He loves me,; He loves me not.

Poor Ophelia, she died for love… In this post I want to discuss the Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship… wait, there was no relationship at all. According to Showalter she suffered from erotomania; it means that she was deluded by the image of Hamlet, someone that was out of her league. Hamlet flirted with her, but both her father and her brother recognised that they belong to two different social status, so their love was impossible.   So, why Hamlet is so sad when he arrived at Denmark and he realized that she has committed suicide? Hamlet confesses his love for Ophelia at the graveyard, so his grief is absolutely normal. However, I would like to postulate the idea (very twisted by the way) that Ophelia represents the humanity that still remained in Hamlet. He was paranoid, but after her death, he became the revenge machine that killed his uncle, his mother (collateral damage) and Ophelia’s brother. 

God is death... and Claudius killed Him.

In 1882, Frederick Nietzsche coined this well-known phrase that became a motto for all atheists around the world. However, W. Shakespeare had postulated the idea that God has nothing to do in human decisions over 200 years before Nietzsche. The fact that Claudius assassinated King Hamlet, and then became the new King of Denmark shows that the mighty “chain of beings” was not as fixed as it seemed. According that belief, God himself designs a spot for every human being, and that spot can be changed. Firstly, Hamlet senior occupied the spot of king; then, Hamlet junior is supposed to occupy that place, but Claudius sat himself in the throne. In a world where God is centre of the universe, it is a revolutionary idea. Maybe Shakespeare was not aware that he was defying all the celestial order, but it is a hint that the anthropocentrism was around the corner. God is death, long live the human beings!

      

The fight between love and madness

Have you ever felt in love that you felt insane? Have you ever been in a relationship in which you felt that everything was out of control? Well, you maybe feel like Ophelia in Hamlet. 

In my view, Ophelia is one of the most sensitive characters in Hamlet’s play.  She was deeply in love with hamlet that she would do anything in order to be with him. It is like some of those relationships when one of the lovers is crazy to be with the other person and to keep their warmth with him/her, that the romance becomes insane.

Ophelia would do anything to have Hamlet’s love. Have you ever felt like that? If you answer is yes, BE CAREFUL! At the end of the play, she felt she had no options when she realizes that she lost him that she committed suicide. I am pretty sure that you do not want to end up like Ophelia.

But, we have to question something. What felt Hamlet? Why did not he love Ophelia as much as she loved him? He was very hurt because of his mother’s behavior. He was so disappointed that this leads him to distrust all women in the planet. His mother was to be perfect, but she is not. He idealizes her in a way no one could ever broke that image; however, Gertrude broke that idea by herself.

The line between love and madness is so thin that we might not realize when we are losing our minds. You do not want to be another Ophelia and become your life a tragedy, right? Life is so beautiful that it is not worth to suffer from someone who does not love you. Sometimes, you suffer because you get used to it. However, who can say what is normal and what is not? What is insane and what is not? Maybe we are all insane, we think that we love but we do not know what is love (baby don’t hurt me, no more hahaha) or what is to be in love. 

In my opinion, we were born "normal", but afterwards, we transform into sick people (especially when we are in love.) What do you think?

What does the Ghost say?

Have you ever seen a ghost? Have you talked to it? Well, I guess if you did, you would have described the situation to one similar from a horror movie, right? However, Hamlet did not even run away across a corridor because he saw his death father, on the contrary, he just talked to him in a way similar to a Ghostbusters Elizabethan version.

I wish, I was as brave as him, but let’s stop a little bit to what the ghost actually said.

First, he claims that he is his father, and clearly looks like him. Then, he explains that his death is actually a murder committed by his brother; Hamlet’s uncle and actual king. Third, because of words like “doomed” and being in “tormenting flames”, thus the desperation of his words about being revenged in order to make his crimes “burnt and purged away”, we can infer that he is not in heaven at all. According, to the catholic perspective he would be in purgatory, because he actually can be saved. Then the contradictions begin, because seen from that perspective spirits who are in that state should not try to make other sin or they would stay where they are. So, why is he suffering from not being revenged?

From the other religious point of view; for Protestants purgatory does not exist at all. This is another contradiction, since it is said that Denmark is a protestant nation and actually Hamlet attended to Wittenberg a school where the protestant reformation began.  Therefore, he was not his father at all, just an evil force.

All in all, I think that what the ghost says does not really matters; it is hamlet’s reaction to his words what moves him in the direction to revenge. A clear example of this idea is the mouse trap, since he needed to be sure of the words of his father.

Hamlet, do you really believe in the Ghost? Or are you a super expert of spirits? Is that the reason you had to test it?

Conscience or Just Reflection?

     Everyone acts according to their individual inner awareness of the right and wrong. So many times, in fact, we blame ourselves for doing things that are morally are wrong, but we do them anyways. Certainly, the moral sense inhibits actions by generating and creating fear. We, as human beings, have the ability to distinguish between good and evil, but it seems that for some ones have their own concept of good and evil, and do things their own way according to their interests and beliefs.

     In Shakespeare's Hamlet, there is an eternal game with the mind and conscience. Actually, I could ditinguish consciousness, self-consciousness and reflection within the play, which are differente things. But, I would like to focus on Claudius. At the beginning of act III, Claudious states, "how smart a lash that speech doth give my conscience" (actIII, sc. III, 49-50). Claudious disguises his ugliness and evilness with clever words and false emotions; he hides his sins because he knows what he did wrong and the reason of his murder: "My crown, my own ambition and my queen." He recognizes his guilt but he does not regret at all. He reflects about their actions, he looks into his soul and kneels to pray, hoping to purge his guilt , but reflects that this penance will not be true and genuine since he will still retain the prized for which he committed the murder and he is proud of them.

     Even though throughout the play we can perceive Claudius as a celever monster, this is the first time the king confesses comitting the crime (act III, sc. III); he does have conscience, he acknowledges enjoying his ungodly gains; therefore, he just reflects about his actions. Claudious is not completely beyong redemption.

    Nowadays, there are a lot of Claudius in the world. People recongnize doing wrong, and still continue doing it; people committed bad actions but tehy are justify by the end (Machiavelli's idea). Today, we live in a society where coscience exists but it is not taken into account nor even present when acting or taking decisions. I must say that everyone constructs their own conscience regarding their own interests and needs; what is wrong for me, for you is good; what is morally correct for me, for you it is not. This leads to frustration, madnees, and more wickedness at a personal level. Having coscience does not mean you are a a good person, it means you are human prompt to sin at any time.
     As we can see, human mind is a mess. Check this video about it. 

Juliet and Ophelia:  Active and passive, passion and softness

It is possible to see a relation between two of the most famous plays, and more specifically tragedies, by William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet. Such relation takes into account the factor of the woman in the play (which is, in some way, wicked since no women performed the role of women in plays in that period). 

Juliet is merely a girl when the play starts. Nevertheless, it has been argued that she grows over the development of the play and, in contrast to Romeo, she progressively matures. The child is no longer so: she is a person able to make decisions and to decide what is it that she wants and pursues it. She goes with the flow of things but in an active way since she knows where things are headed to.

Ophelia, the woman I refer to in Hamlet, is sadly totally the opposite. She is shown as downtrodden, submissive and welcoming, in contrast to the character of Hamlet, aggressive and passionate in nature. She follows the will of others, for example Laertes or Polonius. The girl is given little - if none - voice in the play except when she finally loses her mind after Polonius death, and that voice, or room for her to speak, is full of nonsense and madness. In act 4, when her father is accidentally killed, her craziness is unleashed. Therefore, Ophelia is a character to be pitied.

Despite having a totally different attitude toward events, they both, Ophelia and Juliet, have something in common; they both are dragged to their fatal destiny because of a man. Hamlet and Romeo are the ones to be blamed for the downward spiral Ophelia and Juliet undergo. Juliet, actually, dies the same as Ophelia. Is it notorious that their deaths have a different nature, though: Juliet dies by a knife being “sheathed” in her skin, which could be considered as aggressive, dying almost by phallic icon; meanwhile, Ophelia dies by water, in a sort of soft way, surrounded by a welcoming entity such as water, she fades into the depths; so now I wonder: Would the way they die have something to do with their personalities?

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

The Hunchback of Notre Dame has been one of my favorite movies since I was a child—Yes… and I cried like everybody else when I watched it for the very first time, I must confess. For those who may not know it, this is an animated musical drama film produced by Walt Disney Feature Animation and it was released in 1996.

Believe it or not, I was reading the play Twelfth Night when this movie, suddenly, came up to my mind and without noticing, my neurons started making some connections by relating one topic presented in the play to another exposed in the movie. For that reason, I decided to look for some information on the Internet—the greatest savior of work groups nowadays—in order to find out if my ideas were going to make sense at some point.

            So, here we go. First of all, The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a French Gothic novel by Victor Hugo and it was published in 1831. Nevertheless, the story takes place in Paris in 1482—Ok, first thing that makes me think that I am not entirely lost, because Twelfth Night was written around 1601.

            The word that really made me think of this movie was “carnival”. At the very beginning of this movie, a carnival, The Carnival of Fools, is exposed, and like it is stated in one part of the song performed by Clopin, the mischievous leader of the gypsies, "everything in this carnival turns upside down." From this point, we can see all the people of the city, from the lower to the upper classes, having fun together by drinking, singing, and disguising themselves; actually, there is a competition of masks portrayed like the main event of this festivity. In connection with the play, by the time that Twelfth Night was written, people used to celebrate this carnival—Twelfth Night—where everything was ruled by madness and craziness; indeed, during this festivity, men used to disguise like women and vice versa—Am I making myself clear?

            There is another point that I was able to analyze with the help of my friends, and I would like to share it with you as well. The character of Feste, the trixiter, is pretty similar to Clopin, this mischievous gypsy that narrates the story of the hunchback since the beginning of the movie and who seems to be an omniscient narrator; for some reason, he knows everything concerning the character’s lives. Like Feste, who was Olivia’s servant, he was wise (trixters were supposed to be smart, but portrayed the role of clowns in society) free, and even though he interacted with all the characters, he didn’t belong to their realities, for he knew everything about them—Does it make any sense?

What do you think? I’m looking forward to reading your comments in order to exchange more ideas!
                                                                                                                                          
Sergio Reyes                                                                                             

           

Green Day and Michel Foucalt

Hi guys! When I was reading Stultifera Navis by Michel Foucalt, I immediately thought of this song.

Some of you may know it, some others don’t. It’s called Jesus of Suburbia, and tells the story of a young adult name Jimmy, a drug dealer, whose life sucks. He feels alone in this world: People who are supposed to love him and care for him (his mom and girlfriend) do not do it. I believe this song represents Foucalt’s ideas in the sense that Jimmy is in this context the mad man. He is rejected and isolated by the society, as the chorus says: and there’s nothing wrong with me/ this is how I’m supposed to be/in a land of make believe/that don’t’ believe in me. Jimmy argues that he lives in a death city, and although he wants to leave, he can’t. People who live there are normal and see Jim as a threat, they isolate him, but they do not allow him to leave the town. It seems as if they enjoyed watching him suffering.

As the song goes by, this crazy man confronts her mother and tells her that she is crazy. She does not recognize this fact, and the mad man knowing what the others don’t (they are crazy) just quit fighting and says:

Dearly beloved, are you listening? 
I can't remember a word that you were saying 
Are we demented or am I disturbed? 
The space that's in between insane and insecure.

Here he’s saying that he realized that she was normal, she was not a visionary and would never understand him. He thinks they both are demented, but just him is disturbed.

The song continues saying:

Oh therapy, can you please fill the void? 

Am I retarded or am I just overjoyed? 
Nobody's perfect and I stand accused 
for lack of a better word and that's my best excuse.

Here Jimmy reflects a little on why he is different from the rest of the mortals. Would therapy resolve this “being-different” issue?

 At the end of the song, Jimmy abandons his town and begins a journey. This can be compared to the ship of fools, but in this case, he would go alone and by personal decision.

Is the squeeze worth the juice?

 “Love is mean and love hurts” says a singer in a song. But if we know it before hand, then why do we embrace in that terrible venture? Only a fool would take that risk.

It seems that has been a typical topic along the years, we have seen it in almost every play written by Shakespeare.

In Romeo and Juliet, both lovers take a risk for falling in love with the heir’s enemy; we know their love story ended up in a tragic one.

In MSND, when lover rescue to get into the woods, they were tricked and their object of love was switch. It could have been a tragic closure, but still they were tested if they really were in love of the person that they had said.

In Twelfth Night, lovers are more involved; as a consequence, they are led them to commit outrageous actions. Nevertheless, the principal source that keeps them away from love and causes them pain, is not out there, but inside of them. They are their own enemies in the love game. Maybe in a level of their consciousness, they are aware that they might end up hurt, so they run “away”. As Cerati, would say: “al menos se que huyo porque amo”.

I’m pretty sure that all of us have been in a situation like this, at least one. Do you regret or your motto is “better to regret what you've done than what you haven't”? 

Perhaps we will be lucky if we could live without love and all the pain that involves, but then our lives will lack that spicy element, which makes us feel alive and other times dead.

We are different roles but still the same

Identity formation is not just thinking about oneself, but also about external factors that shape who we are. For that reason, media, fads, and peoples’ opinion (friends, family, classmates, etc.) influence what we do and the way we behave. As a result, we can be a different person in different groups of people, which leads to the main question of this entry: Who are we?

According to the Human Project, 2012

13.7 billion years ago, we were crammed into a single point.

10 billion years ago, we were stars exploding into existence.

3 billion years ago, we were bacteria, we were alive.

550 million years ago, we were flat worms without hearts and brains.

400 million years ago, we were fish, we had jaws

50 million years ago, we were gray apes; we had arms, legs, and bigger brains.

5 million years ago, we were humans, we had voice boxes.

100 thousand years ago, we could talk, but could not ask this question… (who are we?)

1,000 years ago, we were all God’s creation. Accept the guy next door was hideous.

200 years ago, we were British, French, American, Indian, Chinese.

100 years ago, we had proof we were one species descended from apes. Few of us were pleased.

60 years ago, we declared were all human entitled to the same human rights.

10 years ago, we started saying we are global citizens.

                                                Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26jKx74Wc5M

From this idea we get that changing is a rather natural thing, we have done it for a long time, and probably we will continue to do so whether at the global level, as human race, or at the individual level.

In the following video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q93iL-HSiNc, different questions are asked about identity, and from that, we start wondering what our true identity is. In this last video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0HEdbliaEM, we see how our identity changes in different contexts as well as how we are forced to so (by the hand). However, in all those situations we are still the same; we might be playing a different role, but we are still ourselves. So maybe, instead of having just one role in society, we have a lot of them, and we, simply, are all of those roles.

As we have studied in class and as Bakhtin (1968) poses “The feast (every feast) is an important primary form of human culture.” In this sense, carnivals provide people with a new opportunity to adapt a new identity and, actually, be free, not just from social conventions but also from inner restrictions or limitations. In that way, carnivals are the second life of people. But, that does not necessarily mean that we completely lose our identity. During the carnival or party we still are ourselves, or at least the part of ourselves that somehow we have neglected because of what is politically correct or for what is socially expected of ourselves.  In the play we recently read, Twelfth Night, or What You Will, we see how all the characters play different roles/masks, but we still are able to spot who they are, and in real life it may occur the same thing. Even if people were masks or play different roles, by paying close attention to how they are and to the way they behave we will somehow know what is the role they are playing, whether the fool, phony character, or “honest” one.

The scapegoat called Shylock for people who want be happy

 The most evident division of The Merchant of Venice arouses when the characters of Antonio and Shylock are brought into light, but that is just an example of what happens generally in the play. It is left out of consideration, though, that the mayority of the character's happiness depend on Shylock as their goodness is created in contrast to the character of the Jew.

The Merchant of Venice, 2004 move adaptation.

 The Merchant of Venice was first wrote as a comedy, which results obvious when considering that it shows a happy ending where all the characters are contempt: Antonio still lives, Portia makes sure Bassanio is in a debt of love to her, Bassanio holds no grim on his back, Lorenzo and Jessica love each other...but what about Shylock? He is the sole chap of the play who is, in a allegorical way, erased of the plot, and since he was the object of despise of the other characters, his nonexistence results in the joy of them. The happiness of the characters depends on Shylock, more specifically, his disappearance and defeat.

By despising the Jew along with his mates Bassanio, Lorenzo and the Anti-Semitic Gratiano, Antonio builds this identity of good fellow even though they are not morally better than Shylock. Antonio, as Harold Bloom (1892) portrays him, has another hidden side which basically "manifests his piety by cursing and spitting at Shylock;" Bassanio borrows money and favor from almost everyone; Lorenzo is basically a lusty bandit; and Gratiano can be perfectly considered a xenophobic flatterer. They need a foil to whom contrast their own behavior and they get that in the person of Shylock.

 

Such ideas lead to questions about ourselves: Are we that good we think we are? Have we used someone to gossip about as an excuse for establishing relations? Have we been happy when a hated one is in pain or sorrow?

References
 Bloom, H.; Wright, W.A.; Shakespeare, W. (2005) Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. NY: Riverhead Books.

Romeo & Juliet: How Romeo's Recklessness Led to Their Demise

Romeo & Juliet: How Romeo's Recklessness Led to Their Demise

It was an unavoidable conclusion. Throughout the entirety of the play, Romeo exhibited such rash and impulsive behavior that the only way he could have gotten a happy ending was to fundamentally change who he was. This, of course, is an impossibility, as is the power and extent of Romeo and Juliet's "love" had Romeo been a more mature and patient individual. This truly is one of those "what came first: the chicken or the egg?" situations. If Romeo had just waited a little bit before killing himself, or if he had thought about the consequences and repercussions of his actions BEFORE actually acting on his impulses, then surely both of them would have lived. However, had they lived, their love would not be one of legends, and their story would not be firmly cemented as the quintessential love story of all time. Nevertheless, the very "legendary" status of Romeo & Juliet's story worries me. Why, after all, is their love thought of with such esteem? Their love isn't any different to the thousands of stories we hear (or even experience ourselves) about two people falling MADLY in love, only to end up dead, beat up, in prison or alone. This crazy, passionate love is actually a result of chemicals going crazy inside our heads, giving us the feeling of "loving" the other person, when in fact we're simply high out of our minds and thus any decision that we make is neither logical nor rational, but in fact, can be quite dangerous and destructive. I believe it wise to make a distinction between "love" and "feeling-in-love". Love, after all, is not a feeling, but a decision. If love were a feeling, then it wouldn't last more than 2 years, because feelings change constantly and if we experience a feeling long enough, eventually it will cease to satisfy us. No, love cannot be a feeling. It MUST be a logical and rational DECISION to be with another person, both in the good and the bad, or so the marriage vows go. What Romeo experienced was a surge of serotonin (a "feel good" chemical released in our brains with the purpose of procreation) and every action he took part in was a result of, quite simply, being on drugs. We shouldn't hail their love as the most magical of all love stories; instead, we should see it as a warning, a warning of what happens when we lose all objectivity and chose to listen to our emotions against the better judgement of our minds. What would have happened, I wonder, had Romeo and Juliet survived their ordeal? Would they have lasted more than a year? Two? Or would they have been in love forever, as fairy tale princes and princesses often are? They are FAIRY TALES. People get married expecting to be in love forever, and when things get rough they simply get a divorce. How romantic. Why do we value the superficial relationships of fictional characters more than those of real individuals sticking together in spite of the hardships and problems that come with life and real human relationships? These fairy tale stories are lies, and the problem is that we still believe them. We believe Romeo to be a true romantic, when in fact he was quite a selfish and murderous child. How many people did he kill? 2? 3? Oh, but he did it for love. Right...

In my opinion, Romeo's rash and destructive personality led to his and Juliet's death, and all because of believing that what he felt was true and immaculate. The "love" that he felt is called infatuation, and the deaths that he caused are called murder. Romeo and Juliet's story is not a healthy view of romantic relationships, and should be considered quite accurate in depicting the end result of a tumultuous and obsessive romance.

Nicolas Reyes W.  

Antonio: Is he a good Christian representation?

We have discussed that The Merchant of Venice is an anti-Semitic play.We have also discussed that Shakespeare does not really portray his opinion or position in his plays. Instead, he makes us think about the relationship between the old order and the new order.

In this regard, Shakespeare presents 2 counterparts to be described and represented as the Christian and the Jew; Antonio and Shylock. Antonio is supposed to be the faithful representation of the Christian values such as compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, and willingness to give up his life for the well being of the other, following Jesus' example. And Antonio seems to portray those values, especially when dealing with Bassanios' wishes. He is a good person, willing to put his life in danger for Bassanio. 

However, he abuses Shylock, the Jew, verbally and psychologically, hating him and his usury.  And this is the important and paradoxical point. Some passages of the play make me think that the way Antonio reacts and thinks doesn't make him look so Christian as supposed. For instance, in Act 1-scene 3, when Bassanio looks for Shylock to lend him money on behalf of Antonio, it is clear that Antonio is not willing to apologize for all the times he called Shylock a dog and spitted on his face:

(You can watch the video - from 5:09 - 6:27)

"I am as like to call thee so again
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee, too"

These lines make me wonder where the Christian compassion and forgiveness are portrayed. Not to mention the resolution of the trial when Antonio's "mercy" was to make Shylock a Christian--convert him into Shylock's most hated nightmare. Antonio is expected to react with compassion, as he needed Shylock, but instead, he couldn't demonstrate a bit of the Christian values and character. Furthermore, I think this could be interpreted as his own revenge, being easily confused with justice.

So I wonder, what is Shakespeare exactly trying to tell us about being Christian? Does the true Christian really exist? Can a person be a Christian while keeping hatred for someone that is not?

Shakespeare and the Syrian civil war

I think or I hope that for all of us it is familiar what is going on in Syria. The horrible stories from the news have informed us about the terrible situation that the civil war has brought to millions of people. It all began in 2011, when nonviolent protest inspired by earlier revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia rose up to challenge decades of dictatorship, corruption and violence. However, the government responded in the most violent way, killing activists and their families, kidnapping and torturing. The troops of the "government" opened fire on protest and finally civilians started shooting back.  The Syrian army positioned across the country and civilians organized rebel groups.  That is how the civil war started.  Political science, James Fearon of Stanford University, has said that Syria’s civil war will last at least another decade.  Foreign powers have supported different sides and the United Nations has persuaded to negotiate without success.

Now, in relation to Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice something quite curious occurred on August, when the Syrian Parliament appears to have quoted part of Shylock’s famous speech to the UK MPs (The UK public elects Members of Parliament) in a try to convince them to not take military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

http://www.cityam.com/blog/1377770719/syrian-parliament-invokes-strange-shakespearean-allegory-letter-uk-mps

In the second paragraph of a five-page letter, Mohammad Jihad al-Laham, speaker of the people's assembly of Syria, writes:

"We write to you as fathers and mothers, as members of families and communities really not so different to yours. We write to you as fellow human beings for, if you bomb us, shall we not bleed?"

Probably the idea of the Syrian parliament was to show Syria to the UK MPs as “the Jew” Even though Syria has been an example of religious tolerance. Prior to the 2011, more than 87 percent of Syrians ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that they always treat people of other religious ideas with respect. 

 I think that the idea of the letter was to convince British members of parliament with one of the most recognized English writers of all times, perhaps with those words they will understand the pain and suffering that Syrian people  have lived  as Shylock lived as a discriminated Jew in 16th century.  However something is in my mind that I cannot understand. We know that Shylock was looking for revenge, he was the bad guy of the play, but in the end he was seemed as a victim, at least for me. Did the Syrian parliament try to show themselves as victims of a cruel war, or as victims looking for revenge? What do you think?

Is Shylock a justified villain?

When I read Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, I really loved Shylock's character and, in a certain way, I justified his actions of cruelty. I believe that maybe the same has happened to other people too, and that this is why it has been so difficult for critics to define him.

Even though I know it is hard to pity him, I think Shylock's hatred was a result of years of harassment, constructed by people around him. People like Antonio who discriminated him for being a Jew and not a Christian. The city thought of him as an outsider and even his daughter left him alone without a strong justification, as she said that her father did not mistreat her and asked for forgiveness through a letter, as it is shown at the end of the play.

Does the inner always overcome the outer?

Jiddu Krishnamurti, a speaker and writer on philosophical and spiritual subjects, once claimed that the inner always overcomes the outer. He posed that outward beauty can never last, for it is marred if there is no inward delight and joy. He stated that we can cultivate the outer, paying very little attention to the thing inside the skin; nonetheless, it is the inner that always overcomes the outer. (retrieved from http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20120831.php?t=Beauty)

This idea becomes, seemingly, evident when reading The Merchant of Venice. We know that Portia’s father had established that she was to be chosen by one who would rightly love. As a result, Bassanio has to choose the right casket, and by doing so, prove that his love is real. Therefore, unlike the other suitors, Bassanio is not blinded by appearances. In fact, he states that the world is deceived with ornaments, and it is probably that idea that leads him not to choose the golden or silver casket, but the plead one. Consequently, he finds the portrait of Portia and the key to her.

Apparently, what Krishnamurti poses is true; however, we cannot forget that through the play, Shakespeare is making the audience question what happens in “the real world.” Therefore, he might be saying that in the real world the inner does not always overcome the outer. By reading the Scpritures, we find in the Book of James a strong criticism against the sin of partiality, for human beings tend to favor someone with golden rings and fine clothing over someone poor and in shabby clothes, which seems to be a rather “natural” attitude.

Human beings tend to believe what they see, yet what we see may not necessarily be what we believe it is, because our eyes may be playing some tricks on us.

 

                                         Are the lines in between parallel to each other?

If we believe that the inner always overcome the outer, we still have to question whether what’s inside is good or bad.  Therefore, it should be asked about Portia whether she is the obedient daughter and the good wife devoted to his husband, or if she is a rather controlling and merciless person. Is it not true that “it is the worm inside the apple that destroys the freshness of the apple?” (Krishnamurti).

Does the inner always overcome the outer? Do we believe that, only for justifying who we are with? Can we trust what we see? How do we know whether something is real or not? If human beings wear masks all the time, can they be trusted? Perhaps, after centuries we still need to quote Socrates and say “I only know that I know nothing."

Thanks for reading!

Hope y’all have a good one =)

Bibliography 

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-daily-quote/20120831.php?t=Beauty

Oberon and Titania’s Appearance in a Japanese Videogame

We know that Shakespeare’s influence in popular culture is massive. “Romeo and Juliet” has influenced music, as in Dire Straits’ “Romeo and Juliet”; Titania and Oberon have been mentioned in “The Simpsons” and “Star Trek”; and popular actors and actresses such as Glenn Close and Mel Gibson have starred movies based on “Hamlet.” But, what would you say if I told you that part of Oberon and Titania’s disagreements appear in a Japanese videogame?

The game in question is “Devil Summoner 2,” a spin-off of a saga called “Shin Megami Tensei.” It was released in 2009 for the PlayStation 2 and tells the story of a young detective, Raidou, who is trying to unveil a big mystery. The game is set in the 1920s in The Capital (Tokyo), and naturally, the protagonist has to travel to different places, accompanied by his cat friend Gouto. In one of these places, he will be asked to solve a conundrum:

“There's supposedly a village that was wiped off the map in the forest north of Tsukigata. Rumor has it anyone who goes into that cursed place never comes back. I'd like to ask you to find it. I know it could be risky, but I think a tough guy like you will do fine. I'll give you a Fickle Dew as a reward.”

It turns out that Queen Titania was the one behind the request, whose goal was to make Raidou, “the darling Oriental boy,” her new consort so that they could live forever together in the “Tento Woods.” After his refusal to such forced invitation, Oberon, the Faerie King and Titania’s husband, gives Raidou a love potion that can redirect Titania’s love to Oberon. Once Raidou accomplishes the goal, the Queen and the King of the Faerie decide to turn him into a page, and Oberon confesses that it was all part of his plan to regain Titania’s love and a new servant. After revealing the truth, the battle begins. When the fight is over, the effect of the potion wears off and the couple argues again, leaving the area. Can you see the resemblance?

In the original plot, Oberon asks Titania for a changeling (a baby or boy who is to replace another one) because the one she had brought from India is really beautiful and could be a good knight. Titania refuses, so Oberon asks Puck to look for a flower whose liquid can make anyone fall in love with the first thing that person sees. Of course, Oberon orders Puck to spread the liquid in Titania’s eyes, but when she wakes up she sees and, consequently, falls in love with Bottom, a donkey-head man.

As you can see, the course of action is very similar in both the original play and the videogame. Oberon wants a knight, but he fails in the process. What is interesting in this analogy is the concept of the worlds. Just like Raidou and Gouto, the characters from the play “travel” through different worlds, immersing themselves in another reality where they will influence and will be influenced by the new characters, coexisting altogether in the new dimension. Raidou would be representing a new, naïve, Oriental Puck in this new world. Additionally, the graphic aspect provided by the videogame helps to characterize the environment of the “Green World” through the conceptual art behind the “Tento Woods,” making it a good source for the mental representation of the stage where the events occur.

What we have here is not a mind-blowing recreation of the original play, but a good exemplification of the main conflict between Titania and Oberon, a glimpse of their troubled relationship, and a good graphical source for the representation of the faeries’ environment. Moreover, we get to understand how Shakespeare’s presence evident in many works of art around the world, not only in the West. Titania, Oberon, and Queen Mab have been recurring demons in the saga “Shin Megami Tensei” since the very beginning (1990s), and they also rule a Faerie kingdom in a post-apocalyptic Tokyo in the 2004 game “Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne.” Why do you think other cultures take a liking to Shakespeare's works?

Joaquín Moya

The price we pay for happiness

P O R T I A By my troth, Nerissa, my little body is aweary of this great world.

N E R I S S A: You would be, sweet madam, if your miseries were in the same abundance as your good fortunes are ; and yet for aught I see, they are as sick that surfeit with too much as they that starve with nothing. It is no mean happiness, therefore, to be seated in the mean - superfluity comes sooner by white hairs, but competency lives longer.

When I read Romeo and Juliet, I was able to sense the differences between wealthy people and common people. The first one had to face enormous contraries because of their position; they had to keep an image –besides as the higher you climb, the harder you fall- and tested if the one who were around them was because they had interest or they were sincere. On the contrast, the latest lived their lives simply, they didn’t have interpersonal issues and they knew their position and what they are.

In Merchant of Venice the difference is even more notorious. We can see how Portia had to be the good daughter, respect her father’s will and be cautious with the fortune inherited, which is why she had to marry to a men with no interests made on her fortune. If we remember the scene of the caskets, we can see the evidence that how worry was her father about that issue: her father placed her not in the golden casket because that will mean that men just wanted money; not in the silver one because it will mean that men just desire her as a trophy; but the lead casket, the simplest one will represent a leap of faith, a risk taken for those who actually love. 

 Moreover, Portia had to be cautious enough to not commit any mistakes, since she was the head of Belmont, everyone will see if she failed. Keep up appearances was an issue, which is why I previously stated that the higher you climb, the harder you fall.

It seems that those who have more money have to be aware of golden diggers, be cautious about their relationships and be always testing those who are around them.

Do you agree with me? It seems as if wealthy people attract more problems. Can you think on other example?