Literature entry week 7
Hey guys, not feeling my best this week so I’m going to try and be brief. I’ve got my Nescafe by my side, the sun’s coming through the blinds, trusty hanky nearby, and Ghosts album softly playing in the background (my muse music).
I’ll start by looking at one of the questions Michael gave us this week.
“Identify the elements that give verbal/rhetoric power to the King’s first speech (1.1.1-32). How is the meaning of the whole play illuminated by the imagery of this passage?
Oh my god the stupid unit cleaning people are here to blow leaves around aimlessly and make a whole lot of noise. Trying even harder to concentrate. Ok I’ve closed the door now, bit quieter.
The meaning of the word ‘rhetoric’ is the art of persuasion through the art of language. Here King Henry is using his royal influence to persuade his people to go on a crusade. He uses the royal plural “so shaken as WE are” (1.1.1), which gives a feeling of formality and immediately the audience knows he is king. He speaks in poetry, not prose like Hal does. This makes his language more structured and organised. Hal, on the other hand, is much freer (at least under the influence of Falstaff). The rhythm is in iambic pentameter (5 beats per line), also very structured. To make his argument and persuade his people, the king uses personification “frighted peace to pant” (2), and imagery, “No more shall trenching war channel her fields, Nor bruise her flow’rets with the armed hoofs Of hostile paces” (9). He uses fear to talk the subjects into a crusade.
The meaning of the play is illuminated by the irony of this passage because Prince Hal’s noble royal duty which he struggles with fulfilling is actually mostly farce. It is a tragedy that the prince leaves his authentic life with Falstaff for a cold, fake, soulless monarchy that sends people to war for no good reason. That said, Nancy argued in the tute that Prince Hal was cold and manipulative anyway, but I think that parts of him were like that, but not fully. He is still young in part one, and I think he is forming his personality still. Falstaff is a beacon of light in his life, but the cold monarchy is intruding upon that. The clip we watched from ‘My Own Private Idaho’ had the character likened to Hal standing with his back to Falstaff. This suggests to me that Hal was trying to convince himself to ‘do his royal duty’. And it is a tragedy because that ‘royal duty’ will be fruitless for him. But maybe Nancy’s right and he deserves that!
Finally, here is what is meant to be some kind of Spanish version of Falstaff as a monster that eats people.. ha ha WHAT THE..?
Anyway I think I probably answered half the question but I really need to go and lie down now, after I do the vaccuming, pay the bills and do my drama readings. Then I might die. We’ll see.
This week's comment is at http://davidoff22.livejournal.com/10128.html?view=9360#t9360
Hey Aleks, I know what you mean. It does seem that society has lost its innocence. Your entry reminds me of Ovid's Metamorphosis, and the discussion we had in the tute about the loss of innocence there. It raises the question, is it greed that has created the cause for war, and destroyed innocence and beauty? You're right about Hermia and Lysander.. it's like by waking up they have 'fallen'. But it wasn't through their choice. So what then?
GeebusD.
pics:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3H1dWtzmZYU/SaLC0XV44LI/AAAAAAAABBA/sDUsxaZKpO4/s320/52.jpg
http://seronoser.free.fr/tausiet/shakespeare/campanadas.jpg