The Final One!

-----------
Note: I will put the movie worksheet here on Friday, after we have finished watching Othello in class.
-----------

This is my final blog for this class. It is a bittersweet moment. My reflection of this class is one of similar sentiments, bittersweet. I am a Computer Science major, so taking a 400 level English class was a decision that set out from the beginning to challenge me, and in fact my friends and family laughed at me. Why would I put myself through that if I didn't have too. I do a slight bias, because my girlfriend is also taking the class, but that aside, I have a personal goal of being a renaissance man. I think a good college education should be fairly liberal, and provide a lot more than just the technical nuts and bolts you need for your career. I hate people who cover themselves with science, but have no idea about philosophy. They are ignorant people. I want my engineers to be political, well read, people. You may have the equations and techniques to understand the workings of an atom, but if you do not have a well developed sense of historical right and wrong, you will end up building an atomic bomb when you meant to solve the world energy crisis, and you won't understand the difference. Even if you do purposely build that bomb, or something analogous, you should at least have a good enough philosophical background to reflect on it, and good enough communication skills to reflect your ideas in the context of the world in which you live. I believe philosophy is as important as science. Which is why I took this class. Shakespeare has had a immeasurable effect on modern society, this is something that is worth understanding because of that alone.

As far as the technical aspects of this class go, there were a lot of good things. This blog in itself is a brilliant idea that shows how forward thinking Professor McCall is. It is a brilliant way to bring the concept of journal writing into a modern context, and it saves trees! The concept of a blog also makes the journal writing seem a bit more hip and modern, which makes them more accessible to motivate the lazier students :-P.

The idea of graphic novels, and the "low brow" approach to Shakespeare is also brilliant. I love how it brings the plays into different contexts, and really shows the power of interpretation. Dr. McCall has stated that you do not need to ever read Shakespeare, and you will be just fine in your life. I agree with this, but the deeper understanding of Shakespeare really gives a valuable understanding to how society interprets things, and what things are worth interpreting, which I think makes me a better person. It may not have been necessary, but it was worth it, albeit challenging for me at times.

I always try to make sure I am a decent writer, and I hope that you can at least say that I have that going for myself, but I have never had to write papers of this magnitude before, or this frequency, so it was definitely a challenge for me. It was worth it though; I did enjoy the challenge, and I think it made me a better writer. I would like to make two small critique's about the amount of work though. These are just my opinion, and feel free to ignore me, or flog me :-P. The first is the large amount of blog posts, and their regularity, even in the face of approaching large papers due. A blog post and a paper due on the same day is brutal. The second critique is the paper lengths. We started with a five page paper, then went to a six page paper, then jumped all the way to ten pages. That is a huge jump, especially during the compressed schedule of a five week summer session. The average of all those essays comes out to be seven pages per paper on average, but the unequal distribution, makes it seem very intimidating. Admittedly the last paper was ultimately creative, so that does make up for the length increase, but it was still scary.

Overall, I enjoyed the class thoroughly, and I think it was a worthwhile endeavor. I only regret that we didn't get to play Dungeons and Dragons :-P.

Thank you,
Ray Imber

Fan Fiction Prewrite

My fan fiction has gone through a bit of a tumultuous start. I had the conception that I could produce a ten page graphic novel of a professional quality in about a week. As I did some tests I found out that this was not going to be feasible, I am neither proficient enough, nor fast enough of an artist to achieve that goal. This was quite a bit of a disappointment to me, not only because I have a certain level of craftsmanship I expect out of myself, but also because my experimentation cost me a lot of the little time I had to complete the project. This is quite unfortunate, but alas, the show must go on, and I am left to fall back on good old prose writing.

The story itself is a bit more interesting. At one point I had the fleeting idea of putting Lady Macbeth on trial for baby killing, which would mirror the Casey Anthony case that currently has so much fervor in the news, but I don't follow the news closely enough, so I scratched that idea (though I still think it is a good idea). My second idea is just as interesting though. I had always found the witches to be one of the most interesting parts of Macbeth, and they serve a very powerful role as a plot device in the play, yet as characters, they were essentially shallow secondary characters. Except for Act I, Scene 3, when the witches talk about cursing the sailor, we don't get much about their personalities or back story. I wanted to expand on this void. 

One of the interesting things about the witches is not even the witches themselves, but that they seem to answer directly to Hecate, the goddess of witchcraft. This gave me an interesting idea: what if Hecate was like Emperor Palpatine, and the witches were Darth Vader. Each witch could have been a good and powerful character who is twisted by Hecate into becoming evil. This could be made even more interesting if the three witches were lead female characters in other Shakespearean plays, and each one is in Macbeth because each one is repaying their "deal with the devil". Which female leads would work best for this purpose?

Ophelia went mad and drowned herself. Perhaps during her drowning, Hecate appeared to her and offered her revenge on Hamlet, in return for the soul she was about to forfeit anyway. Desdemona was a loyal and loving wife to Othello, but Iago's manipulations blinded Othello into an unstoppable spiral of death. What if Hecate appeared to Desdemona right before Othello came in to smother her, and promised to restore her husbands faith......though she may not live to see it. Regan was the middle daughter of Lear, and always felt misplaced because of it. She loved her sister, but she also knew that Goneril will stop at nothing to steal her beloved Edmond. Perhaps before she went to see Goneril for the last time, she was approached by Hecate, who promised that no woman would be able to steal Edmond's affections, not even her sister, but Hecate may require the favor of the princess in return.

Hecate never lies to any of these women, all of her promises and predictions come true. But she manipulates them all in much the same way that they must manipulate Macbeth. Even if all of the women do not agree with Hecate, they are bound by her magic to obey her rules. Each woman is tempted in their darkest hour and played against their own emotions. Each woman starts out beautiful, but they are inevitably twisted by Hecate's magic, first emotionally, and then physically, until they become as they appear in Macbeth. And there I present the origin of the "Witches of Dunsinane Hill".

Kill Shakespeare -- Extra Credit Blog 2

I really enjoyed Kill Shakespeare. It was a clever use of the characters, though it was a bit cheesy and archetypal in places. I enjoyed the art in much the same way. I love that classic hero comic book look, and it lent it self to the story fairly well. My biggest problem was with Lady Macbeth as a voluptuous vixen. I always saw Lady Macbeth as a Cruella de Vil type character, not a Bond girl. The image threw me off, but it doesn't destroy  the story. There are a few issues I did have with the story though.


First there is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. They just had a brief cameo in the story, but their characters seemed off to me. In the play, these characters always seemed more loyal to King Claudius than to Hamlet, while in the graphic novel, they seem to be Hamlets unwavering lackeys. There is also the fact that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were never smart enough, in my opinion, to have opened Claudius's letter themselves. This increase in cunning and loyalty that the authors have imparted upon Rosencrantz and Guildenstern seemed off to me, and it leads me into the next issue I have with the story, Hamlet.


Hamlet is set up from the beginning to be this dashing heroic prince figure who is destined to lead armies into valiant battles. He is drawn as young, attractive, and muscular, but as we discussed in class, Hamlet was a middle aged scholar.  In fact, he is explicitly stated to be less of a swordsman than his kinsman, Laertes. Even the way Rosencrantz and Guildenstern act toward Hamlet in graphic novel immediately set us up to believe he is a strong leader character. The heroic Qualities Hamlet lacks in the play make him seem like a more realistic character. by imbuing these heroic characteristics onto Hamlet, I feel he looses some depth. As the story progresses, Hamlets indecisiveness reduces down to a generic hero quest, with Hamlet simply building up to become the great hero of the story. The original character had for more depth, despite his whining.


The second character I have an interesting issue with, though not as much as Hamlet, is Juliet. Somehow, Juliet went from a depressed, longing, whiny, teenage girl, from a wealthy family, to a rebel leader and  Joan of Arc figure. That is a pretty big leap. At least Princess Leia was set up from the begining to have those characteristics. Juliet, seems to just sort of have them tacked on. Admittedly, the authors were smart enough to make reference to this change, and leave plenty of room to make a back story to make the change believable, but for someone who has previous Shakespeare experience, it seems odd.


All this criticism is not to say I didn't enjoy the graphic novel any less. I do enjoy a good hero quest, and generic archetypal adventure. Comic's by nature are an exaggerative medium, as opposed to a play, which is generally considered a more realistic medium. To this end, Othello was perfectly done. I believed Othello whole heartedly in this universe. He has all of Othello's strongest traits from the the play, a strong warrior, a soft but well spoken statesmen, an exotic gentlemen, but with a huge temper and a hint of savagery. I believe Othello really makes the best translation to comic book form. He has all the right traits, and making him a huge buff black guy on the scale of Michael Clarke Duncan just creates a perfect comic book bad ass.
All in all, I enjoyed the work for what it was. It didn't have the depth of any one of the 
plays, but used the characters (mostly) effectively to create it's own universe that
is entertaining in it's own right.

Summer Storms -- Extra Credit Blog 1

The heaviest storm that we have experienced in Las Vegas in a few years came through today. It was a veritable tempest, albeit a brief one. As the storm raged, I sat out and enjoyed the show put on by the lighting and thunder, and I found my thoughts turning to Lear and his storm, and Nikki Texeira's analysis of the sublime. The experience gave me a more emotional connection to the scene than I had previously had, and it gave more gravity to Lear and his fool for me personally.

Even as I stood under the shelter of a patio awning, I felt little sheltered from the strong winds and sharp rain drops. To imagine that a man would choose to stand, completely uncovered, in such circumstances, is quite compelling. What is even more compelling to me, is that the Fool stayed with Lear. That shows an intense loyalty, and a very interesting aspect of that character. While sitting in my sheltered view of the storm, I tried to imagine the few people that I would stand out in a storm of that magnitude with, and it wasn't a very large list. The Fool does often refer to Lear as "Nuncle" several times in the play, which is an affectionate term, meaning an uncle, but the Fools choice to stay with Lear unquestioningly, no matter the circumstance, illustrates the Fools loyalty far more than his affectionate nick names.

Even more interestingly is the Fools contentment with the situation. While the Fool does plea for Lear to find shelter, even going so far as to plead Lear to forgive his daughters, he does not attempt to leave himself. He stays with Lear even when Lear ignores his pleas. The fool even imparts a wise song relating to accepting one's fortunes:

Fool: He that has and a little tiny wit- 
With hey, ho, the wind and the rain- 
Must make content with his fortunes fit, 
For the rain it raineth every day.

 This relationship seems actually fairly well reciprocated by Lear. At the end of the play Lear laments his Fool with just as much fervor as he does the death of Cordelia, his own daughter, "And my poor fool is hang'd! No, no, no life!". Lear's lamentation confirms the Fool to be as dear as a family member. This really gives the fool a lot of power in the play, and elevates him to a status as equal to a prince. Looking at Lear from a moral and social justice point of view, this is part of Lear's lesson. He has truly equalized his view of the world. He values the Fools truth and loyalty over vanity, and the appearance of his elder daughters love. The Fool was just as valuable to Lear as Cordelia was. A Powerful notion for a "lower class" citizen of the time, and definitely something to think about in a summer storm.

Lady Macbeth Vs. Queen Cersei Lannister from Game of Thrones

Let's talk about insane wives and queens! Insanity in matrimony combined with the leadership of a nation is always an entertaining combination. These women are creepily similar in their callous ambition, and it comes back to haunt both of them, though in different ways.

One of their biggest commonalities is their seeming willingness to kill babies:

I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums, And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you Have done to this.

Lady Macbeth infers that she has possibly smashed a babies brains in, while Queen Lannister, in the first episode, lets her brother/lover throw a ten year old boy out of a tower window. You just lose a certain level of sympathy when you condone the killing of minors. For both characters the baby killing references happen early in the story. This sets these characters up as evil or mad. You never get a chance to build any sympathy for them, they start out as unlikable characters.

While you don't start with any sympathy for these characters, you do build up a sort of pity for them. For Lady Macbeth, by the time she is saying "Out Damned Spot", she has gone mad from her own guilt. This is a situation where we don't condone her actions but we do sympathize. Her madness is her redemption. Queen Lannister, isn't as lucky. She also has her choices come back to haunt her, but she doesn't get any sympathetic escape (at least at the end of season one). The Queen successfully completes her coup to have her son placed on the throne, but she can not control him. Through the last episodes, it is obvious that Queen Lannister wanted Nathan Stark removed from power, but not killed. Her young king would not have that. He is an obviously rash and reckless king, which, instead of setting up the Lannisters to rule "for a thousand years" as Tywin Lannister said, will probably end up in the House falling through Civil War with the Starks. This is a similar end to the one that befalls Macbeth's reign, but Queen Lannister does not have the scapegoat of insanity from her ruthlessness, at least not yet. It is obvious that the guilt of Stark's death haunts her from her reaction to his execution. 

Why Iago is a better wing man than Richard III...

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

Movie Worksheet "Richard III"

1.  Plot Summary (3-4 Sentences)

The movie starts with Richard blasting down the headquarters of Henry VI with a tank. It then transitions to a nineteen thirties style celebration of Edward IV's throne and the ending of the war. Richard then weasels his way to the crown as per the play, with his speech to Ann taking place in a hospital morgue instead of a funeral march, and the tower of London consisting of an ominous Nazi-esque monolithic military compound. Lord Rivers, played by Robert Downy Jr., is killed by being stabbed while having sex (a rather grievous and unexpected change from the play). The ending battle scene consists of a World War II style battle, with Richmond chasing after Richard with a pistol. They chase each other up a factory like compound, where Richard jumps off a beam and is shot by Richmond simultaneously.

2.  How does this movie adapt, comment on, or relate to what we read in class?

The movie takes some very strong liberties in certain areas. One of the most obvious is the the complete removal of any supernatural elements to the story. While they leave Clarence's bad dream, they completely cut the ghost sequence from the end, and the character of old queen Margret is completely removed. Marget's curses at the beginning were very important to the story, and foreshadowed much of the tragic events that followed, even the characters themselves often commented on this. All that has been removed in the movie, the only line remaining being queen Elizabeth's request for "how to curse", but the question was directed toward Richard's mother, not queen Margaret, so it had much less impact.

3.  Does this movie change your interpretation of the text?  Why?  Why not?

I feel that the movie was a badly done interpretation. Richard III was not my favorite play, and a lot of that was because of the large amount of seemingly "excess" characters. The movie attempted to consolidate the story a bit, but in the process the removed an important aspect of the story. One of Shakespeare's main themes was fate, and they just removed that idea completely. This places all of the focus on Richard as a villain, which while appropriate, makes the story much less sympathetic, and arguably less believable. the idea of Fate in a universe, makes me at least a little more accepting of Richard's seemingly magical ability to make people fall for his speeches, because hey, maybe they really didn't have a choice, but removing that just makes the characters far too gullible to believe.

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

Blog

Richard is set up to be a great villian, and he succeeds admirably in becoming a two dimensional story book evil mastermind with little character depth. Iago is set up from the start to be a villian (he is even labeled a villian in the Dramatis Personae), and succeeds in not only becoming a great villian, but becomes a deep character with realistic motives and character interactions. One of the best ways that show how Iago is more realistic than Richard is by analyzing how they interact with their wing men. Richard had the Duke of Buckingham, and Iago has Roderigo. 


Iago and Roderigo are seen from the very opening scene of the play as seemingly good friends. They are talking ill about their general, a conversation that you would only have with a close friend in quiet conversation. Richard on the other hand, seems to show little true emotional connection to Buckingham. They don't even truly conspire together until Act 3 scene 1, and it is an obviously political arrangement. This lack of personal connection,  makes the relationship much less believable. Richard is a villain, so how can he have friends?


This is a direct contrast to Iago. Iago actually very effectively consoles his friend Roderigo, getting Roderigo to give him money, all in one fell swoop, and it is believable(1.3.297-373). Iago's consoling of Roderigo is believable because they have been set up as close friends already. Iago is pursuing his own means, but he also seems genuinely interested in the well being of his friend. In fact Iago uses Roderigo's jealousy of Othello to help justify his own hate of the General. They are friends in hate, and Iago's pep talk actually brings Roderigo closer to Iago. This is a very realistic relationship dynamic. 

Iago initiates the conversation with Roderigo with, "What say'st thou, noble heart?". Iago starts the conversation after everyone else has left the council chamber. He is obviously curious of Roderigo's opinion of the things that just happened, as any good friend would be. He greets Roderigo with the greeting of a close friend, calling him a "noble heart". When Roderigo responds that he will "incontinently drown" himself, Iago immediately responds as someone who seems to care. He calls Roderigo a "silly gentleman", telling Roderigo that if he kills himself, Iago will no longer love him. This statement, yet again shows the closeness of the two men. Roderigo cares about Iago's friendship a great deal and Iago knows this, and uses it to his advantage. Roderigo then tells Iago of his jealous feelings and his inability to control his feelings. This is where Iago starts to take advantage of Roderigo. He answers, "Our bodies are our gardens, to the which our wills are gardeners...". Iago is setting Roderigo up to let him in oh his plan. Iago is giving Roderigo hope, while convincing him to help him in his plan.

"...thou shalt enjoy her; therefore make money. A pox of
drowning thyself! it is clean out of the way: seek
thou rather to be hanged in compassing thy joy than
to be drowned and go without her." (1.3.354)

 Richard had no such close relationships with any of the other characters, especially Buckingham, who was placed in a similar wing man position. When Buckingham is denied his rewards from Richard, and even when he is captured and killed, there isn't as much sympathy for him, because there is no equivalent emotional connection, it is all political. "It's nothing personal, it's business". Iago is deeper because it is personal.

"Did You think to kill me?"

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

Movie Worksheet "V for Vendetta"

1.  Plot Summary (3-4 Sentences)

The movie begins with Eve going to go on a date with someone. She is stopped by "fingermen", gestapo type secret police, who attempt to rape her, but she is saved by V, who kills the fingermen, and then makes his famously quotable introduction consisting of V related words. He leads her to a rooftop to watch his destruction of the Old Bailey. Later, V takes over the National TV station, broadcasting a promise that he will blow up parliament in a year on the fifth of November. Eve helps V escape, but is knocked out. V then takes Eve to his layer, where he says that she must stay for a whole year. Some time passes and Eve asks if she can be of help to V. He has Eve pretend to be a young girl sent to a corrupt bishop for "pleasure" purposes, and to assist in killing the bishop. Eve escapes V during this ordeal and flees to one of her bosses, Gordon Deitrich. Deitrich takes Eve in, where we find out he is gay, and keeps copies of "contraband" material, such as the Koran. The police raid and seemingly capture Deitrich and Eve. Eve is then subjected to torture in a cell, in appears to be an attempt to find the whereabouts of V. This whole thing turns out to be a ruse set up by V to make Eve stronger. After she thinks she is going to be killed, she finds out that she was in V's lair the whole time. She then leaves V and attempts to make sense of the outside world. In the meantime detective Finch is on V's trail, and begins piecing together V's story. He finds out that V has been killing all the people in charge at Larkhill detention camp. He finds out too late that the coroner was the head doctor of the facility; she is killed by V before he gets to her. V then convinces Mr. Creedy, the head fingerman, to capture and bring the head of the party, Chancellor Sutler to him, in exchange for his own life. Mr. Creedy does this, thinking it will allow him to assume power for himself. Mr. Creedy kills Sutler himself, then attempts to kill V. V gets shot badly, but kills Creedy and all of his men. He then finds Eve, and dies in her arms. During this time, all the people gather in front of the parliament buildings, waiting to see what will happen. Eve puts V's body on a train lined with explosives that V had built, and sends it off to blow up the parliament buildings.

2.  How does this movie adapt, comment on, or relate to what we read in class?

The movie seems to be a very condensed version of the text. Most of the main ideas are there, they simply narrowed down the cast a lot, removing some of the less major characters, and shortened the timeline. There are two main differences in overall concept though. The main one is the ending. In the movie, V seems to plead to the people and gives them a choice. The people march on Parliament in V masks, and seem to want the change. This is different from the novel, where the change is forced upon the people. They don't seem to directly want it, and opposed to an organized protest, they seem to assume the role of a vicious unorganized mob. The second difference is the relationship between Eve and V. The movie makes V a bit more sympathetic at the end, having him die in Eve's arms; they seem to have a lovers embrace. In the novel, V shows more sympathy in the beginning toward Eve, and less so at the end. Their love was not as played up in the Novel.

3.  Does this movie change your interpretation of the text?  Why?  Why not?

The movie provides a kind of alternate universe from the text. The movie has a lot of the same ideas, and I would say, the main idea of the evils of fascist government remain the same between the two. The movie just goes about it a slightly different way. The text informs the movie, but the movie does not inform the text. The text goes into a lot more depth with certain ideas, that are really necessary to get a full appreciation for the ideas of V. A lot of these ideas, while they exist in the movie, get cut short, an unfortunate side effect of the medium.  

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

Blog

May I vicariously visit a captivating virtue embodied by V's visage. (Sorry, I couldn't resist...) V is a precarious character, who has many traits that amount to a very complex character; a character that walks a grey area between traditional storybook good and evil roles. Even through to the end of the story, you aren't sure whether he is a hero or anti-hero. There is a particular trait of V that I would like to discuss that goes beyond the question of V's morality, and that is his 'immortality'. V is an idealist. Whether you agree with his ideas or not, you have to applaud his ferocious loyalty to them. V as a man struggles with ideas throughout the story. During his destruction of the statue of Justice in fact, he romanticizes about the symbol of Justice cheating on him, representing his believed loss of value and faith in Justice as it exists in his world. V's entire world centers on symbols; ideals that represent lofty ideas. V believes his ideas will make him immortal, and he turns out to be right.


V makes this famous quote after he is shot by Mr. Finch in the Graphic Novel (Mr. Creedy in the movie), "There, did you to kill me? There's no flesh or blood within this cloak to kill. There's only an idea. Ideas are bullet-proof"(Moore 236). The person behind the mask is mortal, and is fully aware of this fact. V is banking on the fact, that even though he physically dies, the idea's that he fought so thoroughly for will survive him, through the peoples memories of his actions, and more importantly through eve, whom he implicitly named as his heir. Eve dutifully fulfills her role, dawning the Guy Fawkes mask herself. The transfer of power and responsibility from old V to Eve V, essentially turns V into a symbol, a Job, something that exists beyond the confines of human mortality. This is a very powerful concept, one that is not new.


There are several comic book superheros that have made use of this concept, probably the oldest and most famous is The Phantom. The Phantom is actually a family tradition, not a single man. The Phantom does not have any super powers. He uses only strength, agility, and gadgets (and he preceded Batman by four years). What makes The Phantom interesting that the role is passed down from generation to generation, but since the Phantom's identity is a closely guarded secret, to his enemies he appears to be immortal. Indeed some of the Phantoms famous nicknames are "The Ghost Who Walks" and "The Man Who Cannot Die". The idea of the Phantom as a symbol for "fighting evil" far outlives any one of the men who have worn the mask. Other comic book heroes have used the idea as well, and in fact the plot of the 1998 Mask of Zorro movie starring Antonio Banderas and Anthony Hopkins was entirely centered on this idea. 


V was building on this time honored tradition of transcending into symbolism. V starts out as an icon, but his goal is to become a symbol. I would like to bring up Scott McCloud's discussion about the difference between a symbol and an icon. According to McCloud, an icon is a representation of an idea, person, place, or thing, etc... It is assigned a general meaning by the reader. McCloud then specifies that symbols are a specific class of idea that represent "concepts, ideas, and philosophies". He is referring to large philosophical ideas that have icons that are so recognizable that they are inseparable from the idea they have come to represent. A standard icon can change it's meaning through time, or by the references set up by the author, a symbol cannot easily have it's meaning changed. V starts out as an iconic terrorist, but his goal is to become a symbol that represents Anarchy and arguably Freedom. At the beginning of the story we see V, first committing a heroic act by saving eve, and then as a terrorist when he blows up Big Ben and the houses of parliament. These two events, make V an icon, representing to conflicting ideals. Heroism and Terrorism. V doesn't in fact transcend into a symbol until he dies. It is Eve picking up the mask that makes V a symbol. V had to die for this to happen, and Eve had to take up his legacy. By being "resurrected", V is no longer simply a heroic terrorist. Eve realizes this when she imagines all the people that might be beneath the mask after he has died. When she realizes that V was an icon for all the people she loved in life, and then that his actions had far more power as something larger than any one individual, she effectively created V the symbol. In Eve's mind V will always be the stern parent and loved one in the background for society, just as he was for her, and V will always exist as long as someone wears the mask.