying that he doesn’t like the way Hamlets been acting, and he doesn’t think it’s safe for him to allow Hamlet to continue acting in this manner. Through these two lines Claudius conveys that he fears Hamlet may cause him trouble if he is left unchecked.
Immediately after this Claudius commissions Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to take Hamlet to England with him, to ensure he is kept from interfering with Claudius and his plans. Claudius’s fear arises again in the same breath, when he states that “The terms of our estate may not endure / Hazard so near’s as doth hourly grow / Out of his brows.” (III.iii. 5-7). Now Claudius is directly stating that his power is threatened by Hamlet and the plans he’s hatching with the passing time. Here the threat that Hamlet represents for Claudius draws out his fear and paranoia, making him act quickly and emotionally. It is drawn out again after Rosencrantz and Guildenstern speak, when Claudius says “For we will fetters put about this fear, / Which now goes too free-footed.” (III.iii. 25-26). The conversation between Claudius, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is brought to a close here by Claudius stating that he wants to get a handle on Hamlet, his fear he believes has gotten out of control. By showing his actions and reactions in the text, Shakespeare adds layers on to the character of Claudius, making him a more empathic individual. In the movie version however, these scenes are absent, and this connection to Claudius on an emotional level is lost.
Instead however, the viewer is shown the emotional side of Hamlet during this scene. Again the reason that the emotional connection to Claudius is lost is because of Hamlets intervening lines, where the reader is connected to him emotionally instead. Here Hamlet discusses the possibility of killing Claudius where he finds him. However, because Claudius is on his knees and praying, Hamlet decides against it. He feels that because Claudius killed his father in the middle of the night, before he had his chance to clear himself of his sins, than doing anything less to Claudius would not be fair. Hamlet believes that killing Claudius now, after his prayer, will simply be sending him to heaven after he has prepared himself to go. This Hamlet claims, is not revenge, but seems more like a favor to Claudius. This scene offers the viewers a glimpse into Hamlets thoughts and emotions during this scene, allowing them to empathize with and connect to Hamlet. So by placing Hamlet’s lines over the lines of Claudius, Zeffirelli makes the scene about Hamlet instead. These lines would normally follow, and give each character a separate outlet for their emotions. But when Zeffirelli arranges the scene so the only emotions getting to the viewer are from Hamlet, the viewer is sympathizing with Hamlet during Claudius’s speech. Sympathy for Claudius that is conveyed in Shakespeare’s original text is now lost in Zeffirelli’s production, because of this rearrangement of lines. This marks a large difference between the two productions of Hamlet, a difference mirrored in comparison of our company’s performance of the scene to Zeffirelli’s production too.
Our play company’s presentation of the monologue Claudius gives is also more sympathetic to Claudius than Zeffirelli’s production of the same scene. Because our play company’s performance contained all of the lines of Claudius’s monologue which were cut from Zeffirelli’s presentation, all of the sympathy evoked from these lines was present in our play company’s performance as well. This means that just like the comparison between Zeffirelli’s presentation of Hamlet and the original, our presentation was much more sympathetic towards Claudius than Zeffirelli’s production was. The sympathy for Claudius found in our play company’s performance was a direct result of the inclusion of the lines missing from Zeffirelli’s production.
This sympathy is found as early on as the first line cut in Zeffirelli’s version of the scene, where Claudius claims “Pray can I not, / Though inclination be as sharp as will. / My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent,” (III.iii. 38-40). In these few lines Claudius reveals that he regrets what he is done. He is saying that his guilt for committing this deed outweighs any good that has come of it. In fact, because of how badly he feels, he wishes he could pray about it, but realizes that it will do him no good. He knows that what he has done is unforgivable even by prayer, and begins to ruminate on prayer itself.
Just a few lines later, Claudius asks of prayer “And what’s in prayer but this twofold force, / To be forestalled ere we come to fall, / Or pardoned being down? Then I’ll look up.” (III.iii. 48-50). Here Claudius is debating the purpose of prayer, and what praying can do for him now. When he questions how prayer really does serve him, he answers himself by stating that prayer will pardon us when we have sinned. From this he decides that he’ll go ahead and pray, and he decides to try and find the right prayer to suit his situation. It is here when he asks
“My fault is past, but, O, what form of prayer
Can serve my turn? ‘Forgive me my foul murder’?
That cannot be, since I am still possessed
Of those effects for which I did the murder,
My crown, mine own ambition, and my queen.”
(III.iii. 51-55).
In these lines Claudius concludes that no form of prayer can truly serve his situation. He says that he couldn’t possibly pray for forgiveness from murder. This is especially true because he committed the murder to be a powerful king and take Gertrude as his wife, things which he still has and refuses to give up. He concludes that it is for this reason that prayer will not help him be forgiven for his sins in anyway. He even asks “May one be pardoned and retain th’ offense?” (III.iii. 56). Here Claudius knows that without giving up his offenses, he’ll never be pardoned by prayer.
This view into Claudius’s internal struggle with his attempt to find redemption in religion connects him to the audience in an important way. The very act of allowing the audience to see into his thoughts and personal struggle make him a more relatable character because they are allowed to experience the turmoil with him. On top of sharing this journey, the audience may be able to relate on another more personal level if they have ever had similar thoughts or feelings themselves. Chances are everybody reading this passage did something in their life that they regret, or felt guilty about. It is also common to seek forgiveness after doing something that makes one feel remorse. Forgiveness may be sought in other individuals, friends and family members, or even in religion as is the case of Claudius and his prayer here. Allowing the reader to see Claudius’s struggle and exploration into redemption through religion offers a great opportunity for the reader to connect with Claudius’s character on a very personal level. The reader will likely have shared the same thoughts and feelings themselves and will be able to relate to how Claudius is feeling to a certain level. Claudius continues to be a relatable character throughout the rest of his speech as well.
While readers likely won’t relate personally to the rest of Claudius’s speech from this point on, the feelings he is vocalizing allow for a great deal of insight into his character. This allows for the reader to really understand how his character feels about his actions, and what he plans to do about it. This understanding of Claudius on such a deep emotional level really only occurs in the reading, in the following lines of Claudius’s monologue:
“In the corrupted currents of this world
Offense’s gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft ‘tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law. But ‘tis not so above.
There is no shuffling; there the action lies
In his true nature,”
(III.iii. 57-62).
In this part of his speech, Claudius reveals that he knows what he did was wrong and unforgivable and that while he got away with it now, he won’t in heaven. He states that it is known that more often than not people on earth get away with unlawful or unjust actions. However, he goes on to explain that this is not the case in heaven, and that God will know the true nature of the actions taken on earth, and their intentions. Reading these words from Claudius really allow the reader to connect with him on an emotional level, because they are able to feel sorry for him here. When Claudius basically states that he knows that while it seems like he has gotten away with the murder of his brother right now, he will be punished for it in the afterlife. He believes that God knows the true intentions of his actions, and will punish him for it. This can allow the reader to feel much sympathy for Claudius upon reading these lines. Making this emotional and sympathetic connection with Claudius on this level is absent in Zeffirelli’s presentation of Hamlet, as it lacks these lines entirely.
This sympathy is strong again at the end of Claudius’s speech as well, which was also cut from Zeffirelli’s production. When Claudius yells “Help, angels! Make assay.” (III.iii. 69), the reader gets to see him turn to the heavens to help ease his situation. It becomes a powerful moment for Claudius, in which the reader is feeling pity towards him for the first time in the play. The moment is escalated as he continues speaking by begging of his body “Bow stubborn knees, and, heart with strings of steel, / Be soft as sinews of the newborn babe.” (III.iii. 70-71). Now, at the end of his speech, it is seen that Claudius is trying to change himself. When telling his knees and heart to soften, and be something they aren’t, he is attempting o change the things about himself. This is the most powerful moment of his speech as Claudius has seen himself, face to face, and he regrets what he has done and become, and turns to prayer for forgiveness. The very fact that the readers participated in the realization makes all the difference in convincing them to sympathize with his character. By being a part of his thoughts as he reasons this realization to himself, and comes to realize what he has become, the readers make a deep emotional connection to him in the process. This connection is lost almost entirely in Zeffirelli’s production of Hamlet, as all of these lines are missing. As a result there is a marked difference between Zeffirelli’s production and Shakespeare’s original text. A difference where the reader of the original text feels much more sympathy for Claudius than a viewer of Zeffirelli’s movie Hamlet would. This same difference also exists when comparing Zeffirelli’s Hamlet to our play company’s production as well, and it exists because our play company followed the original Shakespeare text.

Works Cited
Hamlet. Dir. Franco Zeffirelli. Perf. Mel Gibson and Glenn Close. 1991. DVD. Warner, 2004.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. A.R. Braunmuller. New York, USA: Penguin Books, 2001.

Plays!

Presenting and performing the plays last night was really a blast. Even though I thought I was spending a lot of time outside of class working on this, once we actually got to perform and see the others performances, it was was really fun! Now we juts have to write the paper. I know I had asked you previously about how I should go about it, since there wasn't much to direct with this play, so maybe I shouldn't really compare myself to Zeffirelli for the paper. I know you said to just compare myself to King Claudius in the scene where he delivers the same speech I gave in the play. I was wondering if perhaps I should talk about why the other monologues were chosen as well, and how they were important to our performance, as well as to the play itself. I thought maybe then my paper could have more substance, since it was a kind of directors decision, and something I could write about then. Or if then was unnecessary? I could always focus on just my role if that were preferred. Otherwise I would discuss how Hamlets first speech was important to explain the relationship between him, his mother and his father. Then how Claudius's speech was important to show that he actually had a conscience about what he was doing. Of course Hamlet's "To be or not to be..." speech is important because of what it reveals about Hamlets character. Then finally why the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia was chosen, and what it reveals about their relationship and character. Again, I didn't know if this would be needed or not, but I thought I would ask, as it could make for a better paper.

Macbeth

Class discussion today brought up a few interesting thoughts for me, regarding evil and motivation in Macbeth. Before when we were just considering the actions of Macbeth and Banquo after talking to the witches, it had seemed to me that Macbeth was the "evil" one while the witches were not. As discussed in class, the witches simply make statements (like the acknowledgement of Macbeth's promotion) and then state that he will also someday be king, and that Banquo's son will be as well one day. While they do question the witches motives, and Banquo (I think) does say something about how sometimes people tell half truths (the promotion) to deceive others (the part about being king, I still don't think that necessarily makes them evil, and surely at least not as much as Macbeth. If they are evil their evil comes from toying with Macbeth, giving him (possibly) false hope, and the like. I don't believe that they knew the outcomes of their actions per se. I don't believe they had a plan, like "if we speak with these such words, and phrase it this way, then he'll kill these people." I believe they were just mischievous. But the evil comes from Macbeth's actions upon hearing this news. However, I thought this all got MUCH more complicated once I considered lady Macbeth's role in the play. As Macbeth himself is resolved not to kill the king, and doesn't agree to it until after his wife calls him a coward and not a man. Then she presents him with her plan on how to kill the king, and it is THEN that he agrees to do it, and from this point on is where his character kind of snowballs into doing evil things. I'm not sure what that means for Macbeth being evil now, perhaps he is actually just weak, and lady Macbeth is the one who is actually evil? After all, I did claim previously that Macbeth was evil because of his actions upon hearing the prophecy, and once lady Macbeth hears the prophecy she acts quite evil. Certain this is how she is portrayed in Throne of Blood as well. But I think that discussion is for another blog, where I've really had time to think all these things through, and make up my mind!

Buddhism in Ran

When we were talking about trying to find Buddhism in Kurosawa's Ran on Monday, something was a little confusing to me. In class you had used "detachment" as the main point of Buddhism to take home for our chart. You had us looking for detachment in the movie as well. I was a little confused by this, because I would have thought a better word to try and describe Buddhism would have been "attachment". We had stated in class that the cessation of Dukkha (suffering) is achieved by following the Noble Eight Fold Path, but to embark on the Noble Eight Fold Path one must accept the Three Convictions of the Four Noble Truths. While the last of the three convictions is Bodhi (or Nirvana) the first two are annica and annatta.So annica and anatta are both essential pillars of Buddhism, without the understanding and accepting of which you cannot live the path to enlightenment. Annica then, states that selfishness is the cause of suffering because all things are interrelated and ever changing. This means that nothing exists of itself, but is only an extension of the rest of the universe. Therefore, when we are greedy we are trying to put our self ahead of other parts of the universe, parts of the universe we are a mere extension of. This would mean we are actually trying to put ourselves ahead of other parts of ourselves, essentially. Which is precisely why doing so causes suffering in ourselves rather than in others. Because there is no "other" we are hurting, that "other" is actually an extension of ourselves, and in hurting that we are hurting ourselves, causing us more suffering. This is why greed and selfishness are thought by Buddhists to be contrary to the way in which the universe works, and why one must understand this relationship to begin their path toward enlightenment. Then understanding this concept of annica can lead to the concept of anatta. Anatta states that if everything that exists is annica, changing and interrelated, then we humans are anatta. Anatta then translates literally to "no selves". Anatta then is to understand annica and to grasp that we are not truly individuals, as we are all part of one ever-changing process. Anatta then also states that we can only realize our true potential when we are sharing with, giving to, and receiving from others. To me I understood these essential truths of Buddhism to mean that there can be nothing more important in Buddhism than to understand that we are all related, and to never "detach" ourselves or others from the rest of existence. This is why "detachment" seemed a little confusing to me in class. For example, in the small intro to the bit of the movie we did watch in class on Monday, the introduction spoke differently to me. I didn't see the clouds as detached gods watching over the events below, or the people as detached from the grand scenery behind them. When I saw the enormity of the mountains and scenery, it made me think of how the people in the scene were merely a very small part of this "larger than life" scene behind them, almost as if to allude to the universe and existence itself. It was like the movie was saying, what problems may be big and important to these people are nothing as the people themselves are such a small insignificant part of existence itself (mountains), a thing much larger than them. I also saw the selfishness present in the scene thusly affect existence. Changing from the white and serene view of the clouds prior to the scene, to the suffering unleashed on the universe by the peoples karma (actions). This transition was then represented by another unpleasant view of the clouds following that scene of the movie.

Loomba and Othello

Right at the end of class on the 21st you said something that got me to think more about Ania Loomba's article on Shakespeare. In class we discussed the possibility of Desdemona representing "Englishness". I thought this was very interesting because if the characters in the play are worried about Othello somehow tainting Desdemona by being with her, by using some form of witchcraft to seduce and lure her and maker her his own, then the characters themselves could be worried about Englishness being tainted. And by this I mean, they worry about it becoming something no longer unique to themselves, no longer their (the English) own. In looking at the time when this was written to understand it better, Loomba even points out that the in the time these plays were written the English people were looking to define themselves by defining what is "other" or "outsideness". As the English were discovering new peoples and customs, and contact with these different beliefs were ever on the rise, the people sought to place their culture in juxtaposition with these others, to define a clear boundary between "them" and "us" to ensure that they could maintain some sense of "national identity." Perhaps in this play Shakespeare is looking to call attention to this taxonomy of cultures occurring around him, and perhaps he intends to point to the flaws of such a process. He seems to be doing this by showing "Othello the Moor" as possessing the qualities with which many of the English associated with their own culture (logic, power, emotion, etc) and giving Iago the characteristic traits commonly associated with the "outsiders" of the time. As he is portrayed as brutish, emotionless, villainous, untrustworthy and so forth.

Blog Self Evaluation Paper

Students are required to take literature courses throughout their collegiate career for various reasons. Whether the reason is to fill a credit or to better understand a subject, one can better understand their literary progress through the self evaluation of their stage of reading development. Through the examples of my weekly blogs, I believe that while on the verge of “text-world,” I began this class at a “text-other text” stage of reading development and remain there today. The qualities of these levels of reading development are apparent in my early work in the class.
The first of the qualities of a “text-other text” level or reading development present in my early writing is many “I centered” answers. While “I centered answers are less of a part of the “text-other text,” they are still indicative of that stage. From my very first blog entry in class, discussing the movie Shakespeare in Love, I was writing “I centered” responses. These responses then show my simple reactions to the texts in regards to other texts or notes from class. Such responses include “I had thought,” “I feel,” and “I think.” Despite the fact that I was analyzing the movie in a New Historicism context, a reading skill evident of a more advanced “text-world” development level, I failed to move away from subjective issues of taste or personal reactions to the material. Instead I wrote “I centered” responses characteristic of my less developed reading level. However, these are not merely symptoms of early writing, as they appear throughout my blog entries.
My very next blog post, “Romeo and Juliet: The Film Adaptation,” also shows signs of the “I centered” response that is a characteristic of an early stage of reading development. The blog starts with “I think” and it is immediately apparent that my response is centered around my reaction to the text and film. Focusing in on where I wrote “I think DiCaprio was really able to show it to me in the movie,” it is again clear that I am still in a “text-other text” stage of development. While trying to compare the text to the film, I’m still presenting my personal “I centered” response to the film. Again, the personal “I centered” responses are a sign of the early stage of reading development I was in while writing that response. This “text-other text” stage is apparent in the “I centered” responses of even more of my later works as well.
Just a bit later, in my blog entry titled “Parody, Pastiche, Camp” I again fail to move beyond the “I centered” responses evident of my personal reaction to the text and the “text-other text” stage of reading development. This blog entry is rife with sentences showcasing my inability to move beyond my personal reactions. With sentences starting with “I actually got the impression,” “The reason I felt,” “I just got the feeling,” “I think,” and even “It didn’t seem to me.” All of these are prime examples of “I centered” responses. These are responses in which I am only reacting to how I view the text, and not really relating to the world outside the text. In reading the entry it is clear that I talk only about how I felt when reading the text, or how I felt when viewing the movie. I don’t develop my understanding beyond the text itself or the text in relation to the movie. Not making this development in understanding the text means I am not developing my reading stage any further either. I am to remain in this middle ground, “text-other text” area of reading comprehension. Because I don’t develop my understanding or my reading stage any further, I do exactly this. I remain in the “text-other text” stage of reading development even in my later blog entries.
In the “I slept in!” blog entry for September 26th, one of my more recent entries, the evidence of “I centered” responses and a “text-other text” stage of reading development are present. In the second paragraph of that entry, I talk a lot about how watching the movie made me feel. I’m writing about my exact personal reaction to the movie as I start the sentence “To me that opening felt like.” Again I’m still getting hung up on “I centered” responses despite trying to expand my understanding of the text. In looking back to the “Shakespeare in Love” blog entry, the sentence, “Looking at other popular works of the time, I wouldn't be surprised if the most successful ones were indeed comedies,” is a perfect example of another “I centered” response even while trying to expand my reading development stage. Here I am using a New Historicism lens to view the movie, and yet I am hung up on my personal reaction to the relationship between one of Shakespeare’s texts with other texts. This also happens to be a great example of my ability to recognize relationships between texts.
Recognizing the relationship between the text and other texts, film adaptations or aspects of that time period is another characteristic of the “text-other text” development stage I am in. These analyses of the works from class are more developed; centering more on how the texts relate to one another or film versions. These observations are made as early on as my first blog post, as mentioned earlier. In this blog post I discuss my realization about the effects of social, economic, political, and class powers on the texts of the time. It became apparent to me after viewing the movie “Shakespeare in Love” that all of these powers had sway on what types of plays were being written at the time Shakespeare was writing all of his plays. These powers were also likely the reason why Henslowe wanted to create a profitable play quickly and why comedies were so popular. I was able to read the text, view the movie and then develop my understanding of the text by its association to other texts of the time, and circumstances of the time period it was written in. I am able to recognize the relationship between the text and the movie again in my very next blog post.
In the blog post “Romeo and Juliet: The Film Adaptation,” I make comparisons between the original text and the film adaptation. I discuss how the film portrays events as opposed to the text. The film version of Romeo and Juliet showed me a desperate side of Romeos character that didn’t quite come across in the text. This blog post mentions how I recognized Leonardo DiCaprio's choices as an actor, which helped to more develop Romeos character. Clearly this post is a great example of my “text-other text” level of reading development. By watching the film and considering both the film and the text, I am able to better understand one of Shakespeare’s characters. The next blog post is another example of my ability to further develop my understanding of the reading by viewing it through the lens of a movie, and another text.
My blog post entitled “Parody, Pastiche, Camp” is a discussion of both the film and text versions of Shakespeare’s play Titus Andronicus, by looking for aspects of parody, pastiche, or camp in them. Before this blog post I had read Titus Andronicus, and the intro to the play, within our text book. Then we read about what makes something a parody, pastiche, or camp from a handout in class. By reading these other texts and then reading the play, my understanding of the play itself was further developed. In the blog I write that I “got the impression that the play was written to be a parody.” I was able to draw this conclusion by reading the text on parody, and my conclusion was then later solidified by reading the intro to the play. I even cite reasons for perceiving the text as a parody; such as lines 145 to 160 from Act I Scene I. To me this writing of this text reflected my understanding of parody, after reading on parody from another text. Discussing the text and film adaptations through other texts on parody, pastiche and camp such as in this blog is exactly how a “text-other text” level of reading development would analyze a text.
However, I’m not quite capable of reaching the “text-world” level of reading development, as I am unable to mature my development beyond my personal reactions to the texts. Focusing on the “I centered” responses in my understanding of the reading is preventing my ability to move onto the relationships between the text and the world outside the text. Looking to the titles and main ideas of each blog, some insight can be gleaned on my small bit of “text-world” understanding of the reading. In the first blog post, “Shakespeare in Love,” I discuss the movie Shakespeare in Love through the New Historicism literary theory. Analyzing a text, or in this case a movie, through another literary theory is a characteristic of a “text-world” understanding of a piece. So by doing this I am demonstrating a basic level of “text-world” understanding, but I don’t believe I’m fully developed in that area yet. The majority of the blog post is still a reflection of my personal and subjective reactions to the movie as mentioned previously, and I cannot let that go and move to a “text-world” only level of development. It is my inability to move beyond these trappings of “text-self” and “text-other text” levels of development which holds me back from focusing solely on a “text-world” development level.
To be able to move into the realm of “text-world” understanding I have to leave behind the other underdeveloped sections of my reading stages. I need to focus more on the social discourses and contemporary politics and media, rather than my subjective reactions to the text and film adaptation, or other texts pertaining to them. Doing this would allow me to move away from my reactions to a text that are only centered on my subjective reactions. From now on when reading a text or watching a film adaptation, I should make a mental note to try and approach the work from outside of my own viewpoint. I can try and make a special point to stay away from just regurgitating my initial response to the work, and rather try and think more intellectually about it. Perhaps before reading a text I can do some research first as well. I could look into the time period that the piece was written, and try and educate myself about it. I could even make a note to read about and familiarize myself with various literary theories first, and attempt to dissect the text through those literary theories. Finally, it can make another mental note to consider certain discourses when reading a text. I would try and make an extra point to consider the political, religious, scientific, economic, philosophical, and psychological discourses with which I could exam the work. I believe that if I try and remember to focus more on these aspects of a work instead, I can truly develop my reading to a “text-world” stage.

Humors in Shakespeare

While reading sections of Hamlet for our discussion of humors in class, I came across an interesting line from Claudius. In Act IV scene 4, around lines 63 - 67, Claudius is basically saying that the immediate death of Hamlet will cure him of the "hectic in my blood". I thought this was interesting because he mentions his blood, one of the humors we discussed. We associate this with the artisan, which doesn't seem like Claudius at first, but once I read a little more into it, it made sense. First, the qualities are warm and moist, and the editor describes Claudius's line "the hectic" as a continuous fever of his, which seems to fit well. Also, the qualities are courageous, hopeful, and amorous. To kill the king, then usurp his throne, power, and wife, is awfully courageous. He seems to be hopeful that his plan will work, and courageous in carrying it out. Finally, taking amorous in a sexual context as mentioned in class, there could have been an aspect of lust for Gertrude involved as well. Looking even deeper into all of this we see that one of the "artisan" roles is the "operator" in which "Artisans are observant and pragmatic". It also states that “Artisans take pride in their ability to be graceful, are confident in their ability to adapt, and respect their ability to be daring.” Finally, they say “Artisans have sensation-seeking personalities. They are often spontaneous pleasure-seekers who prefer to live one day at a time.” I think all of these actually fit Claudius well, starting with his role as an operator. In this sense he is the operator behind the killing of the king, and usurping of his throne. He also seems pleased with himself and his ability to have done this deed. He also seems comfortable in adapting and attempting to have Hamlet killed once he starts giving the king trouble. (this is also lashing out at the source of stress, once of the characteristics of the artisan under stress) Finally, being spontaneous and pleasure seeking seems to be how he got to where he is the play. He lived only thinking about how great it would be to be the king, and have his power, and probably didn't consider the consequences. Instead he just acted on his feelings and enjoyed the rewards.