Shakespeare2013

Interesting dude, what i like most about him is that he wrote 37 plays and 154 sonnets. Well the weather doesn't have much to do with this. Unless you meant whether, and in that case i just assume we must heed the writers facts not with our full trust but a fair degree of optimism.

The facts about his family made me curious as to how his family may have influenced Shakespeare's writing. Were any of his relatives into play writing or acting, did he inherit a natural ability? Or was his profession new to the family? I wonder how he got into it in the first place if none of his family did it. With seven siblings I bet some of his characters and stories were influenced/ based on them. It is weird to think of Shakespeare as a regular guy with seven brothers and sisters, its weird to think of him as a person because we only know about his writing.

my favorite part of this piece is, Shakespeare had seven siblings. They were: Joan (1558); Margaret (1562); Gilbert (1566); Joan II (1569); Anne (1571); Richard (1574) and Edmund (1580). I think that is crazy, Ms. K did you know this ?

i feel like it would be to difficult for Shakespeare to write all of the plays that he has with all of his family.its a lot of work for one man with little education and so many distractions

This is interesting Reanna, because it brings us back to some previous conversations we've had here about the role of modern versions in general. Some people will automatically think they are inaccurate, and ruin Shakespeare's intent. Others will say that they are an important way to engage people (especially younger folks) who may think Shakespeare is "boring." What I find interesting about this article is the issue of fitting modern sex standards into Shakespeare..."The references to "maiden" do serve one purpose, however: They demonstrate the fact that modern sexual standards are a much more awkward fit with Shakespeare than modern cell phones." and yet.... "As Anthony Eselen has pointed out, 'For Shakespeare, chastity is as near to an absolute value as it is possible for a virtue to be.'" Hmmm...so, do Shakespeare's values on sex align with modern day values or not? Can you cite examples that suggest Shakespeare's take on the matter?

I don't agree with Eselen's statement that Shakespeare valued chastity so highly - judging from the plot of Much Ado About Nothing and The Winter's Tale in which another woman is falsely accused of infidelity (which I've seen, though not read), it seems like Shakespeare is critiquing society's expectations about chastity. Both of these conflicts stem from male characters being too obsessed with their women's chastity, and it seems to me that Shakespeare is saying that getting worked up about pre (or extra) marital sex is not worth all of the trauma it causes. Also, I believe Shakespeare filled his plays with so many sexual issues at the time to push boundaries and make people challenge their values. In this time when society is comfortable with the sexual views expressed directly in the text, there is nothing wrong with adding controversial modern views about sex so that Shakespeare's work today will get the same reaction it did then. I think Shakespeare is relevant partly because of his ahead-of-the time, slightly radical messages, and if we ever let Shakespeare get to the point where we are comfortable with all of the ideas it suggests, his work will lose its importance.

Hannah said exactly what i was gonna say...

I really liked what the narrator said about the two meaning of Shakespeare - the obvious "it just sounds mean" and the deeper meaning we get when we put it in the context of the time it was written. This again displays Shakespeare's skill in catering both to the common crowd who just want jokes and the more intellectual audience members who understand his references. I also liked how the narrator said how Shakespeare used insults not because he felt like it, but because it advanced the mood and relationships between characters. In our recent discussions of Shakespeare's relevance, it's been brought up that often the humor isn't that funny anymore. Do you think the same is true of insults, or does the message still come through?

Although we've spent this semester debating Shakespeare's relevance, nothing really opened my eyes to how obsessed our society is with his work like this article did. I wouldn't agree with all of the author's arguments, but I do think that reading Shakespeare with more critical, less reverent eyes can lead to new insights and more creative ways to produce the play, such as when the Macbeth troupe ad-libbed the porter scene to make the humor funny again. I didn't agree however, with the argument that Shakespeare's female characters aren't good for girls to read about. There are many strong female characters such as Lady Macbeth, and even the weaker female characters represent what it was like to be a woman at the time. Just because they are not good models for girls now isn't a good excuse not to read about them because that discounts the challenges of being an Elizabethan woman.

I agree with this article. Shakespeare has been praised to much. Shakespeare has been made out to be the best drama writer ever. There are many other writers that have much better drama literature then Shakespeare. Shakespeare has been made out to be the best just because he is one of the first writers who started writing this way. I believe that shakespeare is overrated.

"In my experience, reading or watching Shakespeare is, by turns, baffling, tiring, frustrating and downright unpleasant. It does not, as those suffering from bardolatry repeatedly claim, offer unparalleled insight into universal human truths (most "universal" things, when scrutinised, turn out to be specific to a dominant class anyway)." Do you guys agree? Is reading Shakespeare baffling, tiring, frustrating, and downright unpleasant? This semester we've talked a lot about these universal themes or "human truths" as the author describes them. We've discussed in class that yes, there are many themes we can understand and relate to. Do you still feel that way or have your opinions changed since reading this article?

I think the modernization of the plays can be interesting simply because if you're familiar with the traditional version of the play, it's neat to see another interpretation. Overall I think it makes the plots more relatable if they are modernized. For example, Gang violence is a bit more relevant than kings and nobles fighting each other. I liked in the end of the article where it said that the skill and performance of the actors was what really mattered, and not the costumes. Can the importance of different parts of a play _change_, depending on what effect the director is going for? (Gus)

I think both ways are great. Shakespeares plays in the original way encourage everyone to try, but that can be hard work sometimes, and I disagree with this article that this will encourage kids to put down their phones. I feel like adaptations set in modern times enable the students to learn the material, but without getting to frustrated and giving up. Despite this, I think students can still handle the language if the acting is relatable. It will allow them to connect deeply with the play and its themes, which kind of brings me to the point that maybe the words don't matter as much as long as the point gets across whether the actors are wearing kilts or military uniforms.

it's interesting that you say the words don't matter as much, I feel like one of the defining qualities of Shakespeare's plays is the language that he uses. (Gus)

I agree with Gus, what "makes" Shakespeare, is the words he uses, and language. But we already do, make modern day twists in shakespeare plays, and we make them more relatable to our lives, and keep us hooked but still have the same concept from the original.

Gus and Reanna, you both bring up interesting points regarding what "matters most" in a Shakespeare play. I'm wondering if it is the universal themes that originally draw people in to Shakespeare, but the language that people fall in love with and stay a bit longer for?

When watching a modern version of a Shakespeare play I would enjoy it more if the language was also modern, but then that brings up the question of is that Shakespeare? I believe it is because all that would be modernized or different form the original would be the costumes, the lines (they would still carry the same meaning just translated), and maybe the setting. You would still have the same plot, themes, and everything else include in a production, that Shakespeare intended.

I think the modern versions are interesting because they show that the important themes Shakespeare uses in a completely different time period are still relevant. The modern changes allows people watching today,to connect and understand further then they would with a plot about kings. The relevant themes in both the old and modern versions suggest that even though there are no longer kings on horses, people are still the same and have similar feelings even 500 years later.

I believe that some of "Shakespeare's" work could have been written by someone else or many other people. for example In Macbeth it seemed like someone else had finished the book where someone had left off. having a difficult time getting around the fact that Macbeth could not be killed by a man born of woman. the play needed to be finished so he came up with a poor thought way to have macbeth die. I doesn't seem like such a brilliant play writer would have come up with such a dull ending.

It does seem very strange that we don't have that much biographical information on William Shakespeare himself. I never thought of Shakespeare as a pen name, but it does sound like a good one. We might be reading plays that we think he wrote but might have been altered a little over time because it's been like 400 years. I could definitely believe that it could have been someone else who wrote it because he has enough information to seem like a real person, but not enough information to seem like an extraordinary person like himself.

What I liked best about the TED talk (besides the raps themselves, which were really cool), was how he drew parallels between the popular quest to discredit Shakespeare of his work and how hip hop isn't taken seriously in society. Because Shakespeare was a commoner, not super wealthy or anything, people don't want to recognize him as the true creator of all this art. Likewise, because hip hop had its roots in poor neighborhoods often among black people, our society doesn't want to consider it as "serious" music. Since many hip hop artists probably didn't read Shakespeare to get inspiration, how did it get into their music? Is it because Shakespeare wrote so well about "real life" that his plays and themes match what the hip hop artists are really experiencing?

I think that the "beat" in Shakespeare sonnets play a big role in their popularity and makes them much more enjoyable. The same beat in rap music is what makes people like rap music. The connection is not only beat but also in the poetic lyrics that the two things share. This correlation can spark the interest of people who like rap music but don't like Shakespeare and the other way around, it also can give people an appreciation for each.

I completely agree with Jesse on the how, but I think the big connection is the words or lyrics depending on the genre like Hannah. Most of the quotes Akala used dealt with themes that are pretty powerful. Rappers discuss or rap about love, hate, death and life the way Shakespeare writes about it. This works as a bridge to connect the two, so therefore my thought process would be that, despite the fact that other genres may not be influenced by his iambic pentameter, they may be influenced by his love stories and tragedies to write songs about heartbreak.

This is a great discussion you are having ladies! I think all three of you make excellent points. To me, it would seem, that Shakespeare's popularity in the hip hop scene (and elsewhere) is most likely a combination of the two aspects you are addressing. I think the rhythm of Iambic Pentameter certainly appeals to musicians--their life is all about rhythm! At the same time, these themes that you are mentioning Reanna are extremely powerful and universal--they interest a wide variety of people (dare I say ALL people everywhere?!).

I remember, while we were discussing "Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer's Day," I thought it was weird how Shakespeare implied that his poem would live on and keep the person he was writing to alive. Now, hearing a hip hop artist put Shakespeare's words to a rap beat, it really does seem like that sonnet is still living. I wonder if Shakespeare's ongoing relevance and popularity today is due to how easy it is for other artists to adapt his work to be more modern.

It's interesting how much modern rap and hiphop sound like something Shakespeare would have written in one of his plays. I never thought of hiphop as being similar as Shakespeare.

Before I became witness to this TED talk I would not have thought that hip hop and Shakespeare would sound so similar, but after watching I realized that I could not noticed differences between the two. This shows how relevant Shakespeare is today.

Although I doubt a single word mistake could completely change the meaning of a play, often Shakespeare uses single words repeated throughout to convey a theme. If, for example, some editor misread the words blood, destroy, or guilt in Macbeth, and put something happier in instead, we would lose the dark, scary mood of the play. I think mistakes in words affect the emotions the play provokes more than our understanding of the plot. I wonder if this could explain at all the section in Macbeth about Hecate that some people think wasn't written by Shakespeare. Maybe plays in Shakespeare's time were more fluid because there was never a typed, published copy, so he could go back and make edits between performances.

This story made me laugh...to pe or not to pe. Now that WOULD actually change the meaning of the play, right?! What intrigues me about this story is something said at the beginning, "...computer analysis has persuaded scholars that 325 lines in the 1602 edition of Thomas Kyd's play The Spanish Tragedy were truly authored by Shakespeare." What I want to know is, why are people constantly trying to discredit Shakespeare? Why do scholars so badly want to prove that he did not write this stuff? Can they just not believe that a common man could write such brilliant words? While all this research is sort of interesting, I usually ignore it, because I just like to believe that Shakespeare wrote it all (ignorance is bliss...and requires less research :)

I feel like this couldn't exactly explain the certain scenes, like the one with Hecate, being thought different than Shakespeare's as one word being interpreted wrong due to bad handwriting is believable, but an entire scene isn't. Also, I get his handwriting was probably horrible, but surely someone would be able to read it. Teachers handle reading students' horrible writing. Ms. Kiley, I think people want to discredit him because it's hard to believe someone could be so brilliant when we don't have the amount of fame or talent. He just did so much in only one lifespan, so it's hard to imagine that a common man could do more than some of the people thought brilliant in his time.

I bet part of the reason people think Shakespeare didn't actually write his plays or has a secret identity is because his plays are full of people disguising as others or making secret schemes. Often, I interpret what authors write about as clues to their lives, since writers draw on real experiences. If Shakespeare did that, he definitely had some secrets!

Could it be that maybe some of the questionable scenes were the outcome of collaboration? Maybe the actors thought it was weird or didn't fit in well so they collaborated with Shakespeare to compromise and that's why it sounded different.

That they are crazy...?

touche, Will! Do you think it's true though? Are ghosts only figments of an unstable mind?? Read the article and let me know!

I don't agree totally with either the Catholic or Protestant view of ghosts. Both seem a little too black and white, and I bet Shakespeare borrowed some aspects of the afterlife from each religion. If I had to choose though, I think the ghosts of Shakespeare are more protestant because they seem to come back with a greater purpose, as if they are sent to either warn or doom the character. Something the author never mentioned, that I wondered about, was how the supernatural characters in Shakespeare's plays were perceived in a super-religious time like Elizabethan England. Did the church disapprove of the witch craft and actors playing pagan gods, or did Shakespeare's vision of ghosts fit with the religious beliefs of the time?

I think the ghosts are a kind of supernatural justice. Banquo's ghost in Macbeth is punishing Macbeth by making him face what he's done. Literally. I think Hamlet Sr.'s ghost is trying to right the wrong done to him, that whole 'murdered by your own brother' thing. Hannah, When you say pagen gods, are you talking about the fairies and spirits that sometimes appear (like the fairies in A Midsummer Night's Dream)? Also, I think the whole supernatural thing was aimed a towards the common people, and not really towards the royalty.

Hannah, just out this video http://www.pbs.org/wnet/shakespeare-uncovered/education/lesson-overview/supernatural-shakespeare-and-macbeth-video-segments/ I was going to show it in class one day but the link was not working. It may answer some of your questions! "Witches were taken very seriously..." Caitlin (catlion): I love your idea of the ghosts as supernatural justice! You should also watch the video clip (everyone should!). It says that the use of the supernatural on stage was an immediate connection for everyone watching!

I liked how the video pointed out that using the supernatural made people connect to Shakespeare's plays, since it was so much a part of life at the time. I wonder if the ghosts were meant by Shakespeare to be a political statement against the protestant rulers, or just an exciting plot twist. It's definitely a good point that as much as the witches advance the plot and are interesting to us now, they held much more significance (and were probably scarier) in Shakespeare's time.

I think its interesting how much WS uses ghosts as characters to scare or give advice to the living in his plays, it shows how strongly they believe in the supernatural and after life.

I actually agree with the Catholic version due to the fact that I feel like if the ghosts were meant to be demons they would be a lot more vicious and unstable. The two ghosts we've met/ read about are both pretty stable and although they aren't happy, aren't exactly dangerous. I also feel like if Shakespeare was going by the protestant belief, many more of his evil characters would come back once they died. What I want to know though is what religion Shakespeare himself was and how that reflects on how he wrote his ghosts.

I believe that William Shakespeare used the ghosts as they were seen by the Protestant religion. I believe that in Shakespeare's plays the ghosts are evil spirits that try to convince the characters to cause harm to others. I believe that the ghost of Hamlet's father is just trying to cause chaos in the kingdom by telling Hamlet that his father was killed by his uncle.