Long time no blog

Hey Shakespeare fans,

It's literally been 11 days since I last updated ye olde Shakespeare blog. I don't really have a good excuse, other than that I've been busier that normal. But I finally turned in my 20-page paper for my political science class, and I got through today's crazy day at The Daily Universe ... so I'm ready to talk Shakespeare.

Since my last foray into Shakespeare and social media, not a whole lot has happened. No one responded to any of my tweets. I did get Janet Somerville to follow me on both her personal Twitter account and her literature teacher account. Unfortunately, I haven't tweeted about Shakespeare since! So I've probably disappointed her, haha.

My new plan is to "live tweet" while I continue reading King Lear. My live blogging for Julius Caesar was a lot of fun, but also a lot of work. I'm hoping that live tweeting will be less effort and yet have more of an audience. I'll just be sure to add #Shakespeare and #KingLear to all my tweets, and then anyone who happens to be looking for Shakespeare and King Lear tweets will find mine. There's a smaller chance that someone would come across my blog.

So, we'll see how it goes.

Most of my energy for this Shakespeare class lately has been the final project. Austin and I have been assigned to get the word out about all the other final projects, and put together an event to show them off. It's been fun to collaborate and get ideas. Austin will design a website that will preview everybody's projects. And we're planning on a "Shakespeare night" on Friday, December 9. You should all come! Mark your calendars!

Maybe you can help me with something.

What should we call this event? I've been calling it "Shakespeare night" or "the event" in my head, but we should come up with something catchier. A lot of our class has been focused on blogging and digital social media, and that's something we would be showing off for the event. So maybe "Digital Shakespeare"? Or "Cyber Shakespeare"? ("Cyber Shakespeare" would be better, with the alliteration and all.) And I could draw a logo of a cool, cartoon Shakespeare with a smart phone and an iPad or something like that. What do you think? Or what other ideas can you think of?

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_159/1182983557TqR2Sd.jpg

Midstream

Here we are, halfway done with the semester, which means it's time to look back on a half-semester with Shakespeare.

A. Learning Outcomes

1. How have I gained Shakespeare literacy?

Each scene I read of Shakespeare is a little easier to understand. More and more I can just read the original text, and for the times that I am lost I have found that Shmoop's summaries work well as a modern translation. And often if I read how Shmoop says it and then read how Shakespeare said it, everything clicks and becomes clear to me.

2. How have I analyzed Shakespeare critically?

I think most of my analysis has come from either class discussion or the live performances. I don't know if most of what I do on this blog counts as analysis. I talk about themes and morals that Shakespeare presents, but I probably don't really analyze his writing. But I do participate in class, and I come up with lots of ideas for analyzing the live plays and their connections to the text.

After The Winter's Tale
After The Tempest

3. How have I engaged Shakespeare creatively?

I think through this blog I have found ways to to connect Shakespeare with more commonplace yet still meaningful ideas. (I think this has helped a little with the Shakespeare literacy as well.) I find ways to have fun with Shakespeare rather than just read or watch it. I have an objective in mind, and it helps me have some fun with the play and also pay more attention to what I'm reading.

Here are some examples:

Live blogging Julius Caesar
Looking for word play in Love's Labour's Lost

4. How have I shared Shakespeare meaningfully?

I think this blog has been my main vehicle for sharing my learning process. I don't just blog for blogging's sake, but I imagine an actual audience I'm communicating with whenever I am writing. For the most part, it seems that audience has only been Professor Burton and my classmates. But my wife reads it, or at least claims to (Hi, Babe! :) ) And occasionally when I am either especially proud of a blog post or I think my friends outside of ENGL 232 would be interested, I share a link on Facebook or Twitter.

Here are some that I've tweeted or posted on Facebook:

El Guillermo Shakespeare
'They seemed unto him but a few days'
George Washington the Zombie Killer

B. Self-directed learning

1. What have I done that demonstrates I have taken charge of my own learning about Shakespeare?

Everything about this blog is me taking charge of Shakespeare. This blog is very much a stream-of-consciousness outlet, where I get to write about what Shakespeare makes me think of and what interests me. I think browsing this blog might be a way to show how my brain works, or at least how my brain handles literature.

A few such personalized posts:

I'm All Ears
Clownin' Around

2. How am I doing at planning my learning, documenting my learning, scheduling and carrying out learning activities, and measuring my learning?

The blogging schedule has really helped me. Although I've been late a couple of times, knowing that I need to have a new blog post every Monday and Wednesday has helped me maintain my semester with Shakespeare. It also helps me to document the whole learning process, instead of just blogging after I finish a play.

I admit that for a lot of my blogging for Julius Caesar, my individual play, I did things last minute. I know I would have gotten more out of it, especially the global sharing assignment, if I had started earlier.

C. Collaborative and Social Learning

1. Which students have aided me the most in my own learning (through help inside or outside of class, through their comments on my blog, or through their blogging, etc.)?

My blogging group has been great. Kelsie, Christa, Lauren, Matt and Anthony have all added so much to my knowledge and appreciation for Shakespeare. We've all gotten the hang of this blogging thing and I think all of us have come up with some awesome stuff. Kelsie provides more of the deep insights, Christa more of the entertaining yet meaningful rants, Lauren the fun, "whaddaya know" posts, Anthony with a sincere desire to understand this area that he admits he is unfamiliar with and Matt has been really good at learning from and responding to all of us. We're a great team. We should be made into a sitcom.

I also enjoyed reading Julius Caesar with Averill. She and I had very different approaches to reading the play, but we were interested enough in each other's interpretations to have some good back-and-forth between our blogs, and in real life too. It was fun having her in the carpool on our way to see The Tempest on Saturday.

Speaking of which, my other carpoolmates for both field trips have been great for bouncing around ideas and thinking of any and every observation we made of the plays. Averill, Chris and Meg contributed especially to the car ride discussion.

2. How is working within the assigned learning groups working? How could this be improved?

I think it works really well, especially compared to the usual working with groups in a classroom. I think in most of my BYU experience, students like to do things on their own and despise group projects. Maybe because we all at least care enough about Shakespeare to take a class, or because literature is just fun and easy to talk about, or because of the added blogging element - I don't know, but for some reason we actually look forward to talking to each other in class.

The one thing that would add more to the discussion would be to have some sort of documentation. We have some really great discussions, but it seems like it all vanishes when class is over, unless one of us happens to remember it for a blog post. I don't think I would want to appoint a secretary to take minutes, but maybe there would be some way to preserve our great ideas.

3. How am I involving others (outside of my group or even our class) in my learning? Or, how am I applying my learning about Shakespeare in social settings beyond class?

This is one area that I am definitely subpar in. Other than the occasional Facebook post or conversation with my wife about my day at school, I haven't shared my Shakespeare experience very much outside of class. And I fulfilled the global sharing requirement, but without spending much time on it and without doing anything special, really. I still haven't seen much response from those efforts, but those efforts weren't very impressive to begin with.

D. Looking Ahead

1. State what your plans are for meeting learning outcomes or personal learning plans that are incomplete. This can include discussion of the final project.

For the future, I want to do better to start assignments earlier so that I can spend more time with them, instead of waiting until just before the deadline and then checking it off my list. Other than that, this class is going well and I am getting more out of it than probably any other class I've ever had.

As for the final project, back when I imagined each of us doing a project according to our personal interests, I was thinking of something that would combine Shakespeare with politics (hence the name of this blog). I thought of looking for instances in which U.S. presidents have quoted Shakespeare in a political speech, or thinking of politicians who would make up cast for some Shakespeare play ...

... Like this infographic from Newsweek that pitted Star Wars/the Bush administration against Star Trek/the Obama administration.

But now that the final projects seem to be more collective, I'm not so sure. All the ideas brought up in class sounded good to me. It would be fun to join Averill's project, and it would also be fun to do more stuff online. I'm pretty much open to anything.

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

According to plan

When reviewing my learning plan and how well I followed it, this is how I feel: a shoulder shrug with a "Meh..."

I've had a lot of fun with this intense look at Julius Caesar. But at the same time I was kind of frustrated with it. First off, I finished reading the play two days later than I was supposed to. And I started reading it the day it was due. And I watched a movie version before reading the play, which wasn't what I had in mind.

But, let's look at how closely I met the goals outlined in my original learning plan for Julius Caesar:

1) I did in fact post on the blog immediately after reading each act. Yes, it eneded up being all five acts within two days, but I did follow through on that.

2) I definitely focused on writing more on connections between Julius Caesar and politics. Instead of just writing about the first thing that came to mind, which was usually pop culture (does that mean I watch too much TV?), I specifically looked for themes in the play that had real-life parallels. And although it was some extra work, it was a lot of fun. I was able to relate Julius Caesar to the Lincoln assassination, Chris Christie, the war in Iraq, the Bush Doctrine, Gerald Ford and his pardoning of Richard Nixon, George Washington, Newt Gingrich and Rahm Emanuel, to name a few. Cool, huh?

3) I did comment on Averill's blog, but not as much as I would have liked to. I'll be sure to keep up the communication and discussion with her as she and I both delve into Julius Caesar more to meet all the requirements of this assignment. (I think part of it is that Averill posted three times about Julius Caesar, and I posted 20 times. So, definitely one-sided. But more on that later.)

4) I didn't quite meet the objectives on this one, because I had hoped to watch at least two Hollywood versions of Julius Caesar, and I only saw one. Again, I ran out of time. But I think I'll still try to see the two Charlton Heston versions, if nothing else I'll do it just for fun.

Some additional comments:

- I thought it might be a cool idea to "live blog" the movie. But it was a lot of work. And it meant I missed a lot of the movie. At first, I was pausing the movie while I blogged, but I was on a tight deadline so I ended up letting the movie continue while I typed. So that was one downside. Also, I don't know if anyone's really going to read all 13 posts, and they're certainly not all equal in interest. If I were to do it again, I might just do what Averill did and do one post to talk about how cool the movie was.

- Probably the main reason why some of this process was frustrating was simply because I had so much schoolwork in general. I definitely enjoyed reading, watching and blogging about Julius Caesar. But because I enjoyed it so much, I think I was overachieving, which only added to the general stress over other homework I had to work on. That's one of my faults (though sometimes it's a strength) - if I say I'm going to blog after each act of the play and live blog the movie, then, by golly, I'm gonna do it! Even if it kills me. Or, at least makes me stay up until 2 a.m. multiple times. : /

In general, I very much enjoyed this assignment and enjoyed Julius Caesar. I just maybe would have handled it a little differently if I could do it over again.

The Intergalactic Edition

1) As Mark Antony goes over his war plans with Octavius and Lepidus, he finds a chance to talk about Lepidus behind his back:

"Octavius: You may do your will;

But he's a tried and valiant soldier.

Mark Antony: So is my horse, Octavius..."

He sees Lepidus as just the sidekick or henchman, a beast of burden who can do their bidding. He's like The Clown in The Winters Tale. Check out this post to read more about the henchman/sidekick/doofus character.

2) Even though it comes out that Brutus is just in a bad mood because Portia has committed suicide back in Rome, I think he was right to chastise Cassius for supporting bribery. I agree that, if the message they want Romans to understand is that they were acting out of honor when they killed Caesar, then they have to show honor in every aspect. By allowing bribes, Cassius compromises that honor and undermines their mission. He's just another corrupt assassin if he exhibits any major moral failings.

I think nowadays, what might seem like "undermining a mission" is just portrayed as irony. Like Newt Gingrich calling for Bill Clinton's impeachment back in the '90s, when he himself was having an extramarital affair and ended up divorcing his wife and marrying his mistress. Was Gingrich really one to talk? Just like is Cassius really one to talk about honor and preserving Rome's dignity?

3) So Mark Antony is threatening to kill senators now? Is that really a good idea? Is it because all the senators are on Cassius' and Brutus' side? Or maybe he just thinks they're on Cassius' and Brutus' side?

Either way, it seems like Mark Antony is going on a superfluous rampage. I think he is a little power hungry.

Do any of you think of the battle in the Galactic Senate? Or is that just me?

4) Interesting that the ghost of Caesar introduces himself as "Brutus' evil spirit." So is it really Caesar coming back with a message for Brutus? Or is it just a vision and representation of Brutus' dark side?

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!"

George Washington the Zombie Killer

1) This monologue by Brutus is interesting:

"He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;
And that craves wary walking. Crown him?—that;—
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him,
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins
Remorse from power: and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities:
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which, hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell."

Doesn't every politician wish he or she could climb all the way up that ladder and never look back? Sure, not every politician runs for president, but they wish they could. I believe that's the sort of person who would run for office. Plenty of candidates run because they want to make the world a better place, but most of them believe they are the ones gifted enough to do it.

It's interesting that Cassius keeps telling Brutus, "If only you saw yourself as everyone else sees you, as a great leader." Brutus seems to be lacking that self-assurance that most politicians have. Does that actually make him a more qualified leader?

That said, I do remember reading about one senator who promised to term-limit himself. And I think I've heard of a few others who have done that. And, actually, before the 22nd Amendment, presidents had a two term-limit only to follow the precedent set by George Washington. Washington was so popular he could have been king by simply asking for it, but was principled enough to give himself an expiration date (one of the reasons I think he's one of our greatest presidents).

Plus, he killed zombies.

2) Here is a perfect glimpse of the "mob mentality" that is soon to come:

When Cassius says they should get Cicero on their side, Casca says, "Let us not leave him out." But then when Brutus says they would be better off without Cicero, Casca says, "Indeed he is not fit." Talk about peer pressure...

3) In Act II Scene II, does it seem like Caesar really is letting the power go to his head?

"Caesar shall forth: the things that threaten'd me
Ne'er look'd but on my back; when they shall see
The face of Caesar, they are vanished."

Or, in other words, "I ain't scared o' nobody."

And when the priests read the entrails, see the animal's heart is missing and then suggest Caesar stay at home, he says:

"Caesar should be a beast without a heart,
If he should stay at home to-day for fear."

He does love his wife, and so agrees that he will stay home at her request. Until Decius Brutus appeals to his pride, and says the blood in Calpurnia's dreams don't mean death, they mean revivial.

"And this way have you well expounded it. ...

How foolish do your fears seem now, Calpurnia!
I am ashamed I did yield to them.
Give me my robe, for I will go."

Is Caesar getting too ambitious? What do you think?

4) It's interesting that in the 1953 movie, the soothsayer is blind. But in the play, he apparently has his vision.

Soothsayer: "Madam, not yet: I go to take my stand,
To see him pass on to the Capitol."

And the whole exchange between Portia and the soothsayer didn't make it in the movie.

Why do you think Mankiewicz did that?

Julius Caesar and 2012 Politics

So far, it seems like Julius Caesar is a lot easier to understand than other Shakespeare plays. It's nice, because instead of using all my brainpower to translate the words into plain English, I can appreciate the artful way that Shakespeare's characters say things. This is a lot of fun.

Here are some applications from Julius Caesar to politics today:

1) When Marullus says this in the first scene...

"... You blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!

O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome,

Knew you not Pompey? Many a time and oft

Have you climb'd up to walls and battlements,

To towers and windows, yea, to chimney-tops,

Your infants in your arms, and there have sat

The livelong day, with patient expectation,

To see great Pompey pass the streets of Rome:

And when you saw his chariot but appear,

Have you not made an universal shout,

That Tiber trembled underneath her banks,

To hear the replication of your sounds

Made in her concave shores?

And do you now put on your best attire?

And do you now cull out a holiday?

And do you now strew flowers in his way

That comes in triumph over Pompey's blood..."

It immediately made me think of this:

In the current race for the Republican nomination, it seems like it's either Mitt Romney or the current flavor of the month. No one can get excited about anybody for very long, and they're hoping they don't have to vote for Mitt Romney because he's the best they have. It's very fickle, that conservative base. (I remember an episode of The Daily Show when Jon Stewart shows footage of Fox News, the very next day after Rick Perry announces he's running for president, wondering if Paul Ryan or Chris Christie should run.)

2) Does anyone else see this paradox?

Cassius: "... Ye gods, it doth amaze me

A man of such a feeble temper should

So get the start of the majestic world

And bear the palm alone."

Cassius is afraid of Caesar becoming a king and a tyrant, and yet at the same time he says he would be a bad king because he's so weak. If he was worried about impending tyranny, then wouldn't he want Caesar rather than someone who would actually be too strong and powerful if given the chance?

It's like when people criticize President Obama for being too smart and intellectual. Um, wouldn't you want your president to be smart? In Julius Caesar's case, Cassius is criticizing Caesar for being too weak, but shouldn't he want him to be too weak?

3) When Cassius says this...

"... But if you would consider the true cause

Why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts,

Why birds and beasts from quality and kind,

Why old men fool and children calculate,

Why all these things change from their ordinance

Their natures and preformed faculties

To monstrous quality,—why, you shall find

That heaven hath infused them with these spirits,

To make them instruments of fear and warning

Unto some monstrous state. ..."

... it makes me think of Rahm Emanuel's quote: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." Cassius sees this crazy night as an opportunity, and he welcomes it. I don't know if Rahm Emanuel would have Cassius' extreme point of view, and he certainly wouldn't think of an assassination as an opportunity.




4) Also, when Cassius says this...

"... what trash is Rome,

What rubbish and what offal, when it serves

For the base matter to illuminate

So vile a thing as Caesar!"

... I think of this quote from Tommy Boy: "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public."

1953 Julius Caesar live blog #9

Well, the crowd scenes are definitely more effective in a movie than in a play. You can only fit so many people on a stage, but when you see Brutus acting accountable before hundreds of Romans instead of just a few secondary actors, it's more powerful. And when hundreds of people are supporting Brutus as a hero, there's even more of that mob mentality (that Averill was talking about).

And here's where Brutus' motives are summed up nicely: "Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more."

That mentality and patriotism must apply to more than just presidential assassinations, haha. I guess I've been talking about that because it's the most obvious. But when has a politician acted immorally but patriotically? When has someone done something bad, but for the good of the country?

The person that popped into my mind might surprise you: Gerald Ford. When he took office after Richard Nixon's resignation, he immediately pardoned Nixon.

Now, I've heard different reasons for doing this. It could have been Tricky Dick up to his old tricks again, and somehow made President Ford get him off scot-free. But also, I've heard that by pardoning Nixon, President Ford was trying to get the country past the scandal, past the cynicism. Maybe it was immoral to let a guilty man go free, but it was patriotic to unite the country, wipe the slate clean and move on.

Is that a stretch? What do you think?

1953 Julius Caesar live blog #7

Speaking of presidential assassinations...the first thing said in the movie after Caesar is killed is "Liberty! Freedom! Tyranny is dead!"

What did John Wilkes Booth say after killing Abraham Lincoln? "Sic semper tyrannus," or, "thus always to tyrants." John Wilkes Booth was an actor...did he get this line from Shakespeare?

And was Lincoln really a tyrant? We certainly don't think of him that way now. But we can think of other civilizations who were prevented from forming their own country. Is Lincoln resisting the South's revolution attempts different? How does a president or leader know whether to let a revolution take place or to keep the peace and the status quo?

1953 Julius Caesar live blog #6

When Cassius and his gang meet with Brutus at his place, they discuss their plot to kill Caesar. Cassius is a little bloodthirsty, and thinks they should murder Mark Antony while they're at it. Brutus explains that, no, once the head is cut off then hacking the limbs is gratuitous. Yes, Mark Antony loves Caesar, but once Caesar is gone then the threat is gone.

Brutus has really convinced himself that the nation would be preserved and protected by getting rid of Caesar. I'm trying to think of similar scenarios in political history...the first one I came up with was Nephi killing Laban, before allowing an entire civilization to dwindle in unbelief. Is there anything similar in American history? I can't really think of anything. I suppose any assassination could be an effort to protect the nation from the supposed danger the target presents. Except now that I think of it, John Wilkes Booth murdered Abraham Lincoln for the South, not for the nation. John Hinckley, Jr. shot Ronald Reagan to win some personal attention. And, for any conspiracy theory behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy, I don't think any of them were done in the name of the Union.

What about preemptive war? The Bush Doctrine was one of striking before being struck. George W. Bush perceived Iraq as a major threat, and attacked before Saddam Hussein and Iraq could attack. According to Bush, Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and was gathering weapons of mass destruction. Although I believe the U.S. has done much good in Iraq, including hunting down Hussein, the initial reasons for going were later proven to be a very loose foundation.

Is President Bush invading Iraq like Brutus and Cassius "preemptively" assassinating Caesar?

On the Side

So, in addition to reading Love's Labour's Lost, I'm also assigned a play to read individually, separate from the rest of the class. I've been chosen to read Julius Caesar.

Julius Caesar is one of the few Shakespeare plays I've already read; I read it my sophomore year in high school. But, of course, reading it again will bring new meaning and new understanding, because I'm nine years wiser. Not just wiser in a sense of understanding Shakespeare, but also in experience. Just like the scriptures have new meaning every time we read them, not because the scriptures change but because we change, even if it's not the first time reading Julius Caesar, I'm sure I will still benefit from it. When I first read it, I barely had my driver's license and had never had a girlfriend. Now, I'm married with a daughter and preparing for law school. So, you could say I've changed a lot.

Anyway, to preview Julius Caesar: it's one of Shakespeare's more famous tragedies. From what I remember, it's more about Brutus and Mark Antony than actually about Caesar. It's the source of the famous phrases "the ides of March," "Et tu, Brute?" and "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears."

And, to get a little deeper, there is a lot of political thrill and drama, something that I love in a book, movie, TV show, etc. The political drama in Caesar's time or in Shakespeare's time can easily be adapted to the modern world, and often is made manifest in reality. Politics and history today still displays betrayal, paranoia, and emotion over reason.

I originally thought this blog would combine politics and Shakespeare, hence the blog's name. I haven't done much of that, it seems like I mostly relate Shakespeare with pop culture. But maybe Julius Caesar will lend itself to more political discussion.

So, here's my learning plan for reading Julius Caesar:

1) I will post on the blog after reading each act, like I do with our other assigned plays. This will be in addition to my regular assigned blog posts.

2) On the blog, I will try to connect Julius Caesar to more political themes and concepts, with examples from history or the news instead of examples from "Family Matters" or Abbott and Costello.

3) It looks like there is one other person in my class who was assigned Julius Caesar, Averill Corkin. So I'll be sure to read her blog, make comments and discuss the play with her on our two blogs. From her first blog post about Julius Caesar, it looks like she'll be reading with a focus on the history - whether it's historically accurate, what role the portrayal of history played in Shakespeare's society, etc. So it will be interesting to look at the play that way, and see if that overlaps with my political perspective.

4) Also, I'll be watching film versions of Julius Caesar. From what I can tell, there are three Hollywood movies based on the play: a 1950 version with Charlton Heston as Mark Antony, a 1953 version with Marlon Brando as Mark Antony and a 1970 version with Charlton Heston once again as Mark Antony. Without even seeing the films, I have a few questions: why was there a remake of Julius Caesar only three years after the first one? Is it like what happened with The Incredible Hulk? And what are the differences between Charlton Heston's performance in 1950 and in 1970? Do any of these movies make references to political goings-on at the time the movie came out? And, does Marlon Brando make Mark Antony sound like an old gangster or a dockworker?

Here's one of my favorite Charlton Heston moments (skip to the :58 mark):

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):