Winter 2012 Introduction to Shakespeare |
|
User loginJournal Directionsabout the teacher!If you want to know what's running through my mind, just click the following link that takes you to my blog, bleckblog. Other than what you'll find there, you can pretty much assume I'm just like every other English teacher you've ever had because we're a rather monolithic bunch.
WIKIswho's online?There are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
|
journal 12
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 13:22
The horse script exercise held a valid point, the point that the script really can mean anything and elicit any correlating emotion. The author’s purpose of the writing must also be taken into account when trying to understand the script, but portrayed as abstractly as it was is how the variables were created and we could take it to mean almost anything. |
Thought for the Term (and maybe forever!)“It is only through literature that one can put oneself in someone else’s shoes and understand the other’s different and contradictory sides and refrain from becoming too ruthless” (118). Azar Nafisi, Reading Lolita in Tehran.
Recent blog postsRecent comments
|
But I meant this! Not that!
I agree that the six lines we were given did show how a script can mean just about anything. We will be reading the plays in their entirety. Even with that, do you think that we will come up with different meanings of the plays? We didn't always know what Shakespeare's purpose was for writing the sonnets, is it going to be any different for his plays?
Megan Baeth-Brison
individualism is key
I mean that exactly. Each individual will walk away with something different from each piece they read no matter the text. Of course there are some main objectives the author has for each piece, set themes and characterizations but i believe it is up to the individual to interpret as they will, no wrong answers. And the same goes for his plays.