Shakespeare Engaged!

I think our event last night was a success. We had about 80 people there, counting our classmates. And everything and everybody looked good, there weren't any embarrassing "technical difficulties," and the audience seemed to really enjoy our program.

I really liked the ways we involved the audience. Professor Burton's idea to have the audience share their "Shakespeare testimonies" was a great way to kick off the evening, and a good segue into sharing the blogs. We learned that Shakespeare is relevant to anything, whether it's serving the homeless, the nesting habits of cuckoo birds or cycling in the city of Boston.

After Averill's play, during the time that the audience could ask questions of the performers and documentary filmmakers, the idea came to me to ask the audience what they thought of seeing their family and friends up there on stage doing Shakespeare. I'm glad I thought of that, because I think it was another way for the audience to share the experience and to make the engagement a two-way street. And a few commented on how surprised and impressed they were with their friends and family and the production in general. Most people probably thought, "Class project? Yay [sarcastically]." They might have felt like they were watching their 12-year-old children playing "Hot Cross Buns" in a middle school concert, with squeaky clarinets and everything. But the actors did more than just memorize a few lines, and the documentary filmmakers did more than just turn on cameras.

I was very proud of everybody's projects. I was thinking about group projects I've done in the past, and I could tell that in this Shakespeare class, everybody worked hard. It didn't seem like there was anybody who did the minimum and then get their name put on the assignment anyway. Everybody put their heart and soul into it. And it was one of those few times when a group project actually made us all friends with each other.

Everything but the music video is available online. And everything will be put up on our Engaging Shakespeare website soon. (If that link doesn't work, try this one.)

Less Matter More Art

The group also got quite a response from their artwork posted on Deviant Art, and posted their lesson plans on a site called Connexions.

Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark: An Abridged Audiobook

(There's some overlap during the first minute of the audio, so skip ahead)

Love's Labours

Loves Labours, a documentary. from Shakespeare on Vimeo.

The World's a Stage

Although the music video isn't online yet, here's a clip from it.

 

Very cool stuff.

-------------------------------

The four learning outcomes for the course were 1) to gain Shakespeare literacy, 2) to critically analyze Shakespeare, 3) to engage Shakespeare creatively and 4) to share Shakespeare.

1) With a whole course devoted to Shakespeare, the themes and methods woven among all of Shakespeare's works were more evident to me. The text became more interesting than intimidating. I still need a little help from class or from sites like Shmoop and Sparknotes. But after reading those notes I can read the original Shakespeare and appreciate the way he said it more than the way Shmoop or Sparknotes said it.

2) I think most of my critical analysis has been done vicariously through classmates, in class discussions and in our Engaging Shakespeare night. But I have tried harder to critically analyze the text than I did earlier this semester. Earlier I blogged about the word play in Love's Labours Lost, to try and look at the words and writing itself.

Maybe I haven't done very much literary analysis, but I have tried to figure out why Shakespeare did what he did, and why he chose the themes he did. Most recently I did this type of analysis with King Lear.

3) Engaging Shakespeare creatively has been the easiest for me. I try to be creative with everything I do, especially in a literature class like this that opens itself up to creativity. During this second half of the semester my creative efforts were focused more on "Engaging Shakespeare" than on reading plays, but I tried to be creative with our presentation.

Exhibit A - I designed this logo for the event:

4) Other than tweeting and Facebooking about the Engaging Shakespeare event, I failed at this. I had intentions to live tweet King Lear, but haven't done it yet. Maybe I still will sometime during finals week.

I did do a lot to share Engaging Shakespeare over the Internet. I made a Facebook group and invited any Facebook friends who are at or around BYU, and I tweeted through my account and The Daily Universe account as often as I thought I could get away with.

But I'm not sure if all of that was really affected. It would have been interesting to find out how many people came to our event because of Facebook or Twitter. My guess is that most (if not all) people found out through more personal contact, like being invited by a spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend/roommate/friend, etc.

It will be exciting to see the future of our Engaging Shakespeare site. As more and more people find our projects over YouTube, Vimeo or Connexions, I hope the dialogue continues.

-------------------------------

I thoroughly enjoyed this class and it will be among my favorite memories of being a BYU student. Besides learning about Shakespeare or literature, I gained knowledge and experience that I'm sure will help me in multiple ways in the future.

Progress Report on 'Engaging Shakespeare'

So I actually have some progress to report in the final project!

Austin, Professor Burton and I have come up with more details.

First of all, the name of our event will be Engaging Shakespeare. The event is about more than just showing off our talents and what we've learned about Shakespeare, it's more of a two-way thing. We're hoping for a dialogue and a foundation that can be built upon, something that will take a life of its own after this semester is over.

That's where the website will become more important. The website will be about promoting this event, but it will also be the home of our various projects and allow room for people to add to them.

We've also got details about the event itself:

Friday, Dec. 9
7 p.m.
B192 JFSB (the Education in Zion theater)

Here's what we'll be presenting that night:

- A mini-play adaptation of Shakespeare, Love's Labours, presented by Averill and her troupe of troubadours, based on Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet and Love's Labours Lost.

- A documentary, Love's Labours: A Journey, showing the behind-the-scenes of Averill's mini-play, directed by Kelsie

Check out this preview!


Documentary sneak peak from Shakespeare on Vimeo.

- A music video with original lyrics! directed by Kara (Check out this blog tracking their progress)

- Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark: The Abridged Audiobook, directed by Amanda

- Less Matter, More Art, a presentation of art with lesson plans for teaching Shakespeare and art in schools, directed by Mason and Cassandra

It's going to be totally awesome.

I'll be sure to post about our website once it's up, and blog, tweet and Facebook about it like crazy. But until then, I'll just publicize from here:

Come to Engaging Shakespeare! Next Friday night! Take a break from studying for finals and enjoy Shakespeare and/or student-made artwork! Tell all your friends!

El Guillermo Shakespeare

For my "local sharing" requirement, I talked about Julius Caesar with my sister-in-law, Nadia. She is from Lima, Peru, so every once in a while I practice my quickly fading Spanish with her. I thought for this assignment, I'd try something different by trying to discuss Shakespeare, the greatest writer in the English language, in Spanish.

Me, Nadia and my little brother Evan. (Nadia married my other brother, Trent.)

I wondered if students in Peru learned about Shakespeare, or if he was only considered essential to English-speaking schools. Nadia told me that Shakespeare was introduced as the vehicle for teaching plays as one form of language arts. They read Romeo and Juliet, and learned the facts of Shakespeare's life, like when he lived and died.

Then she came to BYU and majored in English. She wanted to avoid taking a Shakespeare class, but a professor convinced her to take it. And she said she really enjoyed it. She read Hamlet, The Tempest and Othello. And she said she really liked Othello.

So then I told Nadia the basic outline of Julius Caesar. Here's a translation of how I summed it up: "Caesar is gaining a lot of power. And one of his enemies, Cassius, wanted to kill him, and he convinced his friend Brutus to kill him. Brutus really thought he was doing the right thing, because by killing Caesar he was protecting Rome. But Cassius really just wanted power. Another friend of Caesar's, Mark Antony, fought on Caesar's side against Brutus and Cassius in a civil war. But Mark Antony just wanted power too. So Brutus was the only one not interested in power, and yet he was the one who killed Caesar."

It was while I gave her that simple plotline that I realized the irony of Brutus killing Caesar.

Something else I brought up with Nadia was that Julius Caesar is known for being a simple play, without anything about sex, which is why it's often read in high schools. And because it's so simple, it might be an easy one for her to try on her own. Not that she needs remedial English - she not only majored in English, she plans on being a novelist.

Maybe she'll be the next William Guillermo Guillermina Shakespeare, who knows?

Abraham Lincoln and a Grizzly bear

Shakespeare exhibited his timelessness with by writing a play that based on events from 1,643 years earlier that was just as relevant in his day. By the same token, here we are 412 years later still learning and analyzing the play.

I believe the reason why Julius Caesar has stood the test of time is because wherever there is politics, there is ambition, betrayal, rebellion, conflict, and other traits less than virtuous that are revealed. Since the moment a person was deemed more powerful than another, that power has been envied and lusted after by others.

Painting by Paul Peter Rubens

This human characteristic can be traced as far back as Cain and Abel. Abel was not a political figure, but Cain was jealous of Abel's favorable standing with God and God's perceived preference. He took matters into his own hands in an attempt to gain power. Since then, the dirty side of politics has only gotten dirtier.

The events in Julius Caesar are actually pretty close to history. What the play didn't dwell on, however, was the turmoil Rome was reeling from before the play opens. It was on Caesar's watch, essentially, when Rome's republic fell apart and faded into an empire. Caesar had a few impressive military conquests on his résumé, which led to his popularity. But some of those conquests were in direct violation with the Roman Senate's wishes. And the one referenced in Shakespeare's play, against Pompey, was against a former close friend of Caesar's. In fact, Pompey was one of the members of Rome's first triumvirate. With Caesar. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic#First_Triumvirate, http://www.gradesaver.com/julius-caesar/study-guide/about/)

In Shakespeare's time, England was going through its own turmoil. Julius Caesar was written in 1599, about 50 years before the English Civil War. But already, the war drums were beating. The Elizabethan era dealt with clashes among England's House of Commons and aristocrats and royalty. England was shifting from a monarchy to a parliament, as Rome was shifting from a republic to an empire.

Of course, today, political intrigue continues. It may be less bloody, especially in the more stable democracies. But that doesn't mean the end of controversy and upheaval.

Last week, I gave you George Washington killing zombies. Now, here's Abraham Lincoln with a machine gun riding a bear. Don't overthink it.

In my live blogging and blogging between reading acts of Julius Caesar, I found a lot of connections between the play and American history and politics. What fits best with this analysis though is the American Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the American case, it wasn't so much a war over two types of government as much as two types of culture and society (which, come to think of it, might be more precarious). It's hard to imagine now, but the American experiment came very close to failing. Lincoln's murder was not committed by someone merely insane, as was William McKinley's or the near-miss against Ronald Reagan. John Wilkes Booth was clearly motivated by politics. He and his co-conspirators really thought that with Lincoln gone, more things would go their way and the South could stay in power.

So what does this mean for us in 2011? Are the days of blood at the hands of politicians over? We don't have to go back too far to know the answer is a resounding no. Just this year, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was almost killed. And although Jared Loughner wasn't necessarily trying to usurp power, he was definitely motivated by politics. This tragedy hit close to home for me. And it shows that the world is still a dangerous place. It was in Caesar's day, Shakespeare's day, Lincoln's day, and our day.

Like our class discussed with Hamlet, what makes Shakespeare so special is his understanding of human frailties. His plays resonate because he touched on the natural man, something that transcends centuries and civilizations.

That's one of the many lessons I gained from Julius Caesar. As long as politics exist, people will do whatever it takes to gain power.

--------------------------------------------

To briefly analyze the movie Julius Caesar (since I said so much about it last week):

I don't think the 1953 movie purposefully integrated anything extra in a political sense. I felt like it presented the text as is, and didn't fit in references to contemporary politics. Maybe it's because it came out during the Nifty Fifties, when things were peachy and keen and swell. The U.S. had just fought "The Good War," and all was right in the world.

What I did notice was the backdrop of the Roman Empire in all its grandiose ornateness and sophistry. I think that was probably the main selling point of the movie, was Shakespearean elegance surrounded by an epic set, like The Ten Commandments. It was very small-scale compared to The Ten Commandments, but it plays into Hollywood's fascination with Rome. (The other main selling point was Marlon Brando.)

--------------------------------------------

As far as connecting Julius Caesar to my personal interests, I think I've done plenty of that already. It's probably best summed up here, but if you dare read my whole process, click here.

--------------------------------------------

And I had a lot of fun going back and forth with Averill about Julius Caesar. She started out with a goal to read the play with a historical perspective, but ended with a religious one that I thought was very interesting and valuable. You can read her posts and my comments here:

History is a thing of the past

Et tu, Brute?

Marlon Brando = Stud

Caesar and Christianity

The unkindest cut

1) Here's more of Caesar's possible ambition:

"Thy brother by decree is banished:
If thou dost bend and pray and fawn for him,
I spurn thee like a cur out of my way.
Know, Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause
Will he be satisfied. ...

I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber'd sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there's but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; 'tis furnish'd well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he,
Let me a little show it, even in this;
That I was constant Cimber should be banish'd,
And constant do remain to keep him so."

Of course, in some ways it's good to be constant like the northern star. But not in stubbornness and refusal to forgive.

2) But is that really tyrannical enough to kill him? There are probably lots of politicians who would also keep Metellus' brother banished. Are Cassius, Brutus and their co-conspirators just paranoid? Or would allowing Caeser to live also allow for less and less freedom? Were they justified in their preemptive strike?

It seems that if it weren't for Cassius' bloodthirstiness, Brutus would have definitely waited a little bit.

3) Mark Antony's reaction is strange to me. He's standing above Caesar's lifeless body, and basically says, "Now, before I get mad, let me know if you have a good reason for killing him." Is it because he trusts and admires Brutus so much, that he's sure there must be a justifiable reason? Or, maybe it fits with what I noticed while watching the movie. Maybe Mark Antony has been thinking about doing the same thing, and Brutus simply beat him to the punch.

4) After the murderers leave, Mark Antony is left to speak his soliloquy and promise to avenge Caesar's death by means of civil war.

So is Mark Antony genuine? Were my observations and suspicions unfounded? I guess I'll have to keep reading.

5) I've made a few connections between Brutus and Hamlet. Both spent time contemplating the pros and cons of committing murder and working up the courage to do it. But Brutus' contemplation was a lot more intellectual and methodical while Hamlet was just being emo. And the later scene with Caesar's ghost of course recalls the scenes with Hamlet's ghost.

But here's Mark Antony, the moment he is finally alone, promising to avenge Caesar's death. He doesn't need a ghost to tell him or a long time to be moody and broody.

Does that mean Mark Antony loved Caesar more than Hamlet loved his father? Or does it mean something else?

6) Is there significance to Brutus beginning his speech with "Romans, countrymen, and lovers" while Mark Antony says "Friends, Romans, countrymen"? Nothing comes to mind, they seem pretty close. Maybe "lovers" is a little more intimate than "friends" (although I know the definitions were more similar back in Caesar's and Shakespeare's day), and the crowd felt like Brutus was flattering and condescending while Mark Antony was describing his relationship with his fellow Romans more realistically. Maybe?

7) Brutus: "... as I slew my best lover for the
good of Rome, I have the same dagger for myself,
when it shall please my country to need my death."

Because of Brutus' modesty and patriotism, and the final lines of the play, I'm inclined to believe Brutus when he says this.

8) Here's that mob mentality again...

(after Brutus' speech)

"All: Live, Brutus! live, live!

First Citizen: Bring him with triumph home unto his house

Second Citizen: Give him a statue with his ancestors.

Third Citizen: Let him be Caesar.

Fourth Citizen: Caesar's better parts

Shall be crown'd in Brutus.

First Citizen: We'll bring him to his house

With shouts and clamours."

(and, after Mark Antony's speech)

"First Citizen: Methinks there is much reason in his sayings.

Second Citizen: If thou consider rightly of the matter,

Caesar has had great wrong. 

... 

Fourth Citizen: Mark'd ye his words? He would not take the crown;

Therefore 'tis certain he was not ambitious. 

First Citizen: If it be found so, some will dear abide it. 

Second Citizen: Poor soul! his eyes are red as fire with weeping. 

Third Citizen: There's not a nobler man in Rome than Antony."

Oh, how fickle are the masses! They seem to just believe whatever happens to be the last thing they've heard.

9) Yeah, I'm pretty sure Mark Antony is being sarcastic here. "Oh, Brutus is so honorable..." ... "I don't want to say anything, because you might gang up on Brutus and Cassius..." ... "No, I don't think I will read you Caesar's will, I shouldn't have even mentioned it in the first place..." ... "Oh, if only I was as good an orator as Brutus is..." ... "Wait, don't forget, I was going to tell you about the will..."

What a tease!

And, wait a second, with Mark Antony describing which wounds were inflicted by Cassius and which ones by Brutus ... Mark Antony wasn't even there.

Yeah, he's definitely up to something. It may not be his own ambition, just revenge against Cassius and Brutus. But either way, he's flip-flopping.

Ah, here's the confirmation:

"Mark Antony: Now let it work.

Mischief, thou art afoot,
Take thou what course thou wilt!"

1953 Julius Caesar live blog #11

There's another connection between Brutus and Hamlet: when the ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus in his military tent.

What are the differences? First of all, in Hamlet, the ghost appears to his possible avenger. In Julius Caesar, the ghost appears to his killer. Also, in Hamlet, Hamlet is not the first one to see the ghost, he is just one of several witnesses. In Brutus' case, however, he is the only one who sees or hears the ghost.

1953 Julius Caesar live blog #5

As opposed to Cassius' previous monologue, in Brutus' first monologue his eyes look everywhere but  the camera. I think this makes him look more thoughtful and less intense. He seems less determined than Cassius, and more just thinking out loud. More like Hamlet, I would say.

Grandma could teach a thing or two to Hamlet

My blogging schedule has been a little off lately. My grandma died last Thursday, and I was out of town for her funeral in Everett, WA on Monday. Not only was I gone, but my wife, daughter, brother, his wife, and cousin and I all drove to Everett from Provo. We left as soon as my LSAT was over on Saturday, arrived in Everett at 7 a.m. on Sunday morning. On Tuesday morning, we left Everett and got back to Provo at 2 a.m. Wednesday. Oh, and did I mention that the six of us were in a Ford Taurus? And there are really only 5 1/2 seats? And if any of you have children, you know that even with a small child you still have to bring tons of stuff.

So, anyway, I had quite a weekend. Of course, I spent a lot of time thinking about my grandma. Grandma is probably the relative I'm closest to who isn't in my immediate family. I was fortunate enough to be able to speak at her funeral and represent her 25 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.

Grandma holding my daughter, Allisyn, when Allisyn was about two weeks old

Anyone who knew my grandma knew about her musical talents. She earned a bachelor's degree from BYU in music, and a master's degree in music theory (in 1962, a time when a lot of women didn't get master's degrees). She sang, played the piano and the violin, and taught her seven children to do the same. One of those children, my mom, taught her seven children all the songs too.

And now that I have a little family of my own, and it's time to sing my little girl to sleep, what songs come to mind? They're songs my grandma taught me. The first song I remember learning that I still know today is "I Am a Child of God," but the second song that I still know is "Old Zip Coon," thanks to my grandma.

Another thing I loved about my grandma was that she was a peacemaker. My mom told me stories about how her dad was always the disciplinarian, and it was my grandma who would intercede and advocate for her children. She was always calm and sweet, when I fought with my little siblings or didn't want to eat my vegetables. "How do you know you don't like them if you haven't tried them? Just try them, and if you don't like them you don't have to eat the rest." She was able to see the good in both sides of a situation, and bring people together. At her funeral, people told stories of her being able to deliver a plate of homemade cookies to the mean neighbors across the street.

For the blog today, I found an interesting way to relate my grandma's passing away to Shakespeare. In Hamlet's famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy, he begins by suggesting that maybe death is favorable to life.

"To die - to sleep -
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die - to sleep."

But then, Hamlet looks at the downside of "sleeping":

"To sleep- perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub!
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. ...

But that the dread of something after death-
The undiscover'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns- puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?"

Death may be some kind of release, but it is an "undiscover'd country," something we're not familiar with. Just like the dreams we have are unpredictable, so is death. We can't determine whether death will be a sweet dream or a nightmare.

But Hamlet didn't know what my grandma knows, and what I know now because of my grandma's example. Yes, when you fall asleep, your dreams are random. But, when it comes to the "eternal sleep," we point our "dreams" in a certain direction based on how we live.

Because my grandma was so sweet and righteous, she had nothing to fear when death came. She lived in a way that she set herself up for good "dreams" after she died.

Maybe death isn't an "undiscover'd country" at all. We discover it in life. The country we discover in life becomes our country in death.

Because of my testimony of resurrection and the plan of salvation, funerals are not as sad as I imagine it would be for people who don't believe in a life after death. I was crying a lot at Grandma's funeral, but I don't think it was because Grandma was gone. I think it was the Spirit witnessing to me the exemplary life my grandma lived, and teaching me what I need to do to live up to that standard. Hearing about how amazing my grandma's life was makes me want to make my life more amazing.

If I live a life like Grandma did, then death won't be an "undiscover'd country." It will be a "consummation."

Horatio the Cabbie

Today's blog post is brought to you by my friend Bert. Bert is in his first year of law school at the University of Utah, and he came across a Shakespeare reference in one of the cases he was reading.

The case is Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., a case in New York City Court in 1941.

Here's the story behind the case: Mugger #1 and Mugger #2 mug Helpless Victim at gunpoint. Helpless Victim then chases Mugger #1 and Mugger #2. Mugger #1 jumps into a cab to escape, and points his gun at Cabbie. Cabbie decides he wants to get away from the gun and jump out of the cab. After he jumps out, the cab keeps moving and hits Lady. Lady later sues the cab company.

Pretty crazy, huh?

So, the court decided that Cabbie did what any normal person would do, and that it's not his fault the runaway cab hit Lady. It was an emergency situation, so Cabbie wasn't guilty of negligence.

Anyway, if you read the court case, you can tell the judge had a lot of fun writing the decision:

"[The chauffer] states that

His uninvited guest

Boarded the cab at 25th Street

While it was at a standstill

Waiting for a less colorful fare;

That his ‘passenger’ immediately

Advised him ‘to stand not upon

The order of his going

But to go at once’

And added finality to his command

By an appropriate gesture

With a pistol addressed to his sacro iliac.

The chauffeur in reluctant acquiescence

Proceeded about fifteen feet, when his hair,

Like unto the quills of the fretful porcupine,

Was made to stand on end

By the hue and cry of the man despoiled

Accompanied by a clamourous concourse

Of the law-abiding which paced him as he ran;

The concatenation of ‘stop thief,'

To which the patter of persistent feet

Did maddingly beat time,

Rang in his ears as the pursuing posse all the while

Gained on the receding cab

With its quarry therein contained.

The hold-up man

Sensing his insecurity

Suggested to the chauffeur that

In the event there was the

Slightest lapse in obedience

To his curt command that he, the chauffeur,

Would suffer the loss of his brains,

A prospect as horrible to an humble chauffeur

As it undoubtedly would be to one

Of the intelligentsia.

The chauffeur apprehensive of

Certain dissolution from either Scylla, the pursuers,

Or Charybdis, the pursued,

Quickly threw his car out of first speed

In which he was proceeding,

Pulled on the emergency, jammed on his brakes and,

Although he thinks the motor was still running,

Swung open the door to his left

And jumped out of his car.

He confesses that the only act

That smacked of intelligence 

Was that by which he jammed the brakes

In order to throw off balance the hold-up man

Who was half-standing and half-sitting

With his pistol menacingly poised."

Wow.

The judge goes on to explain that Cabbie did what anyone would do, including certain Shakespearean characters:

"If a person is placed in a sudden peril

From which death might ensue,

The law does not impel another

To the rescue of the person endangered

Nor does it condemn him

For his unmoral failure

To rescue when he can;

This is in recognition of the immutable law

Written in frail flesh.

Returning to our chauffeur.

If the philosophic Horatio

And the martial companions of his watch

Were ‘distilled almost to jelly with the act of fear’

When they beheld ‘in the dead vast and middle of the night’

The disembodied spirit of Hamlet's father

Stalk majestically by ‘with a countenance

More in sorrow than in anger’

Was not the chauffeur,

Though unacquainted with the example

Of these eminent men-at-arms,

More amply justified in his

Fearsome reactions when he was

More palpably confronted by a thing of flesh and blood

Bearing in its hand an engine of destruction

Which depended for its lethal purpose

Upon the quiver of a hair?

When Macbeth was cross-examined

By Macduff as to any reason he

Could advance for his sudden despatch

Of Duncan's grooms he said

In plausible answer

‘Who can be wise, amazed,

Temperate and furious,

Loyal and neutral, in a moment? No man’.

Macbeth did not by a ‘tricksy word’ thereby

Stand justified as he criminally created

The emergency from which he

Sought escape by indulgence

In added felonies to divert suspicion

To the innocent.

However, his words may be wrested

To the advantage of the defendant's chauffeur

Whose acts cannot be legally construed as

The proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries,

However regrettable,

Unless nature's first law is arbitrarily disregarded."

Again, wow.

If I'm ever a judge, I hope I write cases that way. That would be awesome! 

Sit right back and you'll hear a Winter's Tale

Here's a sort of hodgepodge of thoughts I've had while reading Acts II through IV of The Winter's Tale:

-------------------------------------------------------------

- I found three instances of characters comparing their characteristics as if they are measurable.

Paulina, talking about Hermione: "... a gracious innocent soul, More free than he is jealous."

Paulina, talking about herself: "... no less honest Than you are mad ..."

Hermione, in her testimony for the court: "You, my lord, best know, Who least will seem to do so, my past life Hath been as continent, as chaste, as true, As I am now unhappy."

It looks as though Hermione and Paulina should be understood as the opposite of Leontes. Where Leontes is the nadir, Hermione and Paulina are the zenith.

Also, do we do this in real life? Do we say "I'm as good at" something "as he or she is bad at" something? Do we compare ourselves to others with exact quantities?

Another way to think of it: Does the worst day of your life counterbalance the best day of your life? Does one unit of happiness equal one unit of unhappiness? Or does a little bit of happiness outweigh a lot of unhappiness? Or is it vice versa?

-------------------------------------------------------------

- I noticed two references very close to each other to shoulders.

Clown, when describing the bear attack he just saw: "And then for the land-service, to see how the bear tore out his shoulder-bone; how he cried to me for help and said his name was Antigonus, a nobleman."

Autolycus, when he is faking an injury to take advantage of the Clown: "O, good sir, softly, good sir! I fear, sir, my shoulder-blade is out."

The two events are 16 years apart in the story, and on either side of an intermission while watching the play. But when you read it, they seem like they are right next to each other. So I guess it might be a way that Shakespeare is playing with the fast-forward through time. Or, is it a foreshadowing of what is to come? Should this injured traveler's shoulder remind the Clown of Antigonus' shoulder being eaten by a bear? Should he be anticipating the story coming full circle? Should we?

Huh, I don't know, maybe I have a thing with the symbolism of body parts.

Speaking of bears, here's Jim and Dwight having an academic discussion on what bear is best:  

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://images.askmen.com/celebs/men/entertainment_200/230_james_bondlarge_image-1.jpg

- A pretty obvious connection with Polixenes spying on his son and Polonius wanting to spy on his, right? One thing that is different to me is that Polixenes is doing it himself, instead of sending someone else with instructions of how to spy. What does that say about Polixenes? Is he more paranoid than Polonius? Or more of a "do-it-yourselfer" than Polonius?

I'm All Ears

For those of you who were in class the other day, you've already heard me make this comment. So I'm recycling it for a blog post, not because I'm lazy but because I'm interested in it. (Okay, it is 11:30 p.m., so maybe I'm a little lazy...)

As I was reading Hamlet, I kept noticing the words "ear" or "ears" pop up. I think knowing the plot summary before reading Hamlet, and knowing that Hamlet Sr. died from poison being poured in his ear, must have put me on "ear" alert. Maybe it was just such a strange way to die, I don't think I've heard of it. It kind of reminds me of Yeerks ... Animorphs, anyone?

Anyway, when I brought up in class the reoccurring ear theme, Professor Burton pointed out the perfect website for researching this kind of thing: Shakespeare Searched. You can search for any word or phrase in any Shakespeare play or spoken by any Shakespeare character. It's a handy way to find any instances of a motif you want to learn more about.

So, here are a few of the quotes from Hamlet (Acts I, II and III) with the words "ear" or "ears":

Act I, Scene I

Bernardo:

Sit down awhile;

And let us once again assail your ears,

That are so fortified against our story

What we have two nights seen.

Act I, Scene II

Horatio:

Season your admiration for awhile

With an attent ear, till I may deliver,

Upon the witness of these gentlemen,

This marvel to you.

Act III, Scene IV

Gertrude:

O, speak to me no more;

These words, like daggers, enter in mine ears;

No more, sweet Hamlet!

Act I, Scene II

Hamlet:

I would not hear your enemy say so,

Nor shall you do mine ear that violence,

To make it truster of your own report

Against yourself: I know you are no truant.

Act II, Scene II

Hamlet:

... He would drown the stage with tears

And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,

Make mad the guilty and appal the free,

Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed

The very faculties of eyes and ears. Yet I...

Act I, Scene III

Laertes:

Then weigh what loss your honour may sustain,

If with too credent ear you list his songs,

Or lose your heart, or your chaste treasure open

To his unmaster'd importunity.

Act I, Scene V

Ghost:

'Tis given out that, sleeping in my orchard,

A serpent stung me; so the whole ear of Denmark

Is by a forged process of my death

Rankly abused: but know, thou noble youth,

The serpent that did sting thy father's life

Now wears his crown.

Act I, Scene V

Ghost:

Upon my secure hour thy uncle stole,

With juice of cursed hebenon in a vial,

And in the porches of my ears did pour

The leperous distilment; whose effect

Holds such an enmity with blood of man

That swift as quicksilver it courses through

The natural gates and alleys of the body,

And with a sudden vigour doth posset

And curd, like eager droppings into milk,

The thin and wholesome blood: so did it mine;

And a most instant tetter bark'd about,

Most lazar-like, with vile and loathsome crust,

All my smooth body.

Do you notice any connections?

What I'm noticing is the ear being described as a portal into the body, one of "the natural gates and alleys of the body," as Shakespeare put it. But only in the case of the Ghost was it actual poison invading the body through the ear. In the other examples, what was infecting the body was lies.

"The whole ear of Denmark" was told that Hamlet Sr. was killed by a serpent, which wasn't true. If Ophelia's ears were too quick to believe the flattering lies Hamlet was telling her, she'd get in trouble (and have to get herself to a nunnery). The actors would amaze the ears of the audience through their lies (albeit benevolent lies, for the sake of entertainment). Hamlet takes Horatio's claim of truancy to be a lie. And Bernardo tells Horatio and Horatio tells Hamlet that they had better get their ears ready for the story of the ghost, which might seem like a lie but really isn't. (Or is it?)

Maybe what Shakespeare is trying to do is equate the "cursed hebenon" poison with lies. They both do damage -- in fact, lies possibly do more damage than poison would. After all, Hamlet Sr. just has to wait it out in purgatory, while the family and subjects he leaves behind are misled, confused, suspicious and crazy in an intricate web of lies.

In the case of Gertrude's quote, it's not lies that "like daggers enter in [her] ears." No, what is actually stabbing her ears is the truth. Hamlet is accusing her of living "in the rank sweat of an enseamed bed, stew'd in corruption, honeying and making love over the nasty sty!" And calls her "a murtherer and a villain!" Because she has succumbed to such evil and has let it dictate her life, she is so far gone that the truth stings worse than lies do. The wicked taketh the truth to be hard...

(If you want to hear President Obama's ears joke, skip to 4:00. If you love the troops, you'll watch the whole thing.)

The Colbert Report

Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Welcome to Refudiatin'

So, I have a total of four blogs to my name: first, Adventures in Animation, a short-lived blog for sharing my sketches and drawings while I tried to get into the BYU animation program (to no avail); second, J Squared, a personal blog that has evolved into a source for all my newspaper articles and cartoons as well as some political commentary; third, J.J., Erin and Allisyn, the blog that tracks all of my adventures with my wife and one-year-old daughter (mostly run by my better half); and fourth, Man Stuff, a collaboration with guys from the Ward Formerly Known as the BYU 5th Ward who wanted to offer a counterpart to their wives' mommy blogs (my contributions are usually related to BYU sports).

Now, if I were to tell you that I was starting a new blog, your first reaction would probably be, "What? This guy blabs on and on and on as it is. He's on Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus, Blogger, in the newspaper all the time ... isn't that enough already?" And after you come to terms with me blowing yet more hot air online or in print, you would probably guess the subject would be either trying to get into law school or our two months living in New York. But, nope, you'd be wrong.

Even if you had 100 guesses, you probably wouldn't think it would be Shakespeare.

But, yes, this semester I'm taking a Shakespeare class at BYU, one I've always wanted to find room for but couldn't until now. And one of the main class projects is a network of Shakespeare blogs manned by my professor, Dr. Gideon Burton.

I've always been interested in Shakespeare, I think because I've always been interested in a little bit of everything. Knowing stuff is just one of my favorite things to do. I like knowing current events, world capitals, old movies ("Oh, so that's why Citizen Kane is such a big deal") and classic rock ("Oh, so that's why The Beatles are such a big deal). It just helps me feel smart. And at the very least, knowing all this trivia helps me to be awesome at armchair "Jeopardy!" or it helps me understand all the pop culture references on "Gilmore Girls" or "Psych."

For some reason, I've always wanted to know more about Shakespeare. Shakespeare is probably the second most pervasive writing in the world, just behind the Bible. I would bet most people were introduced to lines like "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" and "To be, or not to be? That is the question" before they even entered kindergarten.

And around that age, when I knew all the U.S. presidents from Washington to Clinton and knew all 50 states in the United States, I actually looked forward to the day when I would read Shakespeare plays in school, instead of watching every token "Romeo and Juliet" episode from every family sitcom.

(Skip to the 3:50 or the 14:13 mark on the timeline)

In high school I read "Julius Caesar" and "Macbeth," and here at BYU I read "The Winter's Tale" and "King Lear." And now that I'm taking a class with Shakespeare as its focus, I'm excited to become even more of a Shakespeare scholar.

Two other bits of my personal history with Shakespeare: I've had two cartoons in The Daily Universe that were references to Shakespeare.

This was my response to the ridiculous hullabaloo over President Boyd K. Packer's talk last October.

And this was making fun of Sarah Palin for comparing herself to Shakespeare last summer (which also brought about the name of this blog).

And now, I'll close with this, since for the class I'm currently reading "Hamlet" (this is "The Simpsons," so there is some mild, not-BYU-appropriate swearing):