All love and no war makes Othello a dull man

The first thing we hear about Othello in the play, other than the fact that he is banging a proper white lady, is that he is a phenomenal soldier.  However, from the earliest moments in the play, his military status and precedence affects his married life. For example, he asks for“fit disposition” for his wife after being ordered to Cyprus.  While Desdemona is used to better “accommodation,” she still follows Othello. No matter what Othello does or where he has to go, she will be right there beside him.  Likewise, he is happiest when he has her by his side in the midst of military conflict or business.  The military also provides Othello with a means to gain acceptance in Venetian society. He is constantly berated by racial slurs, however whenever someone brings up his prowess on the battle field, he immediately gains top recognition.  While the Venetians in the play are generally fearful of an ethnic person being introduced into white society through his marriage to Desdemona, they all respect and honor him as a soldier.  While at first it may seem like love and heroism work marvelously together, as Othello woos Desdemona through tales of his feats in battle, that is not necessarily the case. Once the Turks are defeated, Othello is left without anything to do: the last act of military administration we see him perform is the viewing of fortifications in the extremely short second scene of Act III. Once battle is removed from the picture, Othello begins to second guess everything else in his life, including Desdemona. Iago capitalizes on this uneasiness by essentially calling him unsoldierly. Then he persuades Othello Desdemona has been unfaithful, and in his insecurity, Othello believes him and ultimately ends his life because of it.  So while battle is in the picture, Othello is great, once it is over, we see the rest of his life crumble with it.

Looking at Othello (The Character)

When we first begin the play, Othello, we hear Iago talking to Desdemona's father about how a "black ram" is defiling his "white ewe".  Not a very good impression for a character that the play is supposed to be about.  The line immediately gives us a negative impression of Othello, and we are confused even more when we meet him and find that he is a very likable, nobel, and honest man.  This distinction introduces one of the major elements in the play - racism.  Still in act 1, scene 1, we hear him referred to as; “the Moor” (I.i.57), “the thick-lips” (I.i.66), “an old black ram” (I.i.88), and “a Barbary horse” (I.i.113).  His off color is not without its downsides though.  In a social context, people around him are drawn in by his exotic nature and charm.  Due to the fact that he has an immediate barrier to overcome, a much heavier weight is placed on his charisma in order to make friends.  The weirdest part about Othello to me is his insistence to be viewed as an outsider.  For example, in spite of his obvious eloquence in Act I, scene iii, he protests, “Rude am I in my speech, / And little blessed with the soft phrase of peace” (I.iii.81–82).  It almost seems as though he doesn't have enough confidence in himself to overcome this.  He is not rude in his speech at all, and yet he still belittles himself when he speaks to others, which raises the question - is it humility or lack of self-confidence?  The only time Othello really loses composure is after Iago repeatedly assures him the Desdemona has been unfaithful.  Yet a short while later, Othello regains his composure and, once again, seduces both the characters and readers with his speech.  Then he kills himself, Shakespeare is so unoriginal.

Marrying for Money in The Taming of the Shrew

The Taming of the Shrew is the first romantic comedy we read, and the play focuses principally on the romantic relationships between men and women.  In this respect, the play is a typical romantic comedy. However, unlike other Shakespearean comedies, The Taming of the Shrew does not conclude its examination of love and marriage with the wedding.  It is much more of a "realistic" play that A Midsummer Night's Dream, and instead of having the love end in marriage, it offers a glimpse into the future lives of married couples, one that lets us see the social dimension of love.  The Taming of the Shrew places heave emphasis the economic aspects of marriage—specifically, how economic considerations determine who marries whom. We see this in one of the first confrontations between Katerina and Petrucio, when he claims he was worked out the financial details with her father, and the dowry is already in order.  The play tends to explore romantic relationships from a social perspective, and seems to place more importance the financial basis for marriage rather than the inner passions of lovers. As such, marriage becomes a transaction involving the transfer of money. Lucentio wins Bianca’s heart, but he is given permission to marry her only after he is able to convince Baptista that he is rich.  Bianca has almost no say in the matter, and it is purely about money to her father.

Examining Theseus

A Midsummer Night's Dream is to me, the most interesting of Shakespeare's comedies.  The very first character we are introduced to is Theseus, who is the duke of Athens. Theseus is a hero from Greek mythology—he refers to the fact that he’s Hercules' cousin at one point—so his presence signals that the play takes place in a mythical Greek past. This is something that we have never seen before from Shakespeare.  The majority of his plays are set in "real" time periods, so again, if the first character we meet tells us we are in a mythical setting, we can expect to see a good amount of magic throughout the play.  At the beginning of the play, Theseus has recently returned from conquering the Amazons, a race of warrior women, and is about to marry the conquered Amazon queen, Hippolyta. Because of this impending wedding, the mood of the play is one of holiday festivity, characterized by a heightened sense of expectation and anticipation. Theseus himself projects confidence, authority, and benevolent power, and is probably the driving character throughout the play.

Comedies vs Tragedies

After reading about 5 of Shakespeare's plays, I have begun to notice an extreme difference in his style, construction, and overall flow depending on the genre.  First, the comedies.  The first comedy we read, A Midsummer Night's Dream, begins with a marriage - a very good sign for the rest of the play to follow. Throughout the plays, there is strong evidence of wit and sophistication in the majority of the characters, even though most comedies include characters of lower classes than the histories or tragedies.  In many instances, we even see the lower class teasing and outwitting the upper class - something that was very seldom seen in the Elizabethan age.  Finally, in Shakespeare's comedies, we see many more characters and a wider view of society as a whole.  As for structure, the comedies are usually much more confusing to read and follow due to the multiple levels of interwoven plots and plays within plays.  With Shakespeare's tragedies on the other hand, the structure is the exact same for almost all of his plays.  He uses the structure of the Freytag Pyramid, which consists of 5 parts: Exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and denouncement.  Pretty much, if you want to sift through the crazy language of his tragedies and get to the meat of the play, read act 3.  In regards to his writing style in the tragedy genre, we see a much bigger central character or hero, who has a tragic flaw that proves to be his demise in act 3.  Shakespeare writes the character so that he retains our sympathy while still causing us to feel pity and terror for what will happen to him.  The tragedies are always focused around strong noble families, and the lowest class usually seen is a guard - a stark difference from comedies.  Towards the end of his writing career, Shakespeare began to meld the two genres together in what became romances... apparently he got tired of the same old structure.

Hamlet's letter to Ophelia in 2.2

Act 2 Scene 2 of Hamlet is perhaps one of the most important scenes in the entire play.  One of the questions that has troubled scholars for years is concerning the rapid and extreme change of Hamlet's character.  Act 1 scene 5 shows him very focused, rigid, and immobile; while in 2.2, we see a poetic beauty in Hamlet that has since been missing.  The letter her wrote, read by Polonius is a prime example.  Hamlet writes, 

“Doubt thou the stars are fire,  
Doubt that the sun doth move,
Doubt truth to be a liar,

  But never doubt I love.

 O dear Ophelia, I am ill at these numbers. I have not art to reckon my groans, but that I love thee best, oh, most best, believe it. Adieu.

  Thine evermore, most dear lady,

  whilst this machine is to him,

    Hamlet.”

 

These lines are some of the most poetically beautiful ever written by Shakespeare, and to come from a character who was a polar opposite two scenes before is a very stark changes that raises many questions. The characters around while Polonius reads the letter simply take it as Hamlet finally snapping - they think he has gone completely insane.  I however think that Hamlet is in full control all the time, and simply uses the letter to show even though he has changed, he knows exactly what he is doing in courting Ophelia

Understanding Hamlet (the character)

When I think of Hamlet, the first adjective that comes to mind is enigmatic.  Hamlet changes his personality and the inner workings of his mind so many times throughout the course of the play that there is no concrete definition of who he really is.  The best part is that Hamlet is very aware of who he is and what he is doing; he just doesn’t want everyone else to know.  He even tells his mother that there is more to him than meets the eye.  One of the most defining and amazing characteristics of Shakespeare’s writing is his ability to convey a subtle sense of uncertainty and deftness through Hamlet’s soliloquies.  This style is what really raises all of the questions as to who Hamlet really is.  During the beginning of the play, we see Hamlet as a contemplative university student who has his world crumble with the death of his father.  With his father’s death, Hamlet becomes obsessed with death; he constantly wonders about the afterlife, suicide, and what happens physically to bodies one we die.  These thoughts, combined with his obsession to frame his uncle for the death of his father causes Hamlet’s sanity to come into question.  The strangest part about all of his intellect and thoughtfulness is how openly they betray his actions.  While in his mind he is very careful and deliberate, his actions are brash and irrational.  The easiest example is when he stabs Polonius blindly without even checking to see whom it is.  It is the clash of these two very different personality traits that cause us as readers to constantly question who Hamlet really is.  Is he actually insane or is it just a game he is playing?  Not knowing the answer at the end of the play doesn’t help either – it’s just Shakespeare’s way of toying with his audience.

Ophelia's Flowers in Hamlet (Fennel)

William Shakespeare uses imagery, double meaning, and folklore references in almost all of his plays; none more apparent however, than in Hamlet.  Shakespeare shows his mastery of poetic techniques through his association of Ophelia with flowers to convey strong senses of evil, remembrance, and innocence throughout the play.  During the Elizabethan era, flowers were widely used to ward away bad spirits and symbolize ideas.  This practice is most evident in Act 4, scene 5 when Ophelia clearly goes mad, begins singing, and assigns flowers to her audience members.  While these assignments may appear to be the blabbering one someone who has clearly gone mad, with a little knowledge of floral folklore, we see exactly what Ophelia is doing.  During Shakespeare’s time, everyone in the audience knew of the flowers and the symbols each carried.  The fennel was widely believed to cast away evil spirits, as well being linked to improving sight and restoring youth (Watts 140-46).  Knowing this, Ophelia’s claim to give Claudius a fennel represents her view of Claudius as an evil man.  Ophelia blames Claudius for her father’s death and Hamlet’s spiraling madness, and claims he is both a murderer and a hypocrite.  This ties into the other meanings of the fennel – restoring eyesight and youth.  By offering Claudius the fennel, Ophelia is saying that he has become blind in his age, and that if he were able to return to his youth, he would be able to open his eyes and see what he was done, and no longer be so evil.  While this is just one example, it’s easy to see the Ophelia knows exactly what she is doing and saying in regards to her flower assignments.  All it takes is a little background knowledge on the subject, and we can gain a new level of understanding into Ophelia’s “madness”.

Gravediggers in Hamlet

Hamlet is Shakespeare’s best-known tragedy, his longest play, and viewed by many as his greatest work.  To me, one of the most interesting scenes is act 5, scene 1 – commonly referred to as “the gravedigger scene”.  In the scene, two gravediggers shovel out a grave for Ophelia while arguing whether or not she should have a “proper Christian” burial in accordance with the church doctrine because her death appeared to be a suicide.  The scene stands out in the play due to the colloquial manner in which the gravediggers joke with each other and Hamlet.  Especially in the Elizabethan era, when religion was so dominant and strict, this was a very bold (same may say callous) move on Shakespeare’s part.  The character of the gravedigger is prevalent throughout the majority of Shakespeare’s works, always as the peasant or commoner who gets the best of the nobility.  During the time of the play, these characters were especially appealing to the groundlings as they had someone they could relate to.  Finally, the scene reinforces one of the most prevalent themes throughout the play: Hamlet’s confrontation with death.  First seen in the death of his father, the theme continues with his ponderings over Yorik’s skull and the death of Ophelia, and comes to a fitting close in the graveyard over Ophelia’s death.  The entire scene is a step out of the norm of the time, however it is fairly standard when looking through Shakespeare’s other works.  The lack of respect shown for the church, humor and wit of the peasants, and the impact of death after the actual event are all reoccurring themes in Shakespeare’s plays, and combined into one scene, they make the gravedigger scene a very interesting one to read.

Omens in Julius Caesar

In many of his histories/tragedies, Shakespeare uses omens and the supernatural to convey ideas in a way that makes the audience question the role of the supernatural.  The first way he introduces this idea to the audience is through the storm in Act 1, scene 3.  In Casca’s words:

But never till tonight, never till now,
Did I go through a tempest dropping fire.
Either there is a civil strife in heaven,
Or else the world, too saucy with the gods,
Incenses them to send destruction. (Julius Caesar I.iii.9-13)

Clearly, through Casca’s description, Shakespeare conveys the idea that this is no ordinary storm.  During the storm, Cassius discusses with Casca his contempt for the thunder, which is a traditional representation of the power of the Gods, solidifying the idea that the storm is much more than a normal rain shower.  The storm symbolizes the growing conspiracy against Caesar and his supposed evil, and by including the Gods, plants the idea of some higher power controlling the fate of Caesar.

    During the same storm, Casca sees three interesting omens; a man on fire but not burning, a lion on the capitol steps not harassing people, and an owl screeching at midday.  Both the lion and the owl are out of their natural habitats, and are acting in an inconsistent manner compared to their normal archetype.  The man on fire is perhaps the most interesting, as it is an allusion to the Gods giving Prometheus the gift of fire, and shows the influence of the Gods early on in the play. All three of these omens represent an upset in the natural balance, and demonstrate the inclusion of divine power on the lives of the people of Rome, and Caesar in particular.

The Changing Richard III

The play Richard III is a tragedy - so right from the beginning we know Richard will go through a dramatic change. What we don’t know however, is just how drastic that change will be. The play starts off with a monologue by Richard recounting the end of the War of Roses, and lamenting on his deformed body and the evil that comes attached to that deformity. On lines 28-31, he says, “And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover/To entertain these fair well-spoken days,/I am determined to prove a villain/And hate the idle pleasures of these days.” These lines give us a glimpse of things to come, a window into Richard’s conniving mind and his evil plans. So from the very first lines, we learn that Richard has evil in store for all around him.

Throughout the monologue, Richard uses the word “I” 8 times. This is not because of Shakespeare’s lack of creativity; it is, in fact, just the opposite. Shakespeare does this to convey an important character trait of Richard – his certainess of his plans. Richard has himself irrevocably convinced that “these fair well-spoken days” must come to an end, and that he is the one who must change it. He must become King.

Now compare these traits to one of Richard’s final speeches, starting on line 178 of Act V, Scene 3. Richard exclaims, “What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by./Richard love Richard; that is, I and I./ Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am./… Alack, I love myself. Wherefore? For any good/That I myself have done unto myself./Oh no, alas, I rather hate myself.” I can keep going, but you get the idea. He is having an argument with himself, and the “myself” is overriding the “I”. Richard breaks when the ghosts of all the people he had a hand in murdering come to visit him. The use of the word “myself” gives us the idea that Richard is now two people, the cunning evil of the beginning of the play, and the needless evil of the end. Moral of the story? Don’t kill – easy enough.