Shakespeare's History: Richard III

“A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!"
Richard III has such incredible control over every aspect of his life, and even controls the lives of others around him. He has a brilliant mind and is master at using language and betrayal to his advantage. The only real challenge Richard faces in the play is when another young man who is good with words converses with him. They have a little verbal dual, and the only thing that saves Richard is his position of power over the man, which forces him to back off and show Richard some respect.
Richard’s only vulnerability is exposed during his final moment, in battle. Here, his tried and true tricks and mind games have no effect against physical battle. Richard is not even able to put up a fight once he has lost his horse. Similar to the story of Achilles and his tendon – nobody is completely indestructible – there is always one soft spot that, once hit, will bring them down immediately. It is ironic that he can overcome the most incredible situations he gets himself into (murder after murder on top of murder), yet he is defeated when he simply has no horse to ride on.

Shakespeare creates this history simply by following the events of the times. This play could be considered completely factual, however, there is some bias to it. Had Shakespeare viewed Richard III as an awesome ruler, the play may have gone down a little differently. By portraying Richard in a negative light, however, Shakespeare is playing it safe and complying with the general audience's opinion of the situation. In order for the reader to fully understand the play, it is important to know the basics of The Wars of the Roses, divided York and Lancaster, and Richard III's family tree.

I enjoyed this play probably the most out of all of Shakespeare’s other works we have read. Aside from the confusing details of the battles, I actually had a fun time reading this play. The characters seemed to have so much passion and emotion, it was truly entertaining. I also found that reading aloud to someone (my dog) helps a great deal. Speaking the words out loud forces me to focus on what I am saying rather than just allowing my eyes to scan the words while my mind is somewhere else. Another factor contributing to my enjoyment of this play was the class discussions. Understanding someone else’s interpretation and appreciation for a character (like how Mr. Klimas idolizes Richard) opens my eyes to look more closely at the genius of Shakespeare’s writing. I then, also, begin to have that same appreciation for his work.

Shakespeare's Tragedy: Macbeth

Shakespeare develops this tragedy by creating a character who is struggling through the worst battle one can endure – one against himself. This tragic figure along with the bloody imagery, murders, and the dark tone from the start of the play, “(Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches) When shall we three meet again /In thunder, lightning, or in rain? / When the hurlyburly's done, / When the battle's lost and won. / That will be ere the set of sun.” makes for a master tragedy.

The three witches and Lady Macbeth have such control over Macbeth and know his weaknesses so well that it creates a sense of hopelessness and doom. They key in to Macbeth’s weaknesses (ambition, insecurity, and courage) and are able to convince him to believe and act upon everything they say. Along with the sense of hopelessness is the sense of doom, created by the dark settings, the blood, and of course the numerous unnecessary murders of men, women, and children.
Slowly we watch Macbeth destroy himself – or rather, allow himself to be destroyed – as the play unfolds. The witches test his ambition, knowing that if he has a goal, he will not be satisfied until he has attained his goal. They then set dangerous and ultimately impossible goals and watch as Macbeth struggles to reach them, knowing full well he never will. Lady Macbeth then attacks his insecurity by questioning his manhood, forcing him to feel as though he must prove himself to her. While a true man would have the confidence to defend himself and his morals, Macbeth’s insecurity causes him to doubt himself and question any morals he may have. Lady Macbeth knows he is insecure and therefore presents him with a different version of manhood (a murderer!), which Macbeth then feels obliged to fulfill.
Finally, Macbeth’s courage and bravery are tested by everyone, for he needs these qualities in order to attain these ambitions set for him – he needs the courage to kill and will then become king of Scotland.

I found that the language of Shakespeare’s Macbeth was wonderful; however, I did find the story to be rather boring and too similar to Richard III. It seemed to be the same old story – a power-hungry character sets out to rule the world, yet never achieves his goal, and only murders everyone along the way. Now don’t get me wrong, there were many differences, like Macbeth was a tragic figure and Richard was pure evil, I simply felt as though it was very predictable. This may also be due to the fact that we read the two plays one right after the other. There is an upside, of course, because this is Shakespeare – Macbeth is a classic and, as I have now noticed, is referenced everywhere! I am glad I have read the play and can now relate to it when it’s mentioned out of the classroom.

Shakespeare's Comedy: The Taming of the Shrew

"Fie, fie! unknit that threatening unkind brow, / And dart not scornful glances from those eyes, / To wound thy lord, thy king, thy governor: / It blots thy beauty as frosts do bite the meads, / Confounds thy fame as whirlwinds shake fair buds, / And in no sense is meet or amiable. / A woman moved is like a fountain troubled, / Muddy, ill-seeming, thick, bereft of beauty; / And while it is so, none so dry or thirsty / Will deign to sip or touch one drop of it. / Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper, / Thy head, thy sovereign; one that cares for thee, / And for thy maintenance commits his body / To painful labour both by sea and land, / To watch the night in storms, the day in cold, / Whilst thou liest warm at home, secure and safe; / And craves no other tribute at thy hands / But love, fair looks and true obedience; / Too little payment for so great a debt. / Such duty as the subject owes the prince / Even such a woman oweth to her husband; / And when she is froward, peevish, sullen, sour, / And not obedient to his honest will, / What is she but a foul contending rebel / And graceless traitor to her loving lord? / I am ashamed that women are so simple / To offer war where they should kneel for peace; / Or seek for rule, supremacy and sway, / When they are bound to serve, love and obey. / Why are our bodies soft and weak and smooth, / Unapt to toil and trouble in the world, / But that our soft conditions and our hearts / Should well agree with our external parts? / Come, come, you froward and unable worms! / My mind hath been as big as one of yours, / My heart as great, my reason haply more, / To bandy word for word and frown for frown; / But now I see our lances are but straws, / Our strength as weak, our weakness past compare, / That seeming to be most which we indeed least are. / Then vail your stomachs, for it is no boot, / And place your hands below your husband's foot: / In token of which duty, if he please, / My hand is ready; may it do him ease."

This speech finalizes Katherine’s character transformation. She makes a complete turnaround from being the “shrew,” totally against men and relationships in the beginning of the play, and at the end, during this speech, she actually defends the role of a wife.
Some of the main points which Katherine is arguing in this speech are that the husband is the “lord,” “king,” or “governor” in the relationship, and a wife who is “peevish” or “sullen” is a traitor to her ruler. It is the husband’s job to provide protection, support, and comfort to the family/relationship, while it is the wife’s duty to be obedient, loyal, and loving. Finally, she explains how these roles in the relationship are only natural, for the male body is strong and capable, mainly to provide the protection and support he owes to the wife and family. The woman’s body, on the other hand, is softer and weaker, able to provide love, yet not fully able to stand up to the husband.
But why does Katherine change her position so drastically? It is possible she simply gives up and become totally submissive to her husband, Petruccio. She may have just realized this was her only option, seeing as how Petruccio was not going to ease up on “taming” her. She may also have been jealous of Bianca, for men were attracted to Bianca, rather than herself. Katherine therefore dealt with these emotions as bitterness, almost hostility, towards all men. Once Petruccio comes along and chooses Katherine, however, she feels acceptable and is able to let her guard down. The most probable cause of this change, however, is Kate’s realization that the only way she can be happy is if she allows herself to accept the role she play in society, and that everything will fall into place afterwards.

The method Shakespeare uses to make this play a comedy is simply outrageousness, and completely ridiculous scenarios. The switching of roles and identities sets up for inevitable chaos, which in itself is humorously entertaining – to see others accidently set themselves up for awkward situations, trying to wiggle their way out, is funny! Not only do these characters alter their identities, but they all have such similar names ending in -io, which makes the situation even more overwhelmingly chaotic. In order to keep all of these characters straight the viewer/reader would be stressed, so all one can do is laugh at the absurdity.
Also, Katherine’s behavior is so out of character (for a woman) that it is shocking. It is entertaining to see something other than the norm, especially when they are making a fool of themselves. In Shakespeare’s time, this play must have gotten even more laughs out of the audience, for the Christian, patriarchal society of the times would have contrasted more with Katherine’s behavior than our, more progressive, society does today.

I enjoyed this play because it was honest humor. There was nothing stupid, distasteful, or referencing something that I had to look up. Shakespeare just jokes about typical human nature, which everyone can relate to. Reading something a little light-hearted and comical in school is something new to me, and was definitely a welcomed breath of fresh air. Normally, I’m trudging through a book with my brow furrowed, troubled by some tragedy that inevitably leads to a not-so-happy ending. Comedy is a genre we students are not all that familiar with or exposed to. It is very interesting to analyze what we find funny and why, and how authors like Shakespeare are able to understand this and make us laugh. I believe this genre deserves a bigger role in literature in school.

Sound and Sense #251 The Sound of Night - Maxine Kumin

This poem explores the happenings of nighttime that frighten us "day creatures." It paints an uneasy picture of the animals at night and what they do while we are sleeping - or trying to, anyway. The speaker is perhaps camping with another person/people, and they are a little leery of falling asleep among the unknown creatures of the night. The diction displays this fear, for the words used to describe the sounds, "cries," "squeaks," "noises," are rather harsh and unpleasant sounding - they are most definitely not soothing, soft words that roll off one's tounge and put them to sleep. These instead suggest uneasiness, "...noisy as ducks, drunk / on the boozy black, gloating chink-chunk" (Kumin 8,9). These noises are sharp and alert, keeping the speaker and company awake, for they must must "defend" themselves during the night. This suggests there is danger lurking that may attack or try to harm them. When listing the sources of all of these sounds, not one of them is positive, and "the strange" even has a line of its own. Unknown, unexplained, scary, foreign creatures are "the strange" ones that are especially frightening. All these campers can look forward to is the "sweet" sun that is guaranteed to rise in the morning and will silence all of the unknowns of the dark.


The term "we" is used, referring to the speaker and their company. It could also, perhaps, be referring to the human population as a whole. In that case, the poem takes on an entirely different tone, one of slight sarcasm and mockery. The speaker would then be pointing out all of the scary things that make us softy humans afraid of the dark. It is silly of us to curl up in our blankets next to a cozy fire, surrounded by the little birdies, bats, and frogs - all harmless and simply making noises. And of course those "supposed...the never seen" are out there too - who knows what they're going to do to you!

The imagery throughout this poem is entirely auditory. There is no solid, physical evidence to reassure these campers' wandering minds. Not seeing any of these animals leads to the fear of the unknown, which is most often the scariest aspect. The campers assume the source of every sound to be a bird, a bat, or a frog; but there is always that possibility that it is not, that it is something far more threatening on its way to gobble them up, for they never actually see this bird, bat or frog.

The structure of the poem also adds to the uneasy feeling the reader senses. "And now" is the start of the first two stanzas. First of all, this puts the reader right in the moment with the campers, experiencing that same trembling fear. Beginning this way is also very informal, rushed almost, as though the speaker is not focused because they are too consumed by the threatening noises surrounding them. The final stanza is different, for it begins only with "Now." In this stanza the speaker is now focused on the future - they are settled in, maybe a little accustomed to the noises, although still fearful. They are reassured by the definite coming of the "sweet" sun which will save them, and they concentrate on this to keep their minds off of the ever-present night sounds.

Sound and Sense #212 Money - Victor Contoski

This is an entertaining poem that describes money as though it has the characteristics of multiple living things. The first stanza implies that money is a wild animal, wild in the sense of free of any human connections, yet it is "willing to be domesticated." The next stanza describes it as a small creature that can fit in a pocket. The words "nest," "soft," and "curl up" suggest a cozy, furry little animal, like a mouse. The third stanza moves on to describe money as a dog - likable, it attracts other people, etc. The tides change, however, in the fourth stanza when the speaker describes money has a self-absorbed amoeba. The fifth stanza then returns to treating money like an animal that needs care, exercise, and watering (sixth stanza). In the second to last stanza, the description of money as something humans master, yet it turns on them, may be referring to a circus animal; perhaps a lion or tiger that obediently learns and performs all of the tricks, but one day turns and bites its trainer from out of the blue. The final stanza refers to money as a snake, or some animal with venom, that can kill its victim in 30 seconds. As the poem progresses, t describes the gradual transformation of money from a harmless little mouse, to a deadly snake. The speaker may have had some personal experience with money similar to this one, and this poem may be his warning to others to not get this involved with money or try to master it.

A literary device used in this poem is, in a way, personification. That is probably not the correct term, however, money is an inanimate object given animal traits instead of human traits. This allows the speaker room to make a large variety of comparison to encompass all of the various characteristics of money. Instead of saying: people will like you more because you have money, the speaker compares money to a dog. Dog is man's best friend; people walk up to complete strangers just to pet their dogs and may become friends because of it; a man's adorable puppy may be what causes two soul mates to meet in a movie. The reader now sees people buddying up to someone because of their money and a woman pursuing a wealthy man to secure her financial future. Now the money has taken on a living, breathing influence, that is stronger than a green piece of paper.

Hyperbole is used in the last stanza, when money is said to have the ability to kill. Of course this is unrealistic, and instead of literally physically killing a person, this implies an emotional death. Money can buy many wonderful things - it can feed thousands of hungry people, put roofs over heads, fund research to cure epidemic diseases, etc. Money can also destroy someone's life. It is a well-known fact that many of those who have won the lottery through the years end up with more miserable lives than before they had won the money. Some people get so caught up in the face value of money, all of the pretty things it can buy, the high status it gives them, etc., that when they run out, they are completely lost and utterly helpless. Because they relied on it to make them "happy," they know no other way to recreate this happiness. Money cannot buy happiness. That is also a well-known fact. This is the emotional death the speaker is referring to. That plummet into total darkness when all that someone has relied upon turns its back and leaves them.

This free verse poem is very simple - no complicated rhyme scheme, pattern, or meter. The speaker is merely stating facts, one per stanza. He is just putting out the warning, plain and clear for everyone to read: beware of money, for it can kill you.