A Midsummer Night's Dream- did I actually understand any of it?

I still feel awkward blogging about Shakespeare. I feel like Shakespeare would not approve of the idea of blogs.

I think what I need to do is sit down with an expert on Shakespeare and read A Midsummer Night's Dream again, line by line, so that I truly understand what I am reading. In just trying to sit down and read it, I went too fast to even begin to comprehend any of what I was reading. Even when I understood it word by word, I know that I didn't get anything out of it other than the superficial meaning and basic plot line. Of course there were editors' notes on the side of each page, but they only told me what specific words and phrases meant, not what they suggested on a deeper level. The problem with reading Shakespeare is that since the average reader doesn't understand Elizabethan English very well, we have to rely on editors and other experts to tell us what it means. This removes any chance we have of coming up with our interpretation. The language barrier makes us dependent on others to enlighten us, and there is no way for us to come up with our own meaning. When we read modern poetry, we at least understand what all of the words we are reading mean. Every person can read a modern poem, no matter how profound, and come up with their own meaning. When we read Shakespearean poetry and plays, we rely on the editor to give us the meaning, making it his or hers and not our own.

A Midsummer Night's Dream- what is love?

In A Midsummer Night's Dream, the concept of love is played with in many different ways. Theseus's love for Hippolyta seems more drawn by physical attraction and desire. The opening scene of the play shows his impatience for their wedding night:

THESEUS

Now, fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour

Draws on apace. Four happy days bring in

Another moon. But, O, methinks how slow

This old moon wanes! She lingers my desires

Like to a stepdame or a dowager

Long withering out a young man's revenue.

This impatience for consummating their love proves how love can often be fueled only by physical attraction. Shakespeare continues this theme of love's superficiality with the love triangles that occur within the four lovers. First, both Lysander and Demetrius are in love Hermia, but then with the magical flower both men fall in love Helena. This makes it seem like the objects of the men's love are interchangeable. Their love for Helena was just as strong as their love for Hermia, so how could one be true and one false?

Shakespeare's third display of love's superficiality and meaninglessness occurs when Hippolyta falls in love with Nick Bottom with the head of an ass. Hippolyta falls instantly and simultaneously out of love with Oberon and in love with Bottom. The idea of someone being in love with a man with the head of donkey proves that love is arbitrary and meaningless.

Shakespeare counters all of this at the end of the play, with the marriage of the three couples and the reconciliation of Oberon and Titania. Lysander and Hermia are in love with each other again and Demetrius finally loves Helena. However, Lysander and Hermia were in love before the turmoil in the forest, but Demetrius is still under the power of the herb. The audience is led to believe that all of the couples live happily ever after, even though the love between Lysander and Hermia is "real" and the love between Demetrius and Helena was fabricated. Ultimately, Shakespeare tells us that even though love can be superficial and arbitrary, it still has the power to be true and lasting.

Pay attention to word choice--how is the author shaping your judgement by the words he/she chooses

I finished Alive by Piers Paul Read. If you haven't read it yet, I would highly recommend it. I am now tackling A Midsummer Night's Dream by William Shakespeare.

I feel awkward analyzing Shakespeare's word choice. First of all, it's really hard to tell what he's saying. Second of all, in my copy of the book, the editor sometimes says something to the effect of "we're not really sure what he meant by this, he could have meant this, or he could have meant this totally opposite thing." What the kindly editors have provided me with, however, is the fact that Shakespeare sometimes has the character of Nick Bottom use a totally wrong word. I feel that he does this to inform the audience of Nick Bottom's personality. He thinks he is a really interesting and knowledgeable person and that everyone loves hearing him talk. He tries to use intelligent sounding words and fails miserably. Someone in Shakespeare's time would definitely have caught his misuse of words immediately, whereas someone in my position with very little experience reading Shakespeare has to read the passage, go to the other page with the editor's notes to try to figure out what we just read, and then be told that Bottom used incorrect wordage. The effect is somewhat lost. Of course, I still realize what the audience is supposed to note, but I don't get the "oh haha, look at Bottom, he doesn't know how to talk" effect.

Let's discuss the issue of anthropophagy.

Anthropophagy is defined as "the eating of human flesh; cannibalism." The survivors of the crash of the Fairchild in the Andes succumbed to anthropophagy as a necessity. Had they not eaten the bodies of the already dead, they would have died weeks before they were rescued. The Roman-Catholic church, of which all of the passengers were members, does not consider anthropophagy in extremis a sin. The young men did not kill any of their fellow passengers, they were not guilty of any crime. They had two choices: eat the bodies of the dead in order to survive, or not. If they took the latter course, they all would have died. As Dr. Valeta, the father of Carlos Valeta, one of the boys who did not survive, put it, "We are glad, what is more, that there were forty-five of them, because this helped at least sixteen return. I'd like to say, furthermore, that I knew from the very first moment what has been confirmed today. As a doctor I understood at once that no one could have survived in such a place and under such conditions without resort to courageous decisions. Now that I have confirmation of what has happened I repeat: Thank God that the forty-five were there, for sixteen homes have regained their children." Piers Paul Read sums it up in one sentence: "If all forty-five had survived the accident and avalanche, all forty-five would now be dead."

What made me proud of the human race was this: only once was the possibility of murder mentioned, and that was by a story-hungry reporter who suggested that the avalanche was made up by the stronger boys as a cover-up for murdering the weaker ones. None of the parents or survivors ever suggested that they would have begun murdering each other for food had supplies run out, which they nearly had towards the end. In adventure novels about ship wrecks and the like, people always start killing each other for food. In reading Alive, I have new faith in humanity that even under extreme circumstances, people don't just resort to murder. In fact, many people won't even consider it.

What passage(s) do you particularly like in the book? (Copy parts of them in your journal and then write your answer to these questions) Why?

I know I used this prompt last time, but there's another passage I want to talk about.

The young men have been trapped for 59 days and, understandably, tempers are erupting. Canessa, nicknamed Muscles because of his stubbornness, is especially cranky.

"...Canessa lay around 'conserving his energy' or insisted on treating the boils that Roy Harley had developed on his legs. He also quarreled with the younger boys....He even quarreled with his great friend and admirer Alvaro Mangino... he told Mangino to move his leg. Mangino said that it had been cramped all night and so he would not. Canessa shouted at Mangino. Mangino cursed Canessa. Canessa lost his temper and grabbed Mangino by the hair. He was about to hit him but simply threw Alvaro back against the wall of the plane instead.

"'Now you're not my friend any more,' Mangino said, sobbing."

This childish phrase coming from the mouth of a grown man made me want to cry. It made me so, so sad to imagine these men, stuck in the fuselage of an airplane in the middle of the Andes Mountains, start crying and shouting childish insults at each other. They are just so weak and so tired and so sick of being with only each other for nearly two months that they are beginning to act like children. They have watched their best friends die and surrender their bodies to the survivor's lives, they have heard on the radio that their parents have given up searching for them, and now they are fighting with each other. It would make me want to act like a baby, too.

What passage(s) do you particularly like in the book? (Copy parts of them in your journal and then write your answer to these questions) Why?

The time period when the Fairchild crashed was very politically divided. The young men that survived the crash were from opposing social and political sides, so they avoided any sort of discussion of politics in order to avoid arguments.

"The safest topic of conversation was agriculture because many were training or already working as farmers and ranchers or else had a farm or ranch in the family. Páez, Francois, and Sabella all had properties in the same part of the interior, and Inciarte and Echavarren both ran dairy farms.

"Occasionally Pedro Algorta would feel excluded from the group because he knew nothing of country matters. Seeing this, the farmers would try and draw him in. They planned a Regional Consortium of Agricultural Experimentation in which Pedro was to have charge of the rabbits. They would all live together on some land that Carlitos owned in the Coronilla in adjoining houses designed by Eduardo."

This passage reminds me of Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Lennie and George have a dream of owning their own farm and "live off the fat o' the land." Lennie fantasized about taking care of rabbits, which would be his job. Lennie was mentally challenged and therefore not fit for any sort of intellectually challenging job, but he would be allowed to take care of rabbits. Pedro Algorta, who did not have any experience on farms, would be given the job of taking care of rabbits. Neither were fit to work on a farm, but they both were given the same job.

Does the author seem to have a friendly, unfriendly, or some other type of relationship with the audience? Why do you think so?

Piers Paul Read seems to be telling the story in a very unbiased, objective manner. His relationship with the audience is professional and businesslike. He does not put his own thoughts or feelings into his retelling of what happened in the mountains. He relies only on what the survivors have told him. Piers Paul Read has nothing to prove in writing this book, so he doesn't develop any sort of friendly/unfriendly relationship with the audience. He adds nothing of his own character to the story, so the reader doesn't develop any sort of feelings toward him. He doesn't have to be defensive in his writing. It is almost as if the sixteen survivors are writing the story through Piers Paul Read. His tone is very flat; he portrays all emotion through dialogue between the characters and observations. Somehow this does not make it unenjoyable to read. It is actually quite riveting, and I'm not exactly sure how.

Does the author state her/his purposes overtly? If so, copy the purpose in your journal and tell how well you think he/she is/does achieve it.

I finished Good Omens and am now reading Alive by Piers Paul Read.

Alive is the story of the survivors of a plane crash in the Andes in 1972. It was a plane of 45 people, consisting of an Uruguayan rugby team and their family members, along with just a few people that the team didn't know but brought along to lower the cost of the flight for everyone. Piers Paul Read does not seem to have much of a role in the story so far; he does not state why he is writing it, nor does his voice show prevalently in the retelling. His purpose is not overt, however the purpose of the sixteen survivors is stated at the beginning.

"We decided that this book should be written and the truth known because of the many rumors about what happened in the cordillera. We dedicate this story of our suffering and solidarity to those friends who died and to their parents who, at the time when we most needed it, received us with love and understanding.

Pedro Algorta, Roberto Canessa, Alfredo Delgado, Daniel Fernández, Roberto Francois, Roy Harley, José Luis Inciarte, Alvaro Mangino, Javier Methol, Carlos Páez, Fernando Parrado, Ramón Sabella, Adolfo Strauch, Eduardo Strauch, Antonio Vizintín, Gustavo Zerbino

Montevideo, October 30, 1973"

That was the survivors' goal for the book: to quell any and all rumors so that the world would know the truth about their plane crash in the Andes. I wish I knew how they came into contact with Piers Paul Read. I wonder what his interests in the story were. He doesn't tell anything about himself. Maybe later on in the book he will start to talk more about himself and his reasons for deciding to write this book.