For Friday: Questions for the BBC Tom Jones (1998)

We'll be discussing the BBC 1998 version of Tom Jones for Friday's class, as well as talking about eighteenth-century satire in preparation for reading the blockbuster late eighteenth-century comedy, The School for Scandal next week. Even if you only watched one of the two days of the film, answer the questions below for Friday (everyone--not just one specific group). 

Answer TWO of the following for Friday’s class:

Q1: Why does the Narrator have such a large role in the book/film? What purpose does he serve in weaving the story together, and why might eighteenth-century novelists have considered this necessary (or ideal) rather than making the narrator simply a talking voice (and not an actual person)?

Q2: Briefly discuss Tom Jones’ morality: is he as “good” as Allworthy and his sister believe? Or is he truly as “wicked” as Square and Thwackum proclaim? What makes him an interesting protagonist in a book full of caricatures and broad comedy?

Q3: The eighteenth-century novel wasn’t the vehicle of psychological realism that we expect from novels today. What was Fielding’s purpose in writing it, based on Part I of the film? What experience or ideas might he have been trying to convey through the characters, the plot, and the narration?

Q4: How might Tom Jones relate to Cavendish’s The Contract or The Blazing World? Obviously they are very different works, but each one loosely satirizes the vices of his or her age, and helps the reader see England (and its values) in a new light. Why might they have more in common than might first appear?

For Friday: Cavendish, The Blazing World, pp.170-225

The Shakespeare group should answer two of the following:

Q1: In a very surprising moment of the text, the spirits offer to provide the Empress with a writer so she can craft her "Cabbala"--none other than Margaret Cavendish herself! When asked if Cavendish can write well, she answers, "Yes...but not so intelligibly that any reader whatsoever may understand it, unless he be taught to know my characters" (181). While this seems to literally mean "not everyone can read my messy handwriting," why might it also be her artistic credo--that she doesn't want to write a book that just anyone can read?

Q2: How is the second half of this work a defense of the uses of fiction, and why authorship--particularly for women--is such a vital and important pursuit? Why might Cavendish suggest that all women should write and create the wildest, boldest works taken straight from their imaginations? 

Q3: Cavendish talks a lot about "Platonic lovers" in her book, mentioning that the Empress enters into Cavendish's husband's body, and the two of them became "enamored of each other" (194). What is a Platonic lover and why might this stretch the boundaries of love and traditional romantic relationships in Cavendish's day? 

Q4: In a work that Cavendish claims esteems "peace before war, wit before policy, honesty before beauty" (224), why does the Empress often prove quite warlike and willing to conquer other kingdoms and peoples, by force if necessary? Does Cavendish lose control of her work? Or is this meant to show that even the greatest utopia is still "no place" (the meaning of "utopia")? Or another explanation? 

For Wednesday: Cavendish, “The Blazing World” (pp.125-170 or so)

The “Chaucer” group should answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In her preface to the work, Cavendish writes that “I am not covetous, but as ambitious as ever any of my sex was, is, or can be; which makes, that though I cannot be Henry the Fifth, or Charles the Second, yet I endeavour to be Margaret the First” (124). Based on this, what about this work strikes you as especially ambitious, groundbreaking, or shocking to a 17th century audience? How might she be staking her claim as a great author (or a unique one) with this book?

Q2: Cavendish is writing within an established tradition of her time going back to Thomas More’s famous book, Utopia (1516), which as ‘fake’ travel book about going to a “perfect society” (even though “utopia” is Latin for “no-place.” Since More was satirical in his book, is Cavendish? Is her vision of utopia a perfect society that offers a brave new world for her readers? Or is it merely a mirror of her own society, with the same problems transposed to a different culture? You might consider the roles that women play in this society, for example.

Q3: In one passage, the bear-men tell the Empress that “we take more delight in artificial delusions, than in natural truths...for were there nothing but truth, and no falsehood, there would be no occasion for to dispute” (142). As a woman, why might Cavendish find cause to criticize and satirize the scientific pursuits of her time? What might she be able to see that her “betters” (the closed society of men) were blind to?

Q4: Even though Cavendish is a novelist (an artist), she has the Empress engage in a lengthy discussion of the purpose of art, which she claims “is, for the most part, irregular, and disorders men’s understandings more than it rectifies them, and leads them into a labyrinth whence they’ll never get out, and makes them dull and unfit for employments” (161). What does she mean by this? If art is “irregular” and creates “disorder,” should it be banned from the perfect society? What makes it dangerous—and what, perhaps, can also make it useful?

For Monday: Cavendish, “The Contract”

The Anonymous group should answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What is Cavendish’s view of men in the story? Both suitors are said to be vain and debauched, and both act cowardly toward the Young Lady in the story. Even her uncle, for all his open-mindedness, threatens her by saying, “if you consent not, never come near me more, for I will disclaim all the interest of an uncle, and become your enemy” (28). Is she satirizing the idea of male protectors in this story? Or is this simply a realistic portrayal of men who mean well, but often fail to do the right thing (but can still be redeemed)?

Q2: What does this story say about a woman’s coming-of-age in seventeenth-century England? What social conventions and rituals must she follow? What taboos must she avoid? Why is it difficult for a girl raised in isolation in the country to understand and follow these rules?

Q3: The Young Lady ultimately wins her suit before the judges using what she claims is the “truth of her cause,” and “the justness of my plea” (42). Are we meant to applaud her use of rhetoric to win back her true love? Or is this her own ‘fall’ into wickedness and sin? In other words, is she more honest or conniving in the courtroom? Consider, too, that the Duke’s wife calls her a “crafty, flattering, dissembling child” (40).

Q4: Is the moral of this story to use your wit and intelligence to disobey your elders (who are blinded by money and power)? Or is this moral to ignore your own thoughts and desires and follow the advice of your parents/uncle? Which one does the Young Lady ultimately seem to follow?

Options for Paper #2: Ways of Reading Macbeth

Below are the two paper options for Paper #2, due two weeks from today, on  Monday, October 29th by 5pm. Please let me know if you have any questions! 

OPTION 1: Paper #2: The Women of Macbeth

Traditionally, women have been blamed for the terrible goings-on in Macbeth: the witches are blamed for casting evil prophecies to entrap Macbeth’s lust for power, and Lady Macbeth is accused of pushing him to thoughts and deeds of murder. Even Lady Macduff, when she castigates her husband in front of Ross, is told, “I pray you, school yourself” (4.2). Also curious is how little time these women get on stage: a single scene for Lady Macduff, a handful of scenes for the witches, and less and less as the play goes on for Lady Macbeth. If the women are so powerful and so in control, why does Shakespeare give them so little time (and room) to act?

Susan Snyder, in her essay, “Macbeth: A Modern Perspective,” points out that “It is easy to call Lady Macbeth “evil,” but the label tends to close down analysis exactly where we ought to probe more deeply” (208). So for this paper, I want you to examine the women in the play, either focusing on a specific woman (counting the witches as a single woman) or focusing on a theme or idea that connects all three. Are the women the villains of the piece? Is this another hatchet-job against the fair sex that the Wife of Bath’s last husband would enjoy reading? Or is this, like the Wife of Bath herself, a surprisingly complex view of women trying to survive in a world of men?

To help you discuss this, I want you to find two articles (either in books or journals) to give you more ideas to bounce off of. You can use Susan Snyder’s essay in the Folder edition if you wish, or you can find two additional ones: we have a great Shakespeare section in our library (in the PR2820’s), plus unlimited access to the JSTOR database through the library’s electronic resources (I’ll show you this in class on Wednesday). Good writing is responding—both to ideas in the play and other scholars who have written about it. Remember, you’re not the first person to write about Macbeth, so don’t pretend you are. Read what others have said and use it to build your response.

REQUIREMENTS

• 4-5 pages, double spaced
• Close reading of the play—quotes and discussion of the lines
• At least 2 additional sources, also quoted/discussed (Snyder’s essay optional)
• Due Monday, October 29^th by 5pm [we have class that day—we’ll be watching a film]     
  

OPTION 2: Paper #2: He Said, She Said 

In her short critical article, “Macbeth: A Modern Perspective,” Susan Snyder notes that “Macbeth himself is strangely silent about any longing for royal power and position” (207). Indeed, he seems quite content where he is, which prompts Lady Macbeth’s threats and jeers to kill Duncan and become the king. However, Snyder also points out that “It is easy to call Lady Macbeth “evil,” but the label tends to close down analysis exactly where we ought to probe more deeply” (208). In other words, the closer we look at her guilt, the less sure of the guilty verdict. Especially since Lady Macbeth goes mad by the end of the play and arguably kills herself (unless we believe that Macbeth may have authored the deed himself??).

For this paper, I want you to make a case for one of the partners being the “guilty” one who corrupted the other. Did Lady Macbeth push her husband into avarice and murder and set about corrupting his morals? If she had kept quiet, would Macbeth have grown old as the Thane of Cawdor? Or did Macbeth tempt his wife into thoughts of power and prestige in his letter, and force her into ever-more compromising positions as he took control of the kingdom? If you were directing the play, which actor would you want to look like the villain—and which the willing, but ultimately corrupted pawn?

In addition, I want you to read at least TWO critical articles to help you see how other people read and discuss this play. One of the articles can be Susan Synder’s short essay in the Folder edition (and if you don’t have this, I can make you a photocopy). The other should be an article published in a book or journal on some aspect of Macbeth that gives you food for thought and ideas to respond to. Good writing is responding—both to ideas in the play and other scholars who have written about it. Remember, you’re not the first person to write about Macbeth, so don’t pretend you are. Read what others have said and use it to build your response.

REQUIREMENTS

• 4-5 pages, double spaced
• Close reading of the play—quotes and discussion of the lines
• At least 2 additional sources, also quoted/discussed (Snyder’s essay optional)
• Due Monday, October 29^th by 5pm [we have class that day—we’ll be watching a film]

For Monday: Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act Five

The “Shakespeare” (fittingly) group should finish out these questions for Macbeth

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Is it significant that the witches disappear in Act Five? If they are the moral, supernatural force of the play, shouldn’t they have a concluding chorus (especially since they open the play)? And if they’re simply evil, human creatures, shouldn’t they be brought to justice, or killed off-stage? Why do you think they are entirely banished in Act Five, never to be heard from again?

Q2: Closely examine Macbeth’s famous speech given upon word of his wife’s death: “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow” (5.5). How is he responding to the idea of her death, but also, of the death of all people to come? Why can we also say that this speech, for all its seriousness, is also a little tongue-in-cheek?

Q3: Discuss Lady Macbeth’s final words/appearance in 5.1. Considering how much time and power Shakespeare lavished on her throughout the play, is this a fitting end for her? Why does she devolve into a hand-scrubbing madwoman? If she is the mastermind of the plot, why does she go mad and not Macbeth (who if anything, becomes more cruelly lucid as the play continues)?

Q4: In her “Modern Perspective” reading of Macbeth, Susan Synder points out that “Macbeth...is preoccupied less with the protagonist’s initial choice of a relatively unambiguous wrong action than with the mental decline that follows” (206). In many plays and stories, we can argue about what the right action is, and how one person’s ‘right’ is another one’s ‘wrong.’ Why in Macbeth does Shakespeare make this easy for us? What might this say about what interests Shakespeare in storytelling and in the theater?

For Friday: Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act Four

The "Chaucer" group should answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Act 4, scene 3, Malcolm tells Macduff that "black Macbeth/will seem as pure as snow, and the poor state/Esteem him as a lamb, being compared/With my confineless harms...there's no bottom, none/In my voluptousness" (143). Why does he threaten to be an even worse ruler than Macbeth, and vow to debauch women, ruin men, and destroy order?

Q2: In Scene 2, Lady Macduff tells her son that Macduff (who has fled lest he be killed by Macbeth) is "dead" and "a traitor." Why does she say this, especially as her son knows that neither of them are true. Is she joking with him, or being deadly serious? You might also account for her line, "Why, I can buy me twenty [husbands] at any market."

Q3: In a theatrical sense, how does Shakespeare 'stage' the witches to his audience? Consider, too, that witches were believed to be real in Elizabethan/Jacobean England, and many women were still burned as witches at this time. Does he want us to think that the witches have 'bewitched' Macbeth and used their magic against him? Or is their power and presence more metaphorical, not to be read as literal and overpowering? 

Q4: How does Macduff compare to Macbeth in scene 3? Considering that he left his family to die (more or less), do we read him as another power-seeking opportunist, or a cowardly politician? Or does Shakespeare redeem our suspicions through his language in this act? (you might consider, too, how the language of 'manhood' is invoked in this scene). 

For Wednesday: Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act Three

The “Anonymous” Group should answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Act 3.5, the scene with Hecate, is largely considered to be the work of Thomas Middleton, a contemporary playwright who wrote a play about witches at roughly the same time of Macbeth, and added this scene to increase the witch mania of the time. In reading this scene, does anything strike you as different from the rest of the play? The language? Metaphors? Characterization? Or would you have assumed that Shakespeare wrote this, too?

Q2: When Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo and throws a fit, Lady Macbeth’s first response is, “Are you a man?” She goes on to accuse his manhood throughout the scene, in various ways. Why do you think she takes this approach with him? Is it effective? Is it a testament to her impatience and contempt for him, or is there another reason she adopts this rhetoric?

Q3: How informed is Lady Macbeth about the murder of Banquo and the attempted murder on Fleance (his son)? Is she still the mastermind of the play, or has Macbeth usurped her role? Is there any way to tell who’s calling the shots at this point?

Q4: The “Murderers” that Macbeth hires in 3.1 aren’t really murderers at this point in the play (it’s clear that they haven’t murdered before, and are not professional assassins). How does Macbeth convince them to murder Banquo and/or how does he justify it to himself? Why, too, does he hire murderers now instead of doing the job himself, as he did with Duncan?