"In the 1608 sequel to that masque, the Masque of Beauty, the Moorish masquers are "converted" from black to fair by the virtuous power of the monarch" (150)
"If virtue no delighted beauty lack,
Your son-in-law is far more fair than black" (Othello, 23)
How much of a role did the historical aspect play within the making of Othello? Could it be that Shakespeare may have been inspired by these historical events and plays of that time?
There are many lenses to use when reading Othello, but one that I have never even thought of divulging myself in is the historical aspect of Othello (except when it came to the audience). When reading this criticism of Othello in the historical religious aspect, more doors have seemed to appear out of thin air because it fits into the outline of Othello so well. What could this mean? Usually when an author writes, they use things that are most familiar to them, so their surroundings would only appear perfect to use within their creations. Yet with Shakespeare, it always seems as if there are so many more aspects, that other lenses are masked by the outer picture. But did Shakespeare do this on purpose? So many of his works appear to be sown into perfection with each word that it is almost impossible not to believe that he included some of these aspects on purpose. For example, it can not be just a coincidence that the two lines above that speak on "fair" and "black" match almost perfectly as a play on words. Unfortunately, I have yet to complete my time machine to ask him all of these important questions, but this lens almost makes me want to go back and re-read Othello to try to find many more historical tidbits. I also found that when the author talked about when Othello was having an epileptic fit very interesting. I've always tried to figure out why Othello had his fit at the exact moment of finding out of Desdemona's supposed "treachery". Vitkus explains it as a fantastical fit, where he is replicating the sexual act between Desdemona and Cassio. I've never thought of the fit in that way, which opens more intriguing questions.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
"Your Son-in-Law is Far More Fair Than Black"
"The fabrication of an Africanist persona is reflexive; an extraordinary meditation on the self; a powerful exploration of the fears and desires that reside in the writerly conscious" (1011)
Othello: "Think, my lord?" By heaven, thou echo'st me
As if there were some monster in thy thought
Too hideous to be shown. Thou dost mean something (56)
How big of a role did the color of Othello truly reflect Shakespeare as well as Iago?
There are many arguments in the world of critics that argue why Iago would decide to try to destroy Othello, whether because of Othello's high station in the army or because of the suspected affair between Othello and Iago's wife, Emilia. Some even go as far as to argue because of race, which seems to be the most probable, but what role does race truly have in this play? In all honesty, I almost want to believe that Shakespeare wasn't making a "race" statement, but rather was playing on the idea of the color of roles. Usually in written works, black means "bad", red means "passion", white means "pure", but in this play, the color roles are flipped. A white male now becomes the villain whereas the reader/watcher is forced to pity the black male. By playing on this color flip, it causes the audience to have to reconfigure their idea's on what means what. But doesn't this also, either by mistake or on purpose, make a statement on race? Does the pity on the moor force the audience to make the audience reflect and question their own ideology? I think this is what Shakespeare was going for, not the "hey feel bad for a different race" thought, but the "how does it feel to pity someone who is different from you? Has your mind made conclusions you wouldn't thought you'd make?" idea, which makes him a complete genius. By evoking those feelings from the audience, they now have to hold the mirror to themselves, exactly how I believe Iago was holding the mirror up to himself throughout the play.
It is my belief that Iago was not trying to bring down Othello because of something Othello has done, on the contrary, I am one of those who believe that Iago was trying to bring Othello down because he saw what and who he wanted to be in Othello. Othello achieved greatness by working his way up from slavery to becoming a general and marrying one of the purest and highly desired Desdemona because she loved him for his struggles. But a question still remains: Does this also reflect Shakespeare in any way? That is where I hit a road block, because it appears that Shakespeare did this color flip to shake the audience and hold a mirror to everyone, but as to whether that includes himself I cannot say.
Othello: "Think, my lord?" By heaven, thou echo'st me
As if there were some monster in thy thought
Too hideous to be shown. Thou dost mean something (56)
How big of a role did the color of Othello truly reflect Shakespeare as well as Iago?
There are many arguments in the world of critics that argue why Iago would decide to try to destroy Othello, whether because of Othello's high station in the army or because of the suspected affair between Othello and Iago's wife, Emilia. Some even go as far as to argue because of race, which seems to be the most probable, but what role does race truly have in this play? In all honesty, I almost want to believe that Shakespeare wasn't making a "race" statement, but rather was playing on the idea of the color of roles. Usually in written works, black means "bad", red means "passion", white means "pure", but in this play, the color roles are flipped. A white male now becomes the villain whereas the reader/watcher is forced to pity the black male. By playing on this color flip, it causes the audience to have to reconfigure their idea's on what means what. But doesn't this also, either by mistake or on purpose, make a statement on race? Does the pity on the moor force the audience to make the audience reflect and question their own ideology? I think this is what Shakespeare was going for, not the "hey feel bad for a different race" thought, but the "how does it feel to pity someone who is different from you? Has your mind made conclusions you wouldn't thought you'd make?" idea, which makes him a complete genius. By evoking those feelings from the audience, they now have to hold the mirror to themselves, exactly how I believe Iago was holding the mirror up to himself throughout the play.
It is my belief that Iago was not trying to bring down Othello because of something Othello has done, on the contrary, I am one of those who believe that Iago was trying to bring Othello down because he saw what and who he wanted to be in Othello. Othello achieved greatness by working his way up from slavery to becoming a general and marrying one of the purest and highly desired Desdemona because she loved him for his struggles. But a question still remains: Does this also reflect Shakespeare in any way? That is where I hit a road block, because it appears that Shakespeare did this color flip to shake the audience and hold a mirror to everyone, but as to whether that includes himself I cannot say.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Why Such a Formalist Othello?
"The Formalists noticed that narrative literature consisted of two major components: the plot, by which they meant the story as narrated within the pages of the book, and the story, by which they meant the sequence of events in the order and the actual duration in which they ostensibly occurred" (4).
Iago: "The food that to him now is as luscious as locusts// Shall be to him shortly as bitter as coloquintida. She// must change for youth: when she is sated with his body,// she will find the errors of her choice. Therefore, put money// in thy purse" (25).
Question: How much should one focus on the plot and or story? How about compared to the literary devices? Is one more important to the other?
When reading Othello, one has to first get through the Shakespearian words and difficulties to fully understand and explore this play. I have actually had the pleasure of reading this once before, so now I get to try to explore the play more than before. But to do so, I must ask a few questions, especially the questions listed above. If I go into the reading, already knowing the plot and storyline, with an eye that will take this play piece by piece for interpretation, will I lose some of the importance of the plot? How much should I interpret? What if its completely wrong? These along with many other questions are what people find themselves asking. Many have the opinion that interpreting any form of art, be it a book, play, or even a painting, may in fact ruin it. So we have to ask "how much is too much?".
Othello is meant to be a comedic tragedy (at least from my point of view). There are many places in this play that mean for us to laugh and mean for us to feel. When connecting to the storyline, us as readers tend to connect to the feeling of the book. But what if we said "the plot nor the storyline matters! Just what we interpret it as!" That, to m,e would completely destroy the play. The connection is what makes a story work (partly anyway). But if we didn't divulge into interpretation, would that mean we would lose something then as well?
None of these questions will I be able to answer. I'd have to experiment with a piece that I absolutely love to see if I hate it even more after interpretation. I also wouldn't be able to answer these questions because interpretation is apart of what I do on a day to day basis. For me, it doesn't appear as if I lose anything by interpreting, but I also don't interpret to the point of hating a piece, only until my mind has been fully feed with new information.
Iago: "The food that to him now is as luscious as locusts// Shall be to him shortly as bitter as coloquintida. She// must change for youth: when she is sated with his body,// she will find the errors of her choice. Therefore, put money// in thy purse" (25).
Question: How much should one focus on the plot and or story? How about compared to the literary devices? Is one more important to the other?
When reading Othello, one has to first get through the Shakespearian words and difficulties to fully understand and explore this play. I have actually had the pleasure of reading this once before, so now I get to try to explore the play more than before. But to do so, I must ask a few questions, especially the questions listed above. If I go into the reading, already knowing the plot and storyline, with an eye that will take this play piece by piece for interpretation, will I lose some of the importance of the plot? How much should I interpret? What if its completely wrong? These along with many other questions are what people find themselves asking. Many have the opinion that interpreting any form of art, be it a book, play, or even a painting, may in fact ruin it. So we have to ask "how much is too much?".
Othello is meant to be a comedic tragedy (at least from my point of view). There are many places in this play that mean for us to laugh and mean for us to feel. When connecting to the storyline, us as readers tend to connect to the feeling of the book. But what if we said "the plot nor the storyline matters! Just what we interpret it as!" That, to m,e would completely destroy the play. The connection is what makes a story work (partly anyway). But if we didn't divulge into interpretation, would that mean we would lose something then as well?
None of these questions will I be able to answer. I'd have to experiment with a piece that I absolutely love to see if I hate it even more after interpretation. I also wouldn't be able to answer these questions because interpretation is apart of what I do on a day to day basis. For me, it doesn't appear as if I lose anything by interpreting, but I also don't interpret to the point of hating a piece, only until my mind has been fully feed with new information.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
A Formalist Point of View
"The Formalist focus was on the qualities of poetic language that distinguish it from ordinary practical language" (pg. 4).
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix" ( pg. 2698)
Question: If we were only able to look at the words within the poem/work itself, what would we lose by not digging deeper into the poems history and/or the reason as to why the poem exists in the first place?
When looking at the first quote, my thought was "Shakespeare", whom always took words that seemed outlandish, and then combined them together to create a flow of poetry that still confuses the highest of scholars. But when I look at the reading of "Howl", it isn't the flow that stands out to me or the "qualities of poetic language", but the abrasiveness of the poem by using the most ordinary words. But because the words are ordinary does not mean that they aren't still poetic or "practical", quite the opposite. It makes you ask questions, seek answers within the poem itself, and make you realize the anger that resonates through out. Because of this, it makes the poem deeper, a buffet for the Formalist mind.
Instead of pretty words, you have rash words that stand out angrily against the page, put together in poetic form. In the quote above, the commas create a pause that makes the words "madness" and "naked" linger on the tongue. The second line long like the smoke from a cigarette burning as he states a sad tale of the best minds. Throughout the entire poem, he takes beautiful yet haunting tales anywhere from the ancient greeks, to hebrew paired with the most abrasive language such as "cunt" and "cock and endless balls". This can easily be translated into a close reading because of the dialogue, but because of his use of historical tales, can be interpreted into much more.
"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix" ( pg. 2698)
Question: If we were only able to look at the words within the poem/work itself, what would we lose by not digging deeper into the poems history and/or the reason as to why the poem exists in the first place?
When looking at the first quote, my thought was "Shakespeare", whom always took words that seemed outlandish, and then combined them together to create a flow of poetry that still confuses the highest of scholars. But when I look at the reading of "Howl", it isn't the flow that stands out to me or the "qualities of poetic language", but the abrasiveness of the poem by using the most ordinary words. But because the words are ordinary does not mean that they aren't still poetic or "practical", quite the opposite. It makes you ask questions, seek answers within the poem itself, and make you realize the anger that resonates through out. Because of this, it makes the poem deeper, a buffet for the Formalist mind.
Instead of pretty words, you have rash words that stand out angrily against the page, put together in poetic form. In the quote above, the commas create a pause that makes the words "madness" and "naked" linger on the tongue. The second line long like the smoke from a cigarette burning as he states a sad tale of the best minds. Throughout the entire poem, he takes beautiful yet haunting tales anywhere from the ancient greeks, to hebrew paired with the most abrasive language such as "cunt" and "cock and endless balls". This can easily be translated into a close reading because of the dialogue, but because of his use of historical tales, can be interpreted into much more.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)