Commentary 11/21/15 #2

Shakespeare is one of, if not the most, recognizable names in literature. His plays are beloved by millions of people. And yet, he is also the most widely feared name among high school and even college students. The second video discusses this problem and comes with an interesting conclusion. The video successfully argues that the problem lies with the teachers and not with the Bard's plays themselves. Shakespeare's plays are very relatable, as the video says. He makes statements that, although they can be hard to understand at first, become clear and true upon further inspection. For example, the video gives a statement made by Lady Macbeth. Upon her husband expressing his fear of failure, Lady Macbeth states, in a somewhat odd manner, that if Macbeth is confident he will not fail then he will not fail. Any athlete today can relate to Lady Macbeth's statement. Nearly every high school coach tells their athletes at one point or another that one of the keys to success is believing in oneself. Shakespeare's plays are full of these little phrases, so why is it that students have such a hard time relating to his characters. One of the reasons, as implied by the video, is that many teachers are too rigid in their interpretation of Shakespeare. If they would just let their students come up with their own ideas, the students would probably find themselves enjoying his works much more than they do. This idea is not limited to Shakespeare, it can be applied to reading any work of literature. I find that when I am forced to see the book not as how I would make it, but how the teacher sees it, then I do not enjoy the book nearly as much as I would if I were to read it independently of school. As the great Mr. Miyagi once said, "No such thing as bad student. Only bad teacher."

Commentary 11/21/15 #1

The first video, the one titled "Shakespeare is Everywhere" was an interesting. I find it odd that a man we know so little about can have such a large impact on the English language. I have looked into Shakespeare's influence before and the things he has done are simply amazing. The most obvious place in that Shakespeare can be found is in cinema. It is on film that his plays are often watched, outside of the theatre. The largest way in which Shakespeare influences us can be found in what we say. that Shakespeare can be found is in our dialect. We owe an unbelievable amount of our daily words to the bard. Words such as assassinate, besmirch, moonlight and others were coined by him. Even ones that seem impossible, such as eyeball and even skim milk belong to him. In this way, whether or not we are aware of it, Shakespeare is almost always with us. He is around in other, less obvious ways as well. His influence on literature, the main reason he is so widely studied in the classroom, is enormous. His trace can be found in innumerable works, from fiction novels, to essays written on him by college professors. But despite all his influence, he is still dreaded by thousands, possibly millions of students every year. The reason why he is so dreaded, the language of the plays can make deciphering their meaning extremely difficult, seems to contradict his influence. No wonder he is so mysterious.

Hamlet Commentary #2

The fact that there are still movies being made for the Bard's plays is a testament to his relevancy. Even though it has been four hundred years since he wrote the plays, they still intrigue members of the public. The plays are so fascinating and interesting that some people spend their life as players in theaters which solely perform them. There have been doubts that Shakespeare is still relevant. In today's world, it is nearly impossible to relate to any of the characters in the novel. Our lives are driven by technology and we are constantly connected, something that the characters in Shakespeare's plays were not and a cause of more than a few misfortunes in his plays. Furthermore, our language is distancing itself from that of Shakespeare more and more, so that with each generation it becomes harder and harder to read the plays. But despite the odds, Shakespeare remains a literary force. He is still widely read in classrooms, much to the dismay of students. His plays are still filmed, albeit more often than not the plays are released straight to DVD. What exactly makes him so important, I do not know. But for those that do, shakespeare is no less relevant today than he was a hundred years ago.

Hamlet Commentary #1

I have never read Hamlet. I have heard of its incredible influence and how elements of the play can be found everywhere in literature. For me, the movie was interesting to watch. I have only ever seen one play, but that was The Lion King. The movie impressed me, but at the same time, there were some times where I didn't know what was going on because of the language. The other main gripe I have was the bizarre mix of new and old. for example, the movie begins with the men holding up lanterns in a castle, at night. Clearly, then, electric lighting was not very common in the castle. And yet, there were scenes where Hamlet was wearing a t-shirt that looked like he bought it in 2015. The mixing between new and old did not go smoothly for me and as a result, it stuck out like a soar thumb. Things I enjoyed about the movie were many in number. I enjoyed the little things, like seeing Patrick Stewart act in a Shakespeare play. I have heard that he is very fond of theatre, but until we watched Hamlet in class, I had not actually seen him act. I also enjoyed the play that was put on at the end of the movie. I thought it was goofy at first, but I slowly saw how it was a satire on plays that were popular at the time. It was funny to see the nobles enjoying it, even though it was so bad it was hard to listen to. I am looking forward to reading the play, so that I can move at my own pace and take more time to think over the many soliloquies.

Commentary on Shakespeare's Sister

Virginia Woolf makes a profound observation in this passage from A Room of One's Own. She first makes an argument for what would most likely have happened if Shakespeare had an equally talented sister. Her claim makes sense. Despite her enormous potential, Judith Shakespeare's voice would have been silenced from birth. Due to the patriarchy that was Elizabethan England, she would have been stuck at home while her brother attended grammar school. Instead of being able to read books, she was required to wash clothes and do the dishes. Judith's voice was silenced, while her brother's was allowed to flourish. And thus, the world lost a Shakespeare. Virginia Woolf takes this very possible situation and asks just how many voices like Judith's have been silenced because of society's ignorant pre-convictions. Woolf brings in powerful examples of times where someone was killed for no reason, such as "witches" being burned at the stake and those who have killed themselves because of the torment the forced suppression of her gift. This idea that the world may have missed another Shakespeare or Einstein because of blind ignorance is a difficult one to handle. Woolf's arguments can also be applied to men as well. Today, many people know of autistic savants, people who are extraordinarily bright, but are autistic. How many savants have been kept in mental hospitals because their plight was misunderstood? The world may never know, and this can be hard to swallow. Hopefully, the ever increasing availability of technology and scientific discoveries will educate the public, so that we no longer inadvertently silence a genius.

Comment on "Is Shakespeare Still Relevant?"

Although the essay "Is Shakespeare Still Relevant?", by Alexandra Petri, is easy to read, and full of the author's voice, it is seriously lacking direction. The first thing the author writes is about how if Shakespeare's play's were adapted today, they would have to replace the dialogue with words pertaining to poor cellular service. Her example may be good for a little humor, but it is not good for much more. From here, she quickly moves into other arguments about the Bard, leaving one wondering what angle she was trying to work with her first example. To her credit, it can be implied that she is trying to say that Shakespeare is not relevant because the prevalence of smartphones disconnects us from the works, it is not clear. Petri than makes the argument that we are disconnected from the works because we have to use tools like "No Fear Shakespeare" to understand them. She then goes on to claim that maybe he is famous simply because he is famous, not because of what he has to say. How she makes this claim is apparently left to the reader to find out, because Petri gives almost no concrete support for this claim. She simply states her claim, then in a conversational, yet pointed paragraph, describes how Shakespeare "beat out" other English writers as the most famous one. To wrap it all up, I would have absolutely no idea what Petri was arguing if it weren't for the title. Not once does she mention in her essay the word relevance.