The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Technical Writing · Exposition & Argumentation · Non-fiction Creative Essays · Grammar and Usage of Standard English · The Structure of English · Analysis of Literary Language
Advanced Professional Papers · The History of the English Language · First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop · Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing
Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) · Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) · Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology)
UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" · UMBC'S University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly" · Introduction to Journalism · Feature Writing · Science Writing Papers
The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark · The History of Henry the Fourth Part One · As You Like It · The Comical History of The Merchant of Venice · The Sonnets 1-18 · The Tempest · The Final Exam Preparation Wiki Workshops
The Shakespeare Quotation Workshops: Hamlet · Henry the Fourth · As You Like It · Merchant of Venice
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Final Exam Forum
Here we begin talking about themes and ideas that dominate the works of Shakespeare that you've read this semester. I'm going to let you begin the discussion, and I'll chime in from time to time. I will take the final exam questions from this page, so you have a vested interest in developing ideas you'd like to discuss. Low activity means that I will have to decide myself, and that can't be as good as your having a hand in it.
Possible themes: Kings and fathers. Forgiveness. Madness. Disguise. Appearance versus Reality. Profit versus common good (think about Hal, Shylock, Claudius, and Prospero: not all of these guys are bad, and not all the good guys are all good. Nor are the bad guys undeserving of our understanding.) How about some themes of your own? Women in Shakespeare (oops, that's another one of mine).
Reminder: Set up a page for the theme you want to discuss. Put a "watch" on that page, and sit back to receive notification of changes. Contribute some more! You're off to a great start. At some point you need to start discussing the themes/questions you've raised. Create a page. If you're unsure about how to do that, ask me. ~Professor Farabaugh
Eric J. Smith's Argument: Question of Shakespeare's relevancy in 2007? So we’ve learned, discussed, and dissected the themes of Shakespeare over the course of this semester – now what the hell are we going to do with it? I took this same ENGL 250 class for the first time nearly 4 years ago in spring of 2003. I hated Shakespeare before I took it that semester and I hated him and his obsolete plays when I walked out at the end. I received a D for that semester – a fitting grade I believed for a course I neither cared about nor wanted to care about. This was of course before I learned that getting a D at UMBC is basically the same as an F.
Cut to me 3 years later and dilly-dallying to retake the course: and what do I find when I retake it? Shakespeare’s an all right guy, after all. What it boiled down to was that Shakespeare meant nothing to me in 2003, when I was 20 years old and preoccupied with wearing Kool-Aid Man costumes in Asian supermarkets. In 2006, as I am now 24 years old and slightly less preoccupied with wearing Kool-Aid Man costumes in Asian supermarkets, I was finally able to appreciate the language and rich wordplay still offered by these dinosaurs. The question I’ve dealt with in my own polarization of Shakespearean experiences is thusly: what exactly is Shakespeare's place in the modern world? My guess is a good chunk of you might have the chance to teach Shakespeare in some sort of classroom situation; how would you interpret say, Hamlet for a group of 7 year olds? 18 year olds? How does this obsolete language still portray the same themes still present in modern entertainment? And the question I asked myself and others back in 2003: why in the most holy of hells are we still focusing on Shakespeare in the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand and Six? Is it because he’s such an easy fallback or is it a different reason altogether? ~Eric
Eric, I would ask you what you will take away from the course. What did Shakespeare teach you? What has he continued to teach us? If audiences still weep when Lear and Cordelia are reconciled (and I have taught this scene, and watched students and the professor tear up together) then do we need a reason? The question to ask yourself is why something should be thought of as outmoded simply because it is old and takes a little work. As you have pointed out, it works beautifully if you are willing to be patient with it. You could say the same of Joyce or Faulkner. If it works, it works. RF BTW, I notice Christoper Paul, linked above, has something to say on this topic. Feel free to chime in. Why not take a position on the value of your own education? ~RF (Robin Farabaugh)
A Question of Relevancy: What exactly is Shakespeare's place in the modern world?
Eric J. Smith said, "The question I’ve dealt with in my own polarization of Shakespearean experiences is thusly: what exactly is Shakespeare's place in the modern world? My guess is a good chunk of you might have the chance to teach Shakespeare in some sort of classroom situation; how would you interpret say, Hamlet for a group of 7 year olds? 18 year olds? How does this obsolete language still portray the same themes still present in modern entertainment? And the question I asked myself and others back in 2003: why in the most holy of hells are we still focusing on Shakespeare in the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand and Six? Is it because he’s such an easy fallback or is it a different reason altogether?"
"What exactly is Shakespeare's place in the modern world?"
Okay I’ll bite. I m not looking at literary value. I graduated from the Sciences and I will be graduating as a Technology & Communication mgr with several minors in writing. I focus on the work that writing does. What does this text mean? What work does it do? What meaning do you/we make of ‘this’?
I find this is the place of Shakespeare in the modern world. He was a master in paving double, triple, and quadruple meanings with only a few words and it was always difficult to determine where in space he was coming from. What angle was he viewing ‘this’ from. This is all abstract but may times that’s what Shakespeare does. He forces us to think. His characters are never just two dimensional or even three. They are multi-faceted and as situations change, spaces change, and people within the space change the facets of the personality change. He shows and not tells the complexities of human being, human emotions, human thought within social/political spaces.
But it all goes beyond all this. Shakespeare is a snapshot in time of the language. The language of Early Modern English and shows how the language and how we read, write, and communicate in English has changed in addition to how lexicons changed. Now I’m coming out of the ENGL490 space and I know no one here is there. Shakespeare created new words, hundreds of them many now are obsolete. He would create words or alter spelling in order to create the correct number of syllables in order to develop specific rhythms. A great deal of this has been lost in modern writing. Also we in some ways have lazy vocabularies and use the “to be” verb way too often without searching for a better verb, a more powerful verb. When one removes the “to be verb as much as possible one has to find better verbs and different sentence patterns that develop more interesting rhythms making for livelier reading.
If you look at some of the OED entries where Shakespeare was quoted didn’t you note that the entry spelling and sound wise was nothing like what was in our texts nor was the punctuation. Even when we think we are reading in Early Modern English the editors have made the text just a little more accessible for modern readers even though we still don’t find it accessible. The language has changed greatly over 400 years. Some of the themes do seem archaic but when Shakespeare plays with the human condition everything becomes universal. His and or technology has changed, that of language, but we have not changed as human beings for thousands of years. We have not evolved much which maybe that’s the entire problem. That we haven’t evolved beyond many of the more negative emotions that we all harbor. How long does it take for a dinosaur to evolve into a bird or does it become extinct by grand design because it never learns from its mistakes?
Seven-year-olds? That’s kind of pushing it isn’t it? It could be done as an intro I suppose to enter the room in period dress and recite famous soliloquies to them and explain their meaning but that seems rather high-brow. I read Shakespeare year after year from I think 10th grade, maybe 9th, but I really didn’t get into Shakespeare into any type of depth until 12th grade and had a provocative teacher who would ‘suggest’ go off and read… usually the smutty stuff… and then say but remember I never told you to go read it because ‘The State’ says you’re not mature enough even though I KNOW what you guys and gals do on the football bleaches on Friday nights. You’re old enough and you should know, but I didn’t tell you. I dug in and read several plays and wrote papers on them. Ones we chose to read without guidance. We took out books in literary critical analysis to understand what we were reading and not Cliff notes. We worked for it and that is what Shakespeare does, he makes us work for the meaning-making. He like a good game. He is an expert at play. Guess what I mean now? How many meanings can you make of ‘this.’ He is a designer using the human condition and language. He plays with us his readers, he plays with the audience, he plays with his actors, be plays with relationships, emotions, imagery, sound, he plays with the mind, the soul, he plays with everything that can possibly be played with for meet very specific goals by design. But also note how many plays he wrote in such a short time. I’ll say it again he was student and master of language and the human condition and he left enough space by showing and not telling that we are many times left with a huge space to make our own meanings as to what he intended. Shhhh! I think I hear the stuffed hounds coming around the corner.
A fallback? Would you rather read James Joyce? I don’t find him any less complex. ~P.C. Paul
When we first began reading Shakespeare in this class, I realized why it was that I had never really liked him as much as an English major should. All of the puns and different meanings didn't seem subtle to me. I had always thought that Shakespeare was just trying to hard and didn't deserve the credit he got. I like writing with subtleties and sly hints and surprises. I didn't see any of that in Will. I can't describe how or why, but that opinion has changed.
As for his place in the modern world, I really don't know. I know one can find a lot of clues that help flush out the history of our language in his plays, and I know he's been pretty famous for a pretty long time. I find Joyce far more complex. Maybe it is because Shakespeare writes in English, but probably because I haven't studied JJ as much. To me, Joyce is far more interesting and satisfying. He makes me feel a little crazy and I like that. Shakespeare makes me feel like even though something seems nonsensical, it has a logical and unchanging order, which makes me feel like I'm being told a lie. But maybe that's why everyone else likes him so damn much. ~Meghan Fay
If Shakespeare writes in English, then what does James Joyce write in... Klingon? ~P.C. Paul
Like most of the people in this class, I too didn't think much of Bill (Shakespeare). Before this class, I hadn't read much of his stuff (Richard II in 301 with Prof. Farabaugh, a half-ass reading of Romeo and Juliet in high school). Now, however, after really dissecting some of his works, I can see that he was an alright guy! Yes, you really have to think when you read his plays and sure, his language is a touch archaic, but when you get to the core values and ideas, it's the same stuff people talk about and do today. In fact, some of Bill's stuff could be straight out of an episode of Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. This is West Virginia type stuff, especially when you've got a brother killing his brother and then marrying his wife. Gross! At the end of the day, or class I suppose, I have a much deeper understanding and appreciation for old Willy and maybe someday, I’ll read the rest of his stuff, or at least some more of it. One thing's for sure: that Norton is going NOWHERE! it'll come in handy someday when I’m teaching this fossil to some students of my own. --Chris Fenlon
It makes for a great pillow at the beach! A little hard, but still a pillow. As far as reading this stuff, well I read it in High School, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, Hamlet, and I read Mid-Summer Night Dream on my own in 12th grade. Lit 101 Macbeth, Hamlet, and I forgot what else. Lit 2 something something in British Lit ending before 18th Cent., same stuff except now I got King Henry IV Part 1, yippie! Then I come here and... "You can't have a degree unless you take Shakespeare, again!" I think Fallon was right, I should've taken the 350 something class for English Majors Only. I REALLY wanted to dig deep into some stuff and found myself running around on the surface. ~P.C. Paul
Yeah, I'm sticking with the whole personality flaws idea. Our group talked a lot about that and I learned much from it. -Chris Fenlon
I think that Appearance versus reality would be easy because there are TONS of examples. However, the final exam should be a challenge because...well it's the final exam, sooooooo, my thoughts are this. How is Ophelia used/manipulated by the characters and by Shakespeare? How does Claudius compare to Falstaff? or What is the role of comedy throughout all of the plays we read? or even What different roles does religion have from play to play, does it change meaning? --Emily Saltsman
Emily, these are great questions. You might want to set up a link to discuss them individually. I also want to add that I won't be asking about characters or themes in plays we haven't read. While Claudius and Richard III are interesting to compare, Richard III will have to stay on the shelf for our exam. --RF (Robin Farabaugh)
Quickly, so I don't forget: It would be interesting to examine how Shakespeare teaches or re-presents moral lessons (English drama originated in Mystery and/or Morality plays) and what those lessons are. --Meghan Fay
I think that if we were to analyze the contrast between character such as Rosalind and Celia that would be interesting. This would demonstrate how much we understood the importance and difference between varying main characters. The emotional maturity between the girls is huge, and I'll like to write about how or something. ~Laura
Yes! No one else chose blue....How about what roles women are supposed to represent in Shakespeare's play? What does Ophelia represent in Hamlet vs. Kate Hotspur in King Henry IV? Or Rosalind in AYLI vs. Portia in MofV? ~Adrienne H.
I agree with you Adrienne, I would love to discuss the role of women in Shakespeare's plays. I think they are all very interesting and there is a wide variety of information to choose from. I also think it is interesting how he chose to use strong women characters such as Portia (impersonating a man even) in a time period before women's rights. -- Rebecca Stern
I'd like to talk about the role of the "fools" and how they bring up some of the most intriguing themes, there are also lots of them; the grave diggers and to some extent the play-actors from Hamlet, Touchstone and Jacques from As You Like It, Falstaff (sort of) from Henry IV, and others. Oh the play-actors made me think of another idea, Shakespeare uses the idea of the theatre to imply a direct link to the audience and show the power of performance. --Holly Daugherty
We discussed a lot in class about how the role of women and how Shakespeare used them in his plays changed the longer he wrote. I think it would be great to explore this idea further. We could even tie in the roles of men vs women, including the fact that women were not aloud to perform on stage. ~Heidi Harrison
The Ideas to Explore
Shakespeare at play
The Roles of Fools
Appearance versus Reality
The Roles of Women
Fatal Personality Flaws
The Roles of Religion
These topics/questions were asked in the Wiki but never flew.
The Manipulation of Ophelia
Claudius versus Falstaff
The Role of Comedy
Shakespeare's Moral Lessons
A Play within a Play
Kings and Fathers
Forgiveness
Madness
Counterfeits, Counterfeiters, and Counterfeiting... Oh My!
Profit versus common good
This is too many themes to bring up, we'll kill ourselves trying to prepare all of these. I think we should all just chime in on our favorite one already mentioned; so that closer to the exam we can study only four or five. ~Holly Daugherty- Appearance VS. Reality
I have a prediction to make based on Bayesian Techniques in Probability. Certain questions our peers will find are easier to answer according to the way they thing and how they make meaning of Shakespeare in general. These questions will receive more posts. As more people post, others will follow suit because they will see others ideas and through recontextualization of other peer’s text they will develop more new ideas. People who posted previously will see the new posts generating more new posts and the answers will eventually develop exponentially. Henceforth, other questions will never be answered or developed and some will only be developed by one or two people. The more posting that occurs under a particular three to four questions will result in more respondents resulting in the majority pushing the exam towards three to four questions with fully developed answers through collective knowledge. In other words, it’ll all come out in the wash. ;-) ~P.C. Paul
I think one of the questions on the final exam should be on appearances, mainly because we have dealt with it so much this year. In all of our plays there is something that isn't exactly as it advertised itself to be. Shakespeare's characters are never one dimensional, they have so much depth, why was it that he was so interested in creating this?? Was it because he just was a good writer and wanted to make a good play? Was Shakespeare perhaps appearing to be something that he wasn't? I agree with Sarah down below here when she says that Shakespeare uses his plays to discover the truth. His character aren't fake. They are fictional but they traits are as real as any human...well not all of them. But he uses their actions and disguises to point towards certain truths, if not giving answers he is at least always challenging the audience to think. For instance in the Merchant of Venice, the courtroom scene is rife with appearances and posturing but in the end what is the moral of the story? Maybe there are no cut and dry answers and it can be debated but Shakespeare definitely was pointing towards the hypocrisy of Christians, Jews, and the legal system. I feel that the final exam should be used to draw out those lessons, themes, because those things are what Shakespeare wrote his plays for...to entertain yes...but also shed light. - Zach D.
I like the idea of discussing personality flaws in characters that eventually cause their demise. -Chris Fenlon
Hey everyone, there is one theme that I think we all noticed in almost (if not all) the plays we read, and that's the idea of the world being a stage. Just like Hamlet uses acting to discover the truth, I think Shakespeare uses his plays to discover the truth of all men. He really seems obsessed with the idea of a play in a play. This along with acting, disguises, and examples thereof, would make a necessary question for the exam. Do you all agree? --Sarah Sood
I definitely agree with you Sarah Sood and to expand on your point it seems that Shakespeare is also saying that many people are not genuinely honest. When something wrong has been done it was as if it was the character's job to scheme and figure out the truth. For example, the use of the mousetrap in Hamlet, and in AYLI and in MOV the women dressing up as men to save a person or to get to the truth. I believe that Shakespeare was telling his audience to watch out you can't trust everyone in the world to be honest. ~Jasmine
I agree with you guys. That can be a good final exam question. Some other themes I like was the one about fools; it seems like the last few plays we read all had to do with fools. And, the fools weren't unnoticed. We had quizzes on the fools and their relationship in the play. I’m not that fond of the women and Shakespeare question. I like the theme about brothers fighting brothers. We could expand on that a lot. Also the whole magic theme, such as the forest, and all the things in the Tempest, etc. We could also analyze the differences between the first few plays we read (fighting, sad endings) with the ones we read at the end (mostly happy endings); one can note all the themes about sibling rivalry, the fools, and the magic. ~Simran
I like the idea of discussing fools and their relationship to the play. It seems that fools are often used to reveal deeper ideas and relationships in the play and to further the plot. For example, the fools in the Tempest devise a plan to overthrow the king and their discussion gives us information and back story to the play. ~Shanna
How bout we NOT talk about Hamlet? I really did not enjoy that play at all. While everything that happened in Hamlet is repeated over and over again throughout SP's other plays, I did not find Hamlet fascinating by any means. I think that I because everyone quotes from Hamlet, people read it in schools, and it's just everywhere. The Merchant of Venice and the Tempest were so much more interesting. Henry IV had depth and a nifty fight scene like Hamlet, but just drew me in more than Hamlet. PLEASE NO HAMLET! ~Laura... sorry, I wrote again.
No Hamlet? :) Ok. All of these themes sound great! My vote is for appearance vs reality and of the role of fools. Having links for the specific themes is a great idea. Holly, I responded to the role of fools link if you are interested in further discussion. I will look at others tonight. ~Holly J.
Hey, Its Sarah Sood again. Just to expand on what Simran, Jasmine and I were discussing. I am wonder what other people think of the women and Shakespeare idea. The only reason I keep going back to this is because we need to remember that when these plays were originally performed, there were no women actors, so these roles where there is such a profession of love need to be further examination. I do also like the sibling idea just because there are so many. I am really curious about what others think. Thanks, Sarah S.
Yea I think it would be very beneficial to have a question that focused on appearances in Shakespeare, and the whole idea of hiding behind secret images in order to get what you want. Also the whole idea of "seeming" to be one way to fool people is brought up in all of the plays and this would be a good question to test our ability of realizing this theme within all the plays and then making connections to one another. ~Andrea
After successfully making NO friends with the removal of Hamlet from the exam, I decided to re-read the entire damn play. After my entire day was consumed with quoting Hamlet to my psychology majoring roommates and arguing about why Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were bad friends, I have determined that my demands were invalid. I will in fact be quoting Hamlet in my responses on tomorrow's final. Congratulations, class, you made me enjoy Hamlet. :D
The Home Page · The Integral Worm · My Resume · My Show Car · My White Papers · Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me · FAQ · Useful Links