I find it strange that Prospero would willingly give up his physical power for his old position of political power. In many of the other plays we've read this semester, the white male who holds a position of power over others doesn't give it up readily.Prospero in particular seems like the kind of dominant character who uses his power wherever and whenever he can for his benefit. We see this in the numerous times he manipulates people to achieve his goals. He uses his powers on Miranda, to cause her to sleep and stop asking questions. I believe the only reason that Shakespeare had Prospero give up his magic is to further push the idea that Prospero is the "hero" of the story. Like we got to on Wednesday, if we weren't hearing the story from his perspective, he wouldn't be as much of a likeable character. Another aspect that lends itself to the appeal of Prospero is his magic. We've talked a little about this but I wanted to look at it a little more. I found this website that talks about the magic in "The Tempest." http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/thetempest/magictempest.html Basically, Prospero's magic is of a kind that was generally approved of in Shakespeare's time. It involved being in control of supernatural elements rather than being influenced in a more Satanic fashion. Sycorax for example, is regarded in this second kind of magic lending to why she needed to be disposed of by Prospero. Because she belonged to a "evil" form of magic, it became Prospero's "duty" to dispose of her and by extension, keep her essentially demon spawn son under close watch and scrutiny.

This comedy really highlights that idea of marriage being the end goal. After all the drama that Hero and Claudio went through, they still end up being married. I can understand Claudio's side, Hero ended up being innocent of the claims that Claudio made. He however, was guilty of that false accusation. Because of the Patriarchal society, Hero never really presses Claudio for his assumptions. Since marriage is the "goal," the affronts to Hero can be ignored. Two things came to mind this week when I was thinking about this. First, the idea that the ends justify the means. This may have been one of the most rocky journeys to getting married ever. Accusations of cheating, Hero "dying," and then Claudio being told he is marring a cousin. None of that mattered though because the end was marriage. Second, and just for a fun note. I think this song reflects the ideas of this play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPGkG1G8T0

I don't care who you are Where you're from What you did As long as you love me

Hero never questions Claudio despite his actions as long as he loved her. The reflection of the love being marriage. Because that's the goal, the path to get there is irrelevant.

Don John just comes out and says he's a villain. He knows who he is and he won't change his character just to fit the expectations of those around him.The fact that he readily admits that he is a bad guy assists our dislike of him.This scene also has the most amount amount of lines we hear from John. I believe this scene sets down his core character of villainy.

I found this brief character analysis of Don John that helped me at least to better understand why he's so easy to forget and dislike. http://www.shmoop.com/much-ado-about-nothing/don-john.html

So like we talked about on Wednesday, I will discuss how this final play represents the possible alternate ending to Midsummer. In the mechanical's play, Pyramus and Thisby are separated by a wall that keeps their love apart. This is correlated to the actual story where Lysander and Hermia love each other but are kept separate by her father Egeus and society's expectations. Being in a male dominated society Hermia is expected to obey her father's commands and marry Demetrius. The wall represents those barriers to the young lovers. While it did separate their love, and only provided brief moments to communicate, it kept them safe from the wilds and danger outside those built boundaries. In the story of Pyramus and Thisby, the lion and their eventual deaths were that danger, for Lysander and Hermia, and by extension Helena and Demetrius, the forest was the danger. By leaving the confines of Athens and it's laws, they subjected themselves to the land of the fairies whose whole world was under a cloud of civil war. Had Oberon and Titania not been reconciled, the four lovers could easily ended up dead by the fairies dealings. In Midsummer, through the use of magic and dealings by the fairies, we receive a "happy" ending. Whether or not that ending is actually happy can be debated, but the lovers do all end up still alive at the conclusion. Without this dealings by the fairies, the lovers would have easily ended up the way Pyramus and Thisby did.

While the fairies in themselves were more often comical than anything else, their ability to deceive and damage mortals was a major part of their characters. I found this site that discusses the character of the fairies. (http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/fairies_of_midsummer.html)

I find the relationship between Titania and Bottom to be an interesting one. She is obviously infatuated with him romantically because of her allusions to him "arising". But there are some other aspects that are alluded to. The first is that Titania is in love with an ass. Both because of Bottom's head, and his literal name. We now see a relationship of bestiality. This form of humor by Shakespeare reminds me a lot of what Deadpool did, make the viewer laugh by shocking them and being offensive. The second angle of this relationship is the fact that Titania is royal, and Bottom is a common person. Titania is the Queen of the Fairies and Bottom is a simple weaver. We've been discussing in class a lot about those social boundaries that existed in Shakespeare's time. This certainly would have been pushing that line. I found this site that talks briefly about this relationship, but also specifically about the character of Bottom. http://www.shmoop.com/midsummer-nights-dream/bottom.html

In the above text, I examined why Edgar needed Gloucester to believe he had attempted suicide. I also want to examine why Shakespeare included this scene. Why did Gloucester need to attempt this fake suicide? I believe it's to make the audience feel uncomfortable. Suicide has been a negative aspect of society for a large part of history. The idea that an individual would end his existence because he saw no hope for the future has never sat well with people. It would have been particularity controversial in Shakespeare's christian England on a moral level. Furthermore, because of this discomfort, the action serves to further the feeling of despair that nothing seems to be working out for any of the characters. It is after all, a tragedy. I found this site that discusses this point about suicide in Shakespeare's time.

http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/ideas/religion/suicide1.html

I hadn't caught this shift in language the first time I read though this passage, but after reading it aloud it became apparent that Edgar has changed his character. Like a few others have been mentioning, characters playing roles amidst their disguises are key points throughout Shakespeare's plays. It allows another viewpoint in which to better understand the character. In Edgar's case, this shift to a higher class gentleman than Tom I believe allows him to comfort his father in the solace than he survived his "fall". Thereby giving Gloucester the hope that he still has a purpose to fulfill.

One of the conventions that I believe Shakespeare was trying to challenge through this play was the idea of roles. We see this established early on with the language associated with Othello in his military position. In this example, we see through the language of Emilia the roles of wives and more specifically women in general being challenged. She argues that women have the same senses as men so why should they not have the same affections and habits as men. The idea that men have a "right" to play around while women stay faithful and subservient is ridiculous. The way that she has several question and response answers coupled together serves this idea of indignation. Women were generally deemed less than men at this time and were expected to be submissive and generally keep a low profile in comparison to their husbands. Desdemona and Othello highlight this kind of relationship. It's evident in the first act that they love each other, but by the end of the fifth act, it's clear that Othello is still the master in the relationship. Othello straight up murders Desdemona, but she still stands up for his actions despite him clearly being in the wrong. Like we talked about on Wednesday, I don't think Shakespeare was an advocate for women's rights, but he was simply using the situations of racial and women's roles to challenge the barriers of society's rules.

Even further racial language to establish the difference of Othello. In this case, not only is he different but he should be feared. So in the first two scenes alone, Othello has been racially slurred, compared to an animal, debased as less than human, and has declared as one who is undeserving of love.

I looked this phrase up and it means they're having sex. Picture two people pressed up next to one another so that they become one creature. This creature would have two backs.

Once again, race is brought into the language when referring to Othello. Even associating the idea of Othello with being an animal serves to further push the idea that he is less then the common Venetian.

Roderigo resorting to racial slurs against Othello. The play is starting to establish that the Venetians do not consider Othello to be one of them.

One aspect of reading texts like this is encountering names that would have been common knowledge to people at the time but are not familiar to us as readers. Looking to understand the significance of who the Black Prince of Wales was I looked around online and found this site. http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/blackprince.htm After reading, I discovered how Henry V is related to the Black Prince. Essentially, the Black Prince was the brother of Henry V's grandfather. Knowing the significance of this character helps me to understand the relevance of why Henry needs to prove himself in conquest.