So, Dr. Burton asked us to look at classes for the English major just to investigate some of the ways this unit will help us in the future. Well, I'm not an English major, I'm actually an English Teaching Minor, so my choice of classes is fairly limited in selection. I looked up all the classes I need for my minor, and there are nine required courses. Engl 251 fulfills a whole requirement. I am already in the class Engl 232, the Shakespeare class, so that fulfills one of my other eight required classes. The other classes are American and British Literary History, Literature for adolescents, and some grammar teaching classes. Truthfully, I was a little disappointed that my minor included so few literature classes, I was really hoping for some more, but I suppose since I am planning on being an English teacher, I have to focus on the actual teaching part some. I am excited for the American and British Literary History classes. My sister-in-law was an English Teaching minor at BYU (she graduated two years ago) and she said she really enjoyed those classes while she was in school. I'm planning on holding off on the British Literary History class for a while because I really want to study abroad in Europe and I think that that class would be a good one to take, especially if I were to go to London or something like that.
Like I said before, I was a little disappointed in the lack of literature classes required in my minor, but I can already see how the drama unit is going to help me in my major. Firstly, it has already been very helpful in my Shakespeare class. Having two drama centered weeks was very interesting and I thought it started me off in the right direction in both classes because the interpretive techniques I was learning could be applied to both classes. I also think that this drama unit will be very helpful in the teaching part of my minor because, let's face it, aren't teachers acting as much as any actor? In class we had an informational performance about the Crucible. We discussed how when you are presenting information you are putting on a performance as much as when you are acting in a play. Therefore, this whole unit, which has had a lot of emphasis on the performance side of drama, has been very useful in learning how to perform in front of a group. Over all, I can see that this drama unit has definitely helped prepare me for my future endeavors as an English Teaching minor.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Importance of Being Earnest
So I was able to fit in reading the Importance of Being Earnest this week as I was planning to do in my self directed learning plan. Before I read, I looked up the plot synopsis and was a little confused because the plot seemed so pointless. Then I actually read the play, and I really really enjoyed it. The whole thing was just so funny! But, I didn't feel like I understood the play completely, so I discussed it with my friend Aaron, who had read the play several times and had been trying to get me to read it for a long time.
We talked about the title of the play, The Importance of Being Earnest, which, in itself, is one of the best parts of the play. The play on words of Earnest, which in this context can mean sincere, is reflective of the whole play. Everyone seems to be in so much earnest and yet at the same times, the sincerity of the whole play is questionable. Aaron pointed out the fact that Algernon spent the whole play stating that what was important was keeping up fine and sincere appearances while actual sincerity was certainly optional. I hadn't realized this when I was reading, but after having it pointed out to me, it made perfect sense and added to my comprehension of the play.
One thing that I questioned was whether this play was meant to be a satire or a parody. After thinking about it for a while, I decided that the play is most likely a satire. A parody, in the handbook, is written as an imitation of another work or author. I understand parody to have more of a purpose of mockery rather than a vast amount of social commentary. In Importance of Being Earnest, while it is certainly a mockery, it doesn't appear to be an imitation of another work that I can recall. Perhaps someone else knows, but from what I have read it seems to be fairly original. A satire, however, is apparently to have the purpose of social change; it is, according to my understanding, subversive, meaning to cry out against the norm through humor. I can definitely see this is Importance of Being Earnest. It makes the social norms of the society in which the play is set to be so utterly ridiculous that I would be surprised if everyone from that time period did not look around after realizing some of their own lives in the play and say "what are we thinking?". Truth be told, after seeing some of my own self in the play (most admittedly in the ridiculous behavior of the women regarding their own Earnests), I was motivated to reflect a little and perhaps change my behavior. Based off this personal experience, I would have to say that the Importance of Being Earnest is meant to be a satire rather than a parody.
We talked about the title of the play, The Importance of Being Earnest, which, in itself, is one of the best parts of the play. The play on words of Earnest, which in this context can mean sincere, is reflective of the whole play. Everyone seems to be in so much earnest and yet at the same times, the sincerity of the whole play is questionable. Aaron pointed out the fact that Algernon spent the whole play stating that what was important was keeping up fine and sincere appearances while actual sincerity was certainly optional. I hadn't realized this when I was reading, but after having it pointed out to me, it made perfect sense and added to my comprehension of the play.
One thing that I questioned was whether this play was meant to be a satire or a parody. After thinking about it for a while, I decided that the play is most likely a satire. A parody, in the handbook, is written as an imitation of another work or author. I understand parody to have more of a purpose of mockery rather than a vast amount of social commentary. In Importance of Being Earnest, while it is certainly a mockery, it doesn't appear to be an imitation of another work that I can recall. Perhaps someone else knows, but from what I have read it seems to be fairly original. A satire, however, is apparently to have the purpose of social change; it is, according to my understanding, subversive, meaning to cry out against the norm through humor. I can definitely see this is Importance of Being Earnest. It makes the social norms of the society in which the play is set to be so utterly ridiculous that I would be surprised if everyone from that time period did not look around after realizing some of their own lives in the play and say "what are we thinking?". Truth be told, after seeing some of my own self in the play (most admittedly in the ridiculous behavior of the women regarding their own Earnests), I was motivated to reflect a little and perhaps change my behavior. Based off this personal experience, I would have to say that the Importance of Being Earnest is meant to be a satire rather than a parody.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thoroughly Modern Mille
Last night I went to see Thoroughly Modern Millie with Amber and my friend, Aaron. I had never seen a BYU musical production before and the experience was quite memorable. I loved it! I have seen about five or six Off-Broadway productions back in North Carolina, but I have seen very few college productions and I didn't really know what to expect. I was shocked! The quality of the production was just amazing. I suppose I shouldn't just ramble about how much I loved the play, so I'll try to analyze what I saw from several different perspectives.
First, the plot and characters. I had one of my roommates give me a brief synopsis of the play before I left, so I knew that it was basically about a girl trying to make it in the 1920's. I didn't know much about the individual characters though, and I must say that the characters were one of my favorite parts. I was so impressed with the character development; how they slowly revealed all of the different aspects of the characters, until at the end when all was revealed and the solution was met. I must say that as far as the plot, it was a little thin. I don't, however, see this as a problem. I think that this play is a little bit like As You Like It, where the plot is thin to glorify the language; I believe that the plot of Thoroughly Modern Millie is thin to glorify the music and dancing that was so incredibly fascinating.
Other than plot and character, I want to add my thoughts as far as the actual production elements. I have already mentioned that I thought BYU did a wonderful job of producing this play. I think they were most accomplished in the scenery and costumes. The scenery was wonderful. The simplicity of it certainly added possibilities for the audience to imagine. Lots of the sets certainly enhanced the humor of the play, especially the rolling desks and chairs. I also have to say that I thought the costumes were amazing! I think the costumes contributed the most to the 1920's feel. They were so elaborately done but weren't obnoxious like some other plays have them. I loved it! Anyway, I have to go so this will be the end of my analysis for now.
First, the plot and characters. I had one of my roommates give me a brief synopsis of the play before I left, so I knew that it was basically about a girl trying to make it in the 1920's. I didn't know much about the individual characters though, and I must say that the characters were one of my favorite parts. I was so impressed with the character development; how they slowly revealed all of the different aspects of the characters, until at the end when all was revealed and the solution was met. I must say that as far as the plot, it was a little thin. I don't, however, see this as a problem. I think that this play is a little bit like As You Like It, where the plot is thin to glorify the language; I believe that the plot of Thoroughly Modern Millie is thin to glorify the music and dancing that was so incredibly fascinating.
Other than plot and character, I want to add my thoughts as far as the actual production elements. I have already mentioned that I thought BYU did a wonderful job of producing this play. I think they were most accomplished in the scenery and costumes. The scenery was wonderful. The simplicity of it certainly added possibilities for the audience to imagine. Lots of the sets certainly enhanced the humor of the play, especially the rolling desks and chairs. I also have to say that I thought the costumes were amazing! I think the costumes contributed the most to the 1920's feel. They were so elaborately done but weren't obnoxious like some other plays have them. I loved it! Anyway, I have to go so this will be the end of my analysis for now.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Performance!
So today in class Amber and I performed a scene from A Midsummer Night's Dream. I thought it would be a good idea to write the process and my thoughts from the performance as a part of my self directed learning.
When Amber and I decided to do something together, I knew it would be to my advantage to do something Shakespearean. I've been up to my neck in Shakespeare and I figured I might as well take that one step further to actually performing a piece, so as to gain even more appreciation for Shakespeare's works. I thought it would be a good idea for Amber and I to do a scene with a lot of female interaction, so we decided to do something from A Midsummer Night's Dream. I found the scene where Helena and Hermia basically get into a cat fight and after talking about with Amber, we decided that would be very entertaining for the class. In the scene, however, there are two boy parts along with the two female parts. So we thought that it would be even funnier if we played both the female and male parts. Also, the doubling of parts allowed us to introduce a new aspect to the play with the use of props or costumes. The props would add a new element to our production in that we would have to figure out how to best use the props so as to add to our performance and the understanding of the audience.
While actually rehearsing, Amber and I found the parts to be confusing even with the mustaches to distinguish between females and males, so we decided to add another aid to the audience by looking a particular direction. When I was talking to one of Amber's characters I needed to look in her direction and when I was talking to one of the characters I was playing myself, I would look in the opposite direction. We wrote marks on our script to indicate which direction we should look and when our mustaches should be up or down.
Over all I think our performance went rather well. I wish we had been able make the character changes a little cleaner, but I think it worked okay. If there was anything I would have done differently, I would probably say that I would have added more body language. I would have made it so that when I was the male part, I had one stance, like I would stand taller with my chest puffed out, and then when I was the female part I would have put my hand on my hip or something to indicate a more feminine persona. Other than that, I was very satisfied with our performance. Hope everyone else enjoyed it too!
When Amber and I decided to do something together, I knew it would be to my advantage to do something Shakespearean. I've been up to my neck in Shakespeare and I figured I might as well take that one step further to actually performing a piece, so as to gain even more appreciation for Shakespeare's works. I thought it would be a good idea for Amber and I to do a scene with a lot of female interaction, so we decided to do something from A Midsummer Night's Dream. I found the scene where Helena and Hermia basically get into a cat fight and after talking about with Amber, we decided that would be very entertaining for the class. In the scene, however, there are two boy parts along with the two female parts. So we thought that it would be even funnier if we played both the female and male parts. Also, the doubling of parts allowed us to introduce a new aspect to the play with the use of props or costumes. The props would add a new element to our production in that we would have to figure out how to best use the props so as to add to our performance and the understanding of the audience.
While actually rehearsing, Amber and I found the parts to be confusing even with the mustaches to distinguish between females and males, so we decided to add another aid to the audience by looking a particular direction. When I was talking to one of Amber's characters I needed to look in her direction and when I was talking to one of the characters I was playing myself, I would look in the opposite direction. We wrote marks on our script to indicate which direction we should look and when our mustaches should be up or down.
Over all I think our performance went rather well. I wish we had been able make the character changes a little cleaner, but I think it worked okay. If there was anything I would have done differently, I would probably say that I would have added more body language. I would have made it so that when I was the male part, I had one stance, like I would stand taller with my chest puffed out, and then when I was the female part I would have put my hand on my hip or something to indicate a more feminine persona. Other than that, I was very satisfied with our performance. Hope everyone else enjoyed it too!
Monday, January 26, 2009
A Doll's House
So today in class we discussed A Doll's House and I really wanted to make a comment but by the time I thought of it the subject had changed, so I thought I could just post it on my blog.
In class we evaluated A Doll's House in comparison to Sophocle's play, most notably Oedipus the King. Most people seemed to view A Doll's House as a tragedy, but on a smaller scale than the tragedy of Oedipus. I certainly agree with this perspective. However, I can also see the difference between Oedipus and A Doll's House as being one of interpretation. With Oedipus, there is really only one way to view the outcome, as a tragedy. There is no way to work around that. When someone finds out that they've killed their father and slept with their mother, there is no other word for it than tragic. However, in A Doll's House, one could look at it in a different, less tragic way. It's true that it's sad Nora is leaving her family, but couldn't it be viewed as a positive thing that she is going to find her true self and discover who she really is after being controlled by men for so long? Now, I don't completely support this idea, I mean, I'm not supporting women leaving their husband's for a little personal time. I'm more trying to point out that there are different ways to view a Doll's House, as in without a sense of tragedy, while in Oedipus tragedy is really what you get.
I also thought that the purposes of the plays were very different. Oedipus seemed to have the purpose of Catharsis, to make you grateful for your life and to give a moral to the audience. In A Doll's House, there doesn't seem to be a direct moral, like "beware of pride", given. The moral of the story seems to be way more subjective. Also, I don't think A Doll's House has the purpose of making you grateful for your life, but more aware of the dangers that could come into your life. This to me is a fundamental difference between a sad realistic drama and a tragic drama.
Thanks!
In class we evaluated A Doll's House in comparison to Sophocle's play, most notably Oedipus the King. Most people seemed to view A Doll's House as a tragedy, but on a smaller scale than the tragedy of Oedipus. I certainly agree with this perspective. However, I can also see the difference between Oedipus and A Doll's House as being one of interpretation. With Oedipus, there is really only one way to view the outcome, as a tragedy. There is no way to work around that. When someone finds out that they've killed their father and slept with their mother, there is no other word for it than tragic. However, in A Doll's House, one could look at it in a different, less tragic way. It's true that it's sad Nora is leaving her family, but couldn't it be viewed as a positive thing that she is going to find her true self and discover who she really is after being controlled by men for so long? Now, I don't completely support this idea, I mean, I'm not supporting women leaving their husband's for a little personal time. I'm more trying to point out that there are different ways to view a Doll's House, as in without a sense of tragedy, while in Oedipus tragedy is really what you get.
I also thought that the purposes of the plays were very different. Oedipus seemed to have the purpose of Catharsis, to make you grateful for your life and to give a moral to the audience. In A Doll's House, there doesn't seem to be a direct moral, like "beware of pride", given. The moral of the story seems to be way more subjective. Also, I don't think A Doll's House has the purpose of making you grateful for your life, but more aware of the dangers that could come into your life. This to me is a fundamental difference between a sad realistic drama and a tragic drama.
Thanks!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
As You Like It
So, I've recently had the good fortune of reading As You Like It by William Shakespeare. I had even less knowledge of this play than I did of Midsummer Night's Dream, so I must say that reading it was exciting for me.
My first thoughts while reading AYL were some of...well, disappointment. I originally read it just for the story, and while it was, of course, entertaining, I just thought that the plot was quite weak. The conflict was pretty conventional, and I felt like the climax wasn't climactic in the slightest. So, I went to my Shakespeare class pretty much not expecting anything wonderful, because the play was, in my opinion, super lame. I was quickly corrected in my thinking.
The first thing my teacher pointed out was that in AYL, the plot was thin. But then he made a series of suggestions and outlined several possibilities that made me think that Shakespeare meant for the plot to be thin. It seems to me that through AYL Shakespeare wanted to show the power of language. My favorite example of this is when in one of the first scenes, Orlando is about to go and wrestle Charles. He stops to speak to Rosalind and Celia. Rosalind, after talking to Orlando for like two seconds, falls in love with him. Why, my teacher asked, did that happen? Then, we (or at least I did) realized that it was because of the eloquence of Orlando's language that caused Rosalind to fall in love with him. I loved the idea of that, and that language can serve as a means to begin love.
I also found the character of Rosalind to be extremely interesting. It's not everyday in Shakespeare that you find a female who is both swoony and in control. Rosalind is, in herself, a strange mixture and I don't always comprehend what her role was meant to imply. Was it meant as an example of the power of women and they're capabilities by placing her as the heroine? But then why was she so quick to fall in love and be swooned by Orlando's charm? It's very interesting.
So yes, I'm in process of re-reading As You Like It, so I'm hoping to find even more interesting stuff and if I do then I will definitely post it! thanks!
My first thoughts while reading AYL were some of...well, disappointment. I originally read it just for the story, and while it was, of course, entertaining, I just thought that the plot was quite weak. The conflict was pretty conventional, and I felt like the climax wasn't climactic in the slightest. So, I went to my Shakespeare class pretty much not expecting anything wonderful, because the play was, in my opinion, super lame. I was quickly corrected in my thinking.
The first thing my teacher pointed out was that in AYL, the plot was thin. But then he made a series of suggestions and outlined several possibilities that made me think that Shakespeare meant for the plot to be thin. It seems to me that through AYL Shakespeare wanted to show the power of language. My favorite example of this is when in one of the first scenes, Orlando is about to go and wrestle Charles. He stops to speak to Rosalind and Celia. Rosalind, after talking to Orlando for like two seconds, falls in love with him. Why, my teacher asked, did that happen? Then, we (or at least I did) realized that it was because of the eloquence of Orlando's language that caused Rosalind to fall in love with him. I loved the idea of that, and that language can serve as a means to begin love.
I also found the character of Rosalind to be extremely interesting. It's not everyday in Shakespeare that you find a female who is both swoony and in control. Rosalind is, in herself, a strange mixture and I don't always comprehend what her role was meant to imply. Was it meant as an example of the power of women and they're capabilities by placing her as the heroine? But then why was she so quick to fall in love and be swooned by Orlando's charm? It's very interesting.
So yes, I'm in process of re-reading As You Like It, so I'm hoping to find even more interesting stuff and if I do then I will definitely post it! thanks!
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Midsummer Night's Dream
In my Shakespeare class we started off reading A Midsummer Night's Dream. I had never read this play before, and I actually had very little knowledge of the plot or characters. I thought at first I wouldn't like it because I'm actually not a big fan of comedies. I don't like reading comedies or watching comedic movies. I guess I get a little emotionally involved and end up just feeling bad for the characters. A Midsummer Night's Dream actually changed my opinion (well that's not completely true-I still don't think I'll like modern comedies, but I've expanded). I really loved it! I even watched the play on BYUtv, and I loved it there too (although in the production shown Puck was super creepy). So that was surprising.
What else was surprising was how much there was to the play. When I first read the play I just considered it a fun story, I didn't really think of it in any sort of context. In class, however, our professor had us examine the play from a number of different perspectives. We looked at it as a comedy and tried to evaluate if it was a comedy that had the intention of being subversive-with the purpose of examining life and wanting something more, sort of a cry against the norm- or if the comedy was more arbitrary, meant to just make you appreciate your life more. At first I thought the play was arbitrary, but after examining other aspects of the play, I can see it's subversive qualities. After examining the gender relations in the play, the cry against the norm was more clearly heard. The gender relations were fascinating. Theseus was especially intriguing with his relationship with Hippolyta, was she in love with him? Was this simply a matter of force? When Theseus said "I will wed thee in another key-with pomp and triumph, and with revelling", was he gloating or was he just celebratory? I think that he was more gloating over his victory, especially considering his mythical history. However, one must also consider that he did grant Hermia her wish, overriding Egeus' wishes. Does this mean the value of women increased in his eyes during the play or was he simply being indulgent? I think it meant the latter. Demetrius and Lysander, in contrast to Theseus, were kind of bumbling and fickle, Shakespeare could have been commenting on the nature of men (their inconsistency) in comparison to the constancy of women. Also, one must consider the context of the play, in ELIZABETHan England. Would Shakespeare want to glorify females with a female queen? I think there was a little flattery involved. I don't know if Shakespeare original intentions were to include so many gender implications, but they certainly add a new element to the play.
There is a lot more I could say about the different meanings from the play, but I have to do other homework, so I will just conclude by saying that Shakespeare's plays are all in themselves very good stories, but when you look at them through different perspectives and with different contextual backgrounds, it makes them so much more!
I've started As You Like It, hopefully I'll get as much out of the next one. I'd love to know anyone else's opinions on A Midsummer Night's Dream, so feel free to comment!
What else was surprising was how much there was to the play. When I first read the play I just considered it a fun story, I didn't really think of it in any sort of context. In class, however, our professor had us examine the play from a number of different perspectives. We looked at it as a comedy and tried to evaluate if it was a comedy that had the intention of being subversive-with the purpose of examining life and wanting something more, sort of a cry against the norm- or if the comedy was more arbitrary, meant to just make you appreciate your life more. At first I thought the play was arbitrary, but after examining other aspects of the play, I can see it's subversive qualities. After examining the gender relations in the play, the cry against the norm was more clearly heard. The gender relations were fascinating. Theseus was especially intriguing with his relationship with Hippolyta, was she in love with him? Was this simply a matter of force? When Theseus said "I will wed thee in another key-with pomp and triumph, and with revelling", was he gloating or was he just celebratory? I think that he was more gloating over his victory, especially considering his mythical history. However, one must also consider that he did grant Hermia her wish, overriding Egeus' wishes. Does this mean the value of women increased in his eyes during the play or was he simply being indulgent? I think it meant the latter. Demetrius and Lysander, in contrast to Theseus, were kind of bumbling and fickle, Shakespeare could have been commenting on the nature of men (their inconsistency) in comparison to the constancy of women. Also, one must consider the context of the play, in ELIZABETHan England. Would Shakespeare want to glorify females with a female queen? I think there was a little flattery involved. I don't know if Shakespeare original intentions were to include so many gender implications, but they certainly add a new element to the play.
There is a lot more I could say about the different meanings from the play, but I have to do other homework, so I will just conclude by saying that Shakespeare's plays are all in themselves very good stories, but when you look at them through different perspectives and with different contextual backgrounds, it makes them so much more!
I've started As You Like It, hopefully I'll get as much out of the next one. I'd love to know anyone else's opinions on A Midsummer Night's Dream, so feel free to comment!
Monday, January 12, 2009
Start!
So, I'm starting this blog as documentation for what I do in my English class. I've always been somewhat opposed to blogs, but I figure this is the best way to keep people informed and happy. Hope Dr. Burton approves!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)