Brutus

Brutus:

I would like to focus on this character. From the very beginning he really did not know what to decide. Despite that he was friends with Caesar he still had the guts to stab him in the back. Why would he do this?
I think that after he saw so many people getting together in order to conspire toward Caesar's death he thought that perhaps they would do the same to him. Brutus, decided to agree with the plan and kill Caesar yet he was the only one really justifying a necessary and just death. A death is a death, even though he called it a act to purify Rome.
Even in his last speech when Brutus is talking to the crowd he is as a reader I was not convinced that he was speaking to the crowd, he was more talking to himself. He was reassuring his evil act, he was convincing himself that it was the right thing to do, that perhaps after speaking to the crown and getting their approval he would not feel "bad" about having killed Caesar.
I think Brutus is the perfect example of us humans, self-interested individuals.

Julius Caesar

It was interesting that Shakespeare decided to write a play about Julius Caesar when everybody knows that he will be stabbed on his back by the one person he trusted most. As we discussed in class, Shakespeare was not interested, nor focused on the obvious, if one knows Roman history. Shakespeare decided to focus on what happened behind the scenes, Shakespeare is not making Caesar the star of his play.

In the first Act we can observe that Cassius is not a person to trust, and Caesar also pointed that out. Caesar believes Cassius is not a person that should be trusted because he looks like a hungry man and that is bad omen. Cassius seems to be manipulating everyone he can with an evil objective. Cassius says: " The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings." (Act I.ii.142-43) this can be interpreted as that even though Caesar is the most desirable chosen Roman leader Cassius is saying that that could be changed if others really wanted that to happen.

Even though Caesar was able to see Cassius's omen he lacked to see what the Soothsayer was trying to tell him and instead Caesar disregarded him and moved on.

There is no doubt that after Caesar having declined the crown three times can be seen as an ambitious characteristic of his.

There is of course, much to talk about the unnatural events that are happening at the moment. For example, the night bird being up at noon, and the omens about a lion being the capitol as Casca was telling Cicero. Can this all mean that perhaps Julius Caesar is to change things for the good the their people?

Final Post on the Taming of the Shrew

I must admit that I was very upset by the fact that Kate decided to marry Petruccio after so much fuss about being "against" love and keeping men away from her life. I was puzzled by her decision of from one scene to another and how she was ready to be with Petruccio.

I believe the reason why Kate seems submissive and 'tamed' at the end of the play is because after she got married to Petruccio she saw how Petruccio treated his servants. Petruccio was kicking, impatient, and yelling at his servants. This portrayal of Petruccio we do not see when he first talks to Kate, and how he is acting after the marriage it is exactly how Kate was before they got married.

I do not think that it was Petruccio who "tamed" her. I think she understood by herself that aperson can be "ugly" by being mad all the time and kicking, and screaming, and hating everyone. Petruccio was the mirror that Kate needed in her life...
Like one of Petruccio's servant's said: "He kills her in her own humor" (IV.I.160) What Kate used to do/behave and now that Petruccio does and kate observes it is not pleasurable for her anymore, she becomes more self conscious about who she used to be.

Because Kate feels identified with Petruccio (without confessing this to Petruccio) she knows how to 'deal' with him.
Then why did Bianca refused to do what the men said? And it was Kate did? I think Kate always loved doing the unexpected...and like her speech, it was unexpected, cathing the audience by surprise. After all, it is a comedy.

The Taming of the Shrew- I

Expanding class discussion about Inductions and Act I

I believe that the reason why the inductions were incorporated by William Shakeaspeare is because he is humoring the audience, especially those who are not rich.  I think that he is mocking the way that the rich talk and their drink preferences, such slight differences for what everyone essentially is: a human being.

As for the many plots that are introduced in the play that Sly is watching with his prankers, we are quickly introduced to the characters who want to be the suitors of Baptista's daughers.  These men speak about wooing of the women without having into consideration if the women will like them back.  Katherine is a very smart woman, who knows how the men in her society are, they treat women as objects and we can see this in the title of the play " ..Taiming of the Shrew" implying that all women must be submissive and ready to act upon a man's request on what they desire.  Katherine is the modern woman, who is independent and does not need a man to take care of her, which comes to a synonym of a 'shrew'.

I did not catch the reason why Lucentio suddenly fell in love with Bianca until we discussed it in class.  Lucentio may be a little like Petruccio who is trying to 'tame' Kate, since she seems to be a hard person to reach and make her fall in love with someone.  Lucentio's position is semi similar to Petruccio since he has competition (Gremio and Hortensio).  I have seen in our world someone who is "easy" in terms of falling in love, seems to be a synonym of not "fun enough", how we would call it today, men like to chase, women like to be chased.  

Petruccio enjoys the chase and find ways to get to a woman's heart and the challenge of being with a woman that no other man was able to accomplish is a 'turn on'.  We observe this flirtatious conversation that the two have in Act II (act II, I, 180-260)  Their discussion is playful and they both enjoy it since most of it is full of puns as well,

K: "Asses are made to bear, and so are you

P: Women are made to bear, and so are you.

K: No such jade as you, if me you mean.

P: Alas, good Kate, I will not burden* thee,/ For knowing thee to be but young and light"

When you keep reading their conversation it is all filled with sexual remarks and it is clear that they are both flirting with each other.

Richard III

Richard III 

After reading the JSTOR article I was surprised we did not talk much about it in class.  

I remember being asked in class, is Richard's deformity that makes him evil? or is it his evil ways and thinking that makes him deformed?

The JSTOR article discussed how being deformed was, in fact, an excess in the sexual abilities, which may explains perhaps why Lady Anne gave in to Richard's manipulative personality.  I think that he was already an evil individual and that his deformity worked in his favor that facilitated him to be evil.  I do not think that Richard has ever acted on his evil thoughts and plans up until it was time to crown a king, as a reader we can observe that through out the play killing and manipulating people becomes easier to him.

Since the very beginning of the play it is clear that Richard knew exactly what he was doing in order to get what he wanted.  I believe that Shakespeare was able to pick up this traits from the manipulative people in his life that he once met, this people do become 'ugly' in a sense that they should not be trusted and yet people are still in their lives, perhaps this is the reason why he described him as a deformed individual and kept reminding us, the readers, about his malformation.

I believe that the JSTOR article was talking in favor of Richard.  It talked a lot about masculinity and apparently Richard was everything a man should be and was, and his physical appearance was just that excessive masculinity in him.

People who are just plain evil and manipulative as Richard tend to have a certain traumatic event in their childhood that drives them to be evil in order to get what they wanted.  I think it makes sense that Richard was made fun of as a child for his physical appearance, I can see that as an event that has pushed him to prove to himself that he can have all the power.

I loved it how toward the end of the play he starts talking to himself, I believe that evil individuals who know that have done wrong in their very deep subconscious have to remind themselves and confirm that what they did was NOT wrong, justifiable and right, in order to keep themselves sane.  By seeing all the ghosts, it questions his sanity and in his monologue he was reassuring himself that everything was perfectly fine.

I really enjoyed the JSTOR article, it was a fun read, definitely some interesting points of views and conclusions about Richard.