Howdy,What tips practice you have for a pupil who is nigh to do his GCSEs in a calendar month. I managed to get a 8 once in the mocks but take never reached 9. Practice u have any tips that like techniques ,structure or good points to talk about in macbeth?Any aid would exist greatly appreciated. Kind regards ,Ben
Hello Ben! Thanks for your question.
The GCSE format is a very particular thing, and something your teachers are probably more familiar with than I am now. Simply the fundamental things that make a expert English literature essay remain the same at any level of academic report.
Showtime and foremost: answer the question, and plan. When you lot see the question, plot downwards the 5 virtually important points that come to mind. Put them into an order that makes sense (make them follow on from one another). These can so form the core of your structure. In other words, think of each point as a paragph, and don't be tempted to deviate from that core. If you include things that have nothing to do with the question, information technology really looks like y'all're just trying to write everything you lot revised instead of answering the question. Call back that an exam is there for you to show that you know the subject, then it really looks better if yous can show that y'all tin tailor your cognition to the specific point. It shows that yous know more you're writing down.
2nd: think deep. A proficient betoken analysed carefully is worth more than a multitude of points made vaguely. So use the quotations you've studied and really think virtually the implication of each line, the selection of words, the wordplay. A key function of what a GCSE examiner looks for is prove of awareness that there's a writer behind these words making deliberate choices. So recall in terms of 'why did Shakespeare cull to do this?', 'what issue does this create?', 'what is the meaning of this line, and how does Shakespeare create that meaning?'. For this, information technology can be very useful to have some fluency with terminology. So if you can place the iambic pentameter you might be able to talk about where the stress falls in the line, or notation when a line is shared and think well-nigh what effect that creates, or y'all might be able to place that the weird sisters talk in iambic tetrameter, more than fairytale and riddle-similar. You can evidence that you know Shakespeare used these techniques deliberately. Information technology's also a chance to show off that y'all know a line tin exist interpreted in lots of different ways. At academy level, people volition want you to be more clear nearly what you think, but at GCSE level they actually want you to show that you know there are many responses to a text, that at that place are opinions other than your own out at that place. If y'all happen to know any criticism, you can use information technology for this purpose, but it's not necessary at this stage.
3rd: contextual information. I recall many teachers stress the need to include historical data, just actually, contextual information is broader than that and can include things like your awareness that this is a play, written for an audience. If you know your history you tin can of class bring in things similar King James' obsession with witchcraft, the fact that the play was written soon afterward the succession crunch created past Elizabeth existence childless, the gimmicky debates on the nature of tyranny, or fifty-fifty that the play seems to flatter James I somewhat equally the descendant of Banquo. It can exist vaguer too if you don't know your history. The fact that England was a monarchy, for instance, or the fact that Macbeth is ready in a Christian world, where questions of the afterlife concern him. Or you can go more detailed and specific about the conditions of the beingness of the play text: things like the fact that this is Shakespeare's shortest play or that recent scholars suspect it was edited and amended by Middleton might be relevant if yous wanted to talk about, say, the sense of urgency, or the fact that the Hecate scenes have a very different feeling about them. But only bring in these things if directly relevant to the question. You tin already see how I've connected the length of the play with a dramatic characteristic of the text (its speed). Y'all shouldn't but drop facts for the sake of it. Ideally, context isn't a separate point but something you integrate into the rest of your response, but it tin exist a paragraph on its own if that works best for you.
As for points… You lot might find some curious things under my Macbeth tag on this blog, which has quite a number of strange points yous probably won't encounter at school.
The best essays integrate all the aspects I've talked about here into a cohesive response that flows naturally from one point to the next, and that's why it's useful to have your key points and to stick to them.
And most importantly, though this may sound strange… Enjoy yourself. The best matter is to savour the text, and the chance to analyse the text, considering that interest comes through in your writing. Turn whatsoever nervousness into excitement and accept it every bit an opportunity to write and accept your work read by somebody else.
Good luck!
Q:
I'd like to credit you for the Seven Degrees in a story. Would yous permit? If then, what is your proper noun or an alias adequate to y'all? Thank you. -- Janet Morris
Bearding
Hi there. If you ship me a bulletin off anonymous I'd be happy to requite you my proper name in a private message, only I'm not slap-up on making this blog almost me as a person so I'd rather non give my name publically. Please feel free to utilize 'noshitshakespeare' equally my allonym if you wish!
Q:
Hi! What'south your stance on ecocriticism Shakespeare-wise?
Anonymous
noshitshakespeare:
I don't have a set up stance on ecocriticism, and ecocriticism isn't a significant aspect of my scholarship. Still, I've read some first-class ecocriticial scholarship on Shakespeare, and I think information technology can be a very useful fashion of highlighting some aspects of the play that were not as evident to traditional criticism, which tended to focus on character and personality.
It's truthful, of course, that Shakespeare can't offer as much on questions about the Anthropocene as after literature, particularly those written during and subsequently the industrial revolution. Only he does use a lot of nature imagery, and, more importantly, frequently registers the kind of instrumentalist thinking that led to later attempts to subjugate the natural earth under human control. Afterward all, in his plays, nature is often depicted as hostile and threatening to man life. A great example is, of grade, the storm in Male monarch Lear. It seems to me that he shows how thinking of the natural world tin lead either to a desire to command or to a recognition of the uncontrollable power of nature which remains oblivious to human suffering. Lear'due south initial attempts are to requite himself the illusion of control past ordering the elements to do what they're already doing: 'Accident winds and crevice your cheeks! Rage, blow!' (iii.ii.ane), but whatever Lear may think, the play shows nature equally a power beyond human being control and understanding. Insofar every bit Shakespeare is constantly interested in the way people endeavour to divorce themselves from the wider social and natural world, all his works deal, to some extent, with the kind of thinking that led to what is happening in the world today.
And then yeah, looking at Shakespeare through an ecocritical lens – whether the focus is on nature, atmospheric condition, waste material, or man comport in the face of the forces of nature – can be very rewarding. But even without the potential richness of such a study, I think we're at a indicate where literary studies more broadly, and indeed the globe in general, can't afford not to call back in ecological terms. Whether we want it to be that way or not, our effect on the natural world is ane of the fundamental questions of human being today, and it's hard for it not to exist at the forefront of our experience of works of art.
Not exactly ecocriticism, but here's a timely and related (free) outcome organised by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. Information technology's next Wednesday, eighth Dec 2021:
https://www.shakespeare.org.united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland/visit/whats-on/introducing-shakespeare-saving-planet/
Q:
Hi! What'due south your stance on ecocriticism Shakespeare-wise?
Anonymous
I don't take a gear up stance on ecocriticism, and ecocriticism isn't a pregnant aspect of my scholarship. Still, I've read some excellent ecocriticial scholarship on Shakespeare, and I think information technology can be a very useful way of highlighting some aspects of the play that were not equally evident to traditional criticism, which tended to focus on character and personality.
It's true, of grade, that Shakespeare can't offer as much on questions about the Anthropocene as later literature, especially those written during and after the industrial revolution. But he does use a lot of nature imagery, and, more than importantly, oftentimes registers the kind of instrumentalist thinking that led to later attempts to subjugate the natural world under human being control. Afterwards all, in his plays, nature is often depicted as hostile and threatening to human life. A cracking case is, of course, the tempest in Male monarch Lear. It seems to me that he shows how thinking of the natural earth tin lead either to a desire to control or to a recognition of the uncontrollable power of nature which remains oblivious to man suffering. Lear's initial attempts are to requite himself the illusion of control past ordering the elements to practise what they're already doing: 'Accident winds and scissure your cheeks! Rage, blow!' (3.2.1), but whatever Lear may think, the play shows nature as a power beyond human control and understanding. Insofar every bit Shakespeare is constantly interested in the mode people attempt to divorce themselves from the wider social and natural world, all his works deal, to some extent, with the kind of thinking that led to what is happening in the globe today.
So yes, looking at Shakespeare through an ecocritical lens – whether the focus is on nature, weather, waste, or human being conduct in the face of the forces of nature – can be very rewarding. But even without the potential richness of such a study, I retrieve we're at a point where literary studies more broadly, and indeed the world in general, can't afford not to think in ecological terms. Whether we want information technology to be that way or non, our effect on the natural world is one of the key questions of human existence today, and it'due south difficult for it not to be at the forefront of our experience of works of art.
Q:
in 2 Henry VI, Smith says: "Nosotros took him setting of boys' copies." What does he mean? Thanks!
Anonymous
Ah, how wonderful! A question about Henry Six! Jack Cade's rebellion is 1 of the well-nigh fascinating things near Part II and ane of the more complex incidents. This is partly because Shakespeare makes it clear that Cade works for York, but also gives him and the rebels some truly remarkable things to say about hierarchy and equality. This might seem irrelevant to your question, simply I promise you information technology frames my answer, because some context is needed to make sense of the line.
Smith the Weaver comes in with the Clerk of Chatham, who 'can write and read and cast account', which Cade says is 'monstrous' (4.two.78-80). Smith so offers the prove, 'We took him setting of boys; copies' (4.two.81), which only means that they found this Clerk preparing writing exercises for immature boys (Clerks frequently besides worked as schoolmasters). And so you could say that the Clerk is defenseless red-handed in the very human action of writing.
But why this is 'monstrous', and why the Clerk should be hanged for it is less obvious. Shakespeare draws, for his source, not just on the bodily historical rebellion of Jack Cade in 1450 which wasn't anti-literacy, only the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, with its wish to kill lawyers, and opposition to literacy. And of course, if an indication of what class you belong to is whether you have had enough instruction to exist able to write, and then literacy is damning from a commoner's perspective. Hence, Cade asks the Clerk, 'Dost thou use to write thy proper name? Or hast thou a mark to thyself like an honest plain-dealing man?' (iv.2.93-95). When you consider the fact that Shakespeare's father marked himself by drawing a pocket-size ready of compasses instead of his proper noun, you tin see how close to home this is, and how literacy was a social marker.
The theme returns later, in Act 4, scene 7, when Cade condemns Lord Saye for appointing 'justices of peace to telephone call poor men earlier them about matters they were not able to answer', that is, because they were illiterate and couldn't understand what they were being chosen to court for. Cade concludes that, in effect, 'yard hast put them in prison, and because they could not read, yard hast hanged them' (4.7.38-41). There couldn't be a more than powerful indictment of inequality, and that's why Cade'southward status as York'due south crony is not all in that location is to him, and why his seemingly ridiculous condemnation of the Clerk tin can't be understood without broader contextual awareness.
Q:
do scholars know the purpose, on a meta level, of the third murderer in macbeth? i've read theories that it's macbeth himself, only that'southward never stated... only having a random third assassin show up feels almost unnecessary?
Bearding
This is one of those textual things people dearest to develop theories about and that theatrical companies like to exploit to effort and add together a twist. People have suggested, as you say, that it'southward Macbeth himself, or that information technology'due south Ross or Destiny… I've seen directors who take chosen to cast Seyton in the role in many theatre performances, no uncertainty partly because there is that Seyton/Satan homophone that'south then very tempting.
But equally yous say, information technology's never stated, and if it was Macbeth or Ross, or whatever named character, information technology'due south quite unlikely that it would go unmentioned because Shakespeare tends to be explicit almost that kind of matter (when someone is in disguise). Nicholas Brooke, the editor of the Oxford edition is pretty dismissive, saying that 'Speculation about the identity of the Third Murderer… is absurd'. His argument is that the opening lined when the first two murderers ask, 'Simply who did bid thee join with us?' and the 3rd Murderer replies, 'Macbeth' is sufficient to explain his presence. The Arden editors ( Sandra Clark and Pamela Stonemason) are less dismissive just agree that it makes plenty dramatic sense because 'equally Dover Wilson says, the introduction of a further assassin shows that Macbeth, "tyrant-like, feels he must spy even upon his own chosen instruments"'. Given the overall paranoid feeling of the play at this point, I find this pretty convincing, and even if it's not staged, you can imagine Macbeth having even more doubts and sending a spy to join the murderers.
For the sake of the murder itself, the Tertiary Murderer is not necessary, as you say, simply at that place is something dramatically effective about having this other figure who's not really acquainted with the other two. Information technology ways, for i matter, that when one of the other murderers (most probable the First Murderer) strikes out the low-cal, the Tertiary Murderer is not on lath with it and tin can charge the other ii of messing up the assassination. This is quite a typically Shakespearean technique: he introduces a little bit of a dynamic fifty-fifty between minor characters to create drama.
The presence of the 3rd Murderer is definitely something that theatre directors will continue to exploit to their reward, and there are no doubt scholars who have investments in particular interpretations. Yet, the general consensus is that there's not much mystery here equally the text provides a sufficiently disarming reason for the Third Murderer to be present.
Q:
in julius caesar, when antony tells the oversupply caesar fabricated the public his heirs, are we supposed to believe him? i can't find a textual indication that it's a prevarication, but at the same time, he's not being particularly honest about his intentions in the voice communication, so i guess i'm suspicious? hope that makes sense lmao i beloved your web log & i capeesh your taking the time to answer questions!
Anonymous
Hello there! Thanks for this question. Julius Caesar is a difficult 1 for analysing intention, and you're quite right to question Antony's honesty in this voice communication.
I think, though, that information technology is probable nosotros are meant to take the volition as real. Part of my reason for thinking and then is that the wording of the volition is pretty much directly lifted from Shakespeare's source – Thomas North'southward 1579 translation of Plutarch's Lives of Noble Grecians and Romans – which reads, 'he ancestral unto every denizen of Rome seventy-five drachmas a man, and that he left his gardens and arbours unto the people, which he had on this side of the river of Tiber'. Shakespeare has
To every Roman citizen he gives, To every several man, seventy-five drachmas… Moreover, he hath left y'all all his walks, His private arbours and new-planted orchards, On this side Tiber. He hath left them you And to your heirs for ever… (3.two.234-243)
It'southward reasonable to recall that Shakespeare'south dramatizing data rather than playing with rhetoric. What matters more is what Antony does with the information.
There'south also an in-text proffer that the contents of the will are genuine, and that comes later in the play when he tells Lepidus to go 'to Caesar'south firm. / Fetch the volition hither, and we shall determine / How to cut off some charge in legacies' (4.one.vii-9). If Antony is trying to avert paying out the total seventy-five drachmas per citizen, then what he read was true, and he now wants to change things to suit him and his war efforts. It'southward one of the key moments in which Shakespeare undermines Anthony'due south characterisation in a scene that shows him casually deriding Lepidus too.
Q:
(URGENT) Explicate how Shakespeare uses language in 'Information technology is my lady, O, information technology is my love! O, that she knew she were!' and 'The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars, As daylight doth a lamp'. Please answer thank you in advance.
Anonymous
Hullo there, I'thousand sad if this is a little late, it'south conference flavor, and I've been a petty busy writing and presenting papers.
I don't quite understand what you want me to explain about the passages, but I can point out a couple of things about them.
When Romeo says 'It is my lady, O it is my dearest! / O that she knew she were!' (2.1.54), it'south quite likely that Juliet has just appeared in the space above the phase. Early modernistic plays often comprise no stage directions, and Shakespeare indicates that the actor appears here, or at the before line 'Merely soft, what calorie-free through yonder window breaks? / It is the east, and Juliet is the sun' (45-6). As for language more specifically, one of the really noticeable things most the line is that there's a lot of repetition: in but two lines, yous have two uses of 'my', 'O' and 'she'. Because of the nature of performances in the early modern menstruum, where there was no managing director and not many rehearsals, Shakespeare mostly makes linguistic communication do part of the piece of work for the actor, to make them speak in a sure fashion and to force them to speak fast or tedious. The repetitions here could exist doing a lot. Repetition gives a sense of excitement, equally does the simplicity of the words Romeo is given hither. You might notice that in that location's only one ii-syllable word, the residuum entirely monosyllabic. Again, simplicity gives the impression of immediate, unstudied voice communication, spontaneity and, therefore, earnestness. The other interesting affair is those Bone. An O is an exclamation, merely it'due south besides an early modern shorthand for a sigh or a groan. In whatever instance, information technology's a audio that slows down the tempo of the speech and that adds the sense of a lover's sighing spoken language. This is further emphasised by the fact that the 2d line, 'O that she knew she were', is a half line, not a full iambic pentameter. So unlike the offset line that has ten syllables, the second line has only half dozen syllables. If this isn't a press error (in Q2, it's printed every bit one long line), and then it actually gives the sense of a Romeo breathless and lost for words.
Your 2nd quotation, 'The brightness of her cheek would shame those stars / Every bit daylight doth a lamp' (62-3), is part of a hyperbolic extended metaphor (also known every bit a conceit; this play is particularly total of them). Before he says these lines, Romeo imagines that two stars have asked Juliet'due south eyes to shine instead of them while they're gone, and and so wonders what would happen if her eyes were in the sky and the stars were in Juliet's head. He then says these lines, proverb that if the stars were in her caput instead of her optics, the brightness of her cheeks alone would outshine the stars. The meaning is quite obvious: Juliet's beauty, expressed as calorie-free, is so dazzling that she outshines the stars. The divergence is about equally stark every bit a lamp and the sun: only as the sun makes the lamp redundant, Juliet makes the stars seem like they're giving off no light. The comparison between a lamp and the sun was proverbial, peradventure stemming back to that old story about the carper philosopher Diogenes lighting a lamp in the daytime, an image of pointlessness (though the story's more complicated than that). And then the stars, personified, would exist shamed by Juliet: they barely seem to be a calorie-free source compared to her. It sets up the lines that follow, in which Romeo imagines that Juliet's eyes in the sky instead of the stars would be able to calorie-free up the sky and confuse the birds into thinking it's the morning. If you take merely those two lines out of context, it doesn't give its full meaning, but you tin still get the sense that Romeo is saying Juliet is more beautiful than the stars. Simply thinking about the language, I call back it's really noticeable that in that location are so many light sources in those lines: the 'brightness of her cheek', the 'stars', 'daylight' and a 'lamp'. It gives a full general sense of light and effulgence. She's not just bright in comparison to the night but in comparison to other lights. If you lot speak the lines out loud, yous might too notice that in that location'southward a lulling effect created by the use of words with rounded vowel sounds like 'stars', 'shame' and 'daylight' and extended vowel sounds like 'cheek'. You could interpret that in various ways, but I think it adds to that sighing sense, a lends to the feeling that Romeo is indulging in his admiration of Juliet.
I hope that helps!
Q:
When goes through your heed when reading stuff Shakespeare wrote that is racist by today's standards? Can we justify it by acknowledging that he was but a man of his time? I've been finding information technology to detract from my enjoyment of plays that I otherwise love e.g. lines similar "if I did not love her I would be a Jew" or the pejorative use of "Ethiope" in Much Ado Near Naught. And then just...Shylock. Is there evidence that Shakespeare was really progressive for his time?
Anonymous
Thanks for this question, anon. This is an important point that's worth thinking about in some particular, considering, while yous can't actually judge someone in the past by standards they didn't even have a word for, Shakespeare is not just a past author but someone whose works keep to have pregnant for people today. Just it's non every bit simple as a case of blame or justification, nor are those examples quite equally straightforward as they may seem.
Let'south think first about the question of pejorative uses of words similar 'Ethiope', or 'Jew' in passing phrases. These are definitely offensive by today'southward standards, but are more than similar set up phrases in Shakespeare'south fourth dimension, where 'Jew' is used every bit a shorthand for anything un-Christian, especially those things stereotypically associated with Jewish people, such as avariciousness. The same goes for 'Ethiope': since the beauty standards of the day dictated that white, gold and pink were the signifiers of beauty, anything dark is used every bit autograph for unattractive, and calling someone with dark features an 'Ethiope' is then an exaggeration of those features. They're lines that yous take to either cutting or bring attention to in mod productions because yous can't really justify their usage. But information technology'south actually important to come across that set phrases are phrases that have become common and therefore that people employ them without necessarily thinking of their implications. To position ourselves every bit somehow amend because we accept the benefit of the many wonderful things that people have done to advance homo rights and equality is a piffling wrongheaded. We demand to be enlightened that nosotros take similarly offensive terms that people utilise today that most likely won't stand up upward to scrutiny in the future. I know when I was younger, people used the discussion 'gay' pejoratively without thinking nearly who that might offend, and people utilise ableist phrases similar 'I'1000 so blind' without consideration too. In other words, as unjustifiable as information technology is that in that location are such phrases, in that location'due south a difference between using them directly to hurt and using them unknowingly.
And that brings me to my 2d bespeak: Shakespeare is writing plays, which means that these are phrases he puts into the mouths of detail characters. We don't really know how Shakespeare himself spoke, just it's necessary to distinguish betwixt an author's position and his depiction of certain characters. Writers regularly write from the perspective of people whose views they don't share, and there'due south no style every single 1 of Shakespeare's characters is a mouthpiece for his beliefs. We tin't attribute racism to Shakespeare whatsoever more than we tin can say he must have had thoughts almost regicide because he wrote Macbeth. This definitely applies to The Merchant of Venice: the so-called 'Christian' characters mistreat Shylock, but that's not the same equally proverb the play condones that behaviour.
As for whether Shakespeare was progressive… Personally, I'm non sure most judging a work based on what 1 thinks of the writer, peculiarly if the writer is long dead and no royalties are going to them. While I can sympathize that one's feelings nigh a particular author might hinder the enjoyment of the work, on some level, once a work is produced, it acquires a life of its own which is non up to the author's control anymore, especially for someone like Shakespeare who is surprisingly quiet about what he thinks of his own work (unlike, say, Ben Jonson).
So perhaps information technology doesn't thing very much, merely I do think that Shakespeare writes in a way that shows something of the breadth of his view of life. As I've already said, we don't know what he thought. Still, the multiplicity of perspectives that is feature of his writing suggests he could think exterior of the common understanding of his time. So, for instance, he really doesn't become in for low blows well-nigh faith the way many of his contemporaries practise, and whenever there is a graphic symbol similar Aaron, Othello, or Shylock, he includes something that complicates the stereotype. Thus, we have Aaron being a more than caring and loving father than anyone else in Titus Andronicus, and request 'Is black so base of operations a hue?' (iv.2.73); Shylock's famous 'Hath not a Jew optics' (3.one.55) voice communication; Othello's nobility, and Shakespeare'south sonnets on the Dark lady, which actually question the dazzler standards of the day. This is far more we go from the general apply of stereotypes in city comedies, or in two-dimensional depictions of the stereotypical early modern Jew as in The Jew of Republic of malta.
Though he often starts from the stereotypes he's familiar with and depends on the language of his time, Shakespeare shows an imaginative empathy that makes him consider what information technology might be like to be the characters he depicts. What could exist more progressive than empathy? Shakespeare tin can write from the perspective of characters we'd consider racist now, but he as well writes, and writes assuredly, from the perspective of those who are driveling, regardless of their faith, sexuality or gender.
Q:
Exercise you know what's going on in the othello tag? In that location's a agglomeration of random posts tagged othello but information technology's random people or things. I didn't bank check whatever of the blogs since they seem like bots
Bearding
I don't actually follow tags, simply looking at information technology, it looks like many of the posts are about a graphic symbol named Othello in the anime/manga called Black Butler?
Q:
Hey, Idk if you can help me on this, but I have to do a creative writing on Othello and was wondering if y'all could help me with some ideas?
Anonymous
Hullo there, sounds similar a fun practise! There are so many approaches you could accept with an assignment like this, but here are some broad ideas:
A kind of 'prequel' - what happened before Othello? Do y'all think Othello wooed Desdemona the way he said he did? What was Desdemona'due south babyhood similar? Or Othello's many adventures?
An existing scene re-told from another character'due south perspective: how does the human relationship look for Lodovico, arriving on Cyprus? What exercise the musicians remember are going on? Small characters are a precious stone for this sort of exercise.
What were Brabantio'south last days like? How did he dice?
Were Emilia and Iago always happy together? What ruined their marriage?
If there'south a scene where the characters don't voice their feelings, what might they be thinking? Try writing a monologue depicting a characters' state of heed at a detail indicate.
What well-nigh alternative endings? What might have prevented this tragedy?
What happened to Iago afterwards the events of the play?
Try rewriting a later on scene in which the misunderstandings are solved.
What might Desdemona or Othello'south ghosts accept to say about what happened?
Imagine a character is giving evidence in a court about what happened. How might they draw the events?
Could you modernise the story, and ready it somewhere else: a schoolhouse, an office, a theatre…?
I promise ane of these prompts gives y'all a useful starting point. Good luck writing!
Q:
Hi so, this may seem like a stupid question, but what are the small numbers to the left of the text in a play?
Anonymous
Not a stupid question at all, my friend! Those are line numbers; they tell y'all which line of the scene yous're on. So if you're writing an essay and you desire to reference a item line, you can write the act, scene and line number. It'southward more often than not put in brackets after a quotation, similar (III.ii.33), meaning Act 3, scene ii, line 33. It can too be written (3.two.33). I practise this whenever I quote from a Shakespeare play fifty-fifty on this blog so people can detect the line in context if they desire to.
Q:
Considering the grave scene and how Paris dies defending Juliet's sepulchre, I retrieve information technology's more than explicit it's Paris rather than Tybalt who becomes some sort of Juliet's personal champion, though Paris wasn't assigned that part either and just acted similar that for his own volition. I totally believe if anything happened Tybalt would be Juliet'south champion without question, though. For how he behaves when it comes to the Capulets in full general, but also for Juliet in detail: because what Juliet and the balance say he died, they seemed to have been pretty close. It'south a pity we never got to run into them collaborate.
Funny how y'all mentioned Romeo becomes Mercutio'south sort of champion when he is killed. It's true, and information technology'southward interesting considering it was Romeo's duel to begin with. I wonder if Mercutio would have been chosen equally Romeo's own champion and thus the roles as were expected to happen were reversed. But, since Mercutio didn't really have a place in the feud and was the nephew of the Prince, who explicitly banned quarrelling betwixt the families (not that he would care, but I imagine Romeo and Benvolio would), it probably would have been Benvolio. Besides, he is Romeo's kin, and Mercutio is also of higher status than either of them, something blatant in the way he talks and behaves despite his friendly flamboyance, which I imagine would make it unsuited or not very proper for him to be second or champion to anyone of lower condition; but this point I'd have to check. In any case, the potential part reversal is very interesting.
Anonymous
This is a answer to this post, and functions, I recollect, every bit more of a comment than a question? I don't have much to add together.
It'south a expert point near Paris becoming a kind of champion for the 'dead' Juliet. Only I was really only illustrating what a champion might exist. Equally Shakespeare never uses the word 'champion' in this play, and since no formal champions are e'er ready upward, what a character may or may not have done will have to remain speculation. If you were performing the play, it might serve as a way of thinking virtually characterisation, but as a textual scholar, I tend to stick to what is said or directly implied by the lines.
The point most ranks and champions is an interesting one… I don't think Mercutio specially stresses his higher rank over Romeo, hence why he fights on his behalf to brainstorm with (in that sense, Mercutio is Romeo'southward self-appointed champion). I'chiliad not an good in duelling etiquette, but I know it was considered dishonourable to challenge a man of lower rank than yourself, then Mercutio isn't really interim as someone of a higher rank in that. I'm not sure on the question of whether one could have a college-ranking champion. I suspect yous could if they agreed to information technology or wanted to. This might be a slightly odd example, but in Richard 2, Gaunt does refer to 'God, the widow's champion and defense force' (i.2.43)… God is a little bit of a different case, just He is manifestly above everyone and can nevertheless be the champion of widows…
Q:
Hi! I'm reading Romeo and Juliet and I was wondering if you could explain the thought that Tybalt is Juliet's champion and what they means?
Bearding
Hi at that place! I don't think Tybalt is ever chosen Juliet's champion in the play, but I guess in a broader sense he does human action like he'southward the champion of the Capulet family.
A champion is basically someone who fights on behalf of somebody else, either as a representative, or because the person is unable to do then themselves. For instance, in a traditional duel you would generally have a second person standing every bit champion just in example the main guy is hurt. In fact, Romeo fighting after Mercutio is injure is a example in signal: he becomes Mercutio's champion.
It's often the case that someone volition fight on the behalf of a lady, since they weren't generally trained in combat. Simply I don't think it's quite right to phone call Tybalt Juliet's champion, since he's non fighting directly for her or for her honor or at her behest. He definitely sets himself up as the representative of the Capulet family, challenging Romeo to remedy what he perceives to be a slight on their honour (Romeo gatecrashing their political party). Still, it's likewise important that he really isn't the official champion, since Lord Capulet has told Tybalt to permit Romeo be, therefore giving no permission for him to represent the family unit.
Q:
Hey there! I was wondering if you had whatsoever special insights on the theme of moral vs literal blindness in Rex Lear? I feel similar I e'er hear nearly how deep and complex the play is but I experience like I'm missing something?? I love your analysis and perspective on Shakespeare, I wish I had found your web log sooner hahaha
Anonymous
Howdy there friend! I get the sense that y'all're not all that taken past King Lear from the way you phrased this question, and that'southward fine. Information technology is a circuitous and interesting play, but it's not for everybody. Quite a few people are frustrated past this play. My Middle English Professor used to say, 'the earth's depressing enough without Male monarch Lear', and I definitely encounter where she'south coming from.
But this is an fantabulous question. The moral and literal blindness bespeak has been made an atrocious lot in Male monarch Lear criticism. And the difference between beingness able to come across physically and beingness able to run across the truth is a stardom Shakespeare uses throughout the play, both verbally and literally in quite a gruesome fashion. In fact, if yous read the play focusing on eyesight simply, you lot'll find just how much Shakespeare focuses on information technology, right from the beginning, with Goneril's speech communication claiming she loves her father 'Dearer than centre-sight' (1.1.56), and Lear's anger towards Cordelia expressed as a desire never to run into her again: 'avoid my sight!' (1.1.125). There are actually more mentions of 'middle' in King Lear than any other Shakespeare play, and that's not even including all the references to sight and seeing.
Although information technology's contested by modern critics, at that place is a tradition of viewing Lear equally a play where the older characters – especially Lear and Gloucester – learn humanity or gain spiritual agreement through their sufferings. In this way of reading the play, the characters come to 'see better' (in Kent's words, 1.1.159) as the play goes on, peculiarly for Gloucester, whose literal blindness leads to improve moral vision when he gains insight instead of sight. The evidence for this reading comes from the way Gloucester is led into fault by trusting his senses – taking the letter Edmund gives him as evidence of Edgar'southward disloyalty – and besides from his famous line, 'I stumbled when I saw' (4.1.21). Gloucester plain means he stumbled metaphorically, and now he stumbles literally: having eyes didn't help him.
The event with this sight to insight reading is that there'south no actual evidence that losing eyes assistance Gloucester to gain any insight. Blindness isn't what makes him realise Edgar was innocent; it'southward Edmund's betrayal. And, of form, his incomprehension doesn't make him whatever ameliorate at recognising that the homo he'southward travelling with is his son. On a slightly different note, information technology's not exactly a given that Lear comes to come across better either. In his madness, he does seem to recognise what he's failed to practice: 'O, I take ta'en / Too picayune care of this' (three.4.32-3), and seems to take some greater wisdom, peculiarly in the scene where he tells Gloucester, 'What, fine art mad? A man may see how this world goes with no eyes' (4.6.146-vii). But it's also possible to run into Lear's madness and hallucinations as another mode he avoids seeing others for what they are. He may gain some temporary mad insight into the world, but he refuses to encounter what has happened to the finish, peculiarly in the folio catastrophe. Insofar equally information technology mirrors the Lear story, Gloucester'due south blinding highlights how much Lear fails to see too.
Your terms, moral and literal blindness, are quite useful, but I don't think they're in opposition, and then information technology's non really about moral versus literal incomprehension. In King Lear, eyesight and superficial vision are a kind of distraction from seeing others properly. You could call this moral sensation, but at that place isn't an easy single definition of morality so it tin get confusing very quickly. If there is morality in King Lear, it isn't some abstract affair one can gain a pure knowledge of or which is imposed by some greater ability. It's something that arises from the recognition that one has an obligation to other living beings. Putting aside the question of whether Lear and Gloucester do actually learn annihilation, I think it is safe to say that much of their error stems from a failure to admit others properly, to recognise what they are instead of how they look. It's notable that the failure to acknowledge others is a feature of all the 'evil' characters too.
So in i sense, Gloucester's blinding literalises this metaphorical failure to come across others, so that his blindness towards others paves his way to his literal incomprehension. That's not to say it'southward his ain mistake he's blinded. Although Edgar tells Edmund that 'the night and barbarous place where thee he got / Cost him his optics' (v.iii.170-one), information technology's a footling flake much to say that Gloucester's blinding is a direct consequence of his having committed adultery. It's too a fleck of a stretch to imply that Cornwall and Regan are dealing out justice in doing so. Information technology may be truthful that if Edmund had never been born, Gloucester wouldn't have had this predicament, but Edgar is rather prone to moralisations. I don't think that kind of pat moralism is a useful way of reading the play.
Function of the depth of this play is the fact that there's no unmarried perspective you can take on any of the problems. Everyone is unreliable, and it'southward not clear what'southward been achieved, if annihilation, by the terminate. At that place's definitely moral blindness, though what the standards are for morality are not clear in this pagan setting; there'due south definitely concrete blindness, but it's difficult to say that'southward causally connected to moral blindness. Finally, it'south non at all clear that concrete blindness leads to any moral clarity for the characters. The blinding is, and has to remain, a horrific act of violence that literalises the failure to recognise others, not just past Gloucester but by those doing the blinding, who evidently fail to see and treat Gloucester as a fellow human being.
Bearding 
0 Response to "Dont Ever Post No Shit Like This Again"
Post a Comment