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.