Oral Tradition and Memory

Memory Tricks I was thinking about how monks and scholars in the Middle Ages must have had amazing memories to have remembered all these oral stories and put them down in books. I looked into it and found this video on the TED website about memory tricks. One of the things he touches on is that memory used to be a much more studied art which has died since oral traditions have died. It's an interesting concept in and of itself. However, it also brings up points we don't often think about. The Middle Ages are seen as a kind of depression in creativity between the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. However, things like memory tricks to keep track of long poems and stories are incredibly important to how our culture is formed. Before printing, which wasn't invented until halfway through this last millennium, oral tradition was the only way that history and literature were preserved. Without these memory tricks, we would have very little record of the cultures we are built on. The creative culture must have been extraordinary.

Thoughts on Grendel...

When I read Beowulf in high school, one of the things we talked about, and even did a project on, was how Grendel was never physically described throughout the tale. The poet talks about how Grendel walks and thinks, and acts, but never what he really looks like. It is just occurring to me how strange this is, especially considering that Beowulf was most likely a orally transmitted tale long before it was written, meaning that the person telling it would have wanted to put as much detail into as possible to keep people entertained, and the description of a monster is pretty entertaining. There is the possibility that there was, at one point, a description of Grendel in the story that just didn't make it into the written version of the story, however, other than that I'm not sure why there wouldn't be a description of Grendel.

Twelfth Night

The first act in Twelfth Night, like all Shakespeare plays, is the introduction of the characters. Specifically in Twelfth Night, I think how Olivia and Viola are portrayed and introduced is very interesting. The fact that they have both lost their brothers is what is comparable between the two. How each mourn for their brother is the part that is very interesting.
For example Olivia follows the traditional mourning style. She is in all black and has her face covered. Olivia's mourning is in contrast to that of Viola. She, instead, decides to take on the persona of her brother. She does not adopt his name but instead dresses like him and tries to embody his personality. The differences in how they mourn their brother can be related to the relation they have with their brother. As far as the text says Olivia has just lost a brother whereas Viola has lost her twin. The other part of her, in the sense that twins have a different connection than other siblings.
Also the relationship that Orsino has with both Olivia and Viola is very interesting because they are both very different and yet very much the same. He has an overzealous or an irrational view of a love for Olivia. She does not reciprocate his love and yet he still pursues her with the same urgency. Like whys this is seen in Viola in the fact that she loves Orsino and yet at this present time he will not reciprocate her love because she is a man in his eyes. It is a very interesting juxtaposition that is set up at the very beginning of the play and one that will last throughout the play until the end.
Twelfth Night has many different areas that are comparable and connected. There is a lot that happens that connects Olivia with Viola and how they are somewhat parallel throughout the entire play and so their comedic aspects are together along with their later love relationships.  
It will also be interesting to see how connected Sir Toby, Maria, and Feste are in the rest of the play. They were already set up in the first act and seem to be very prominent for the rest of the play.

Religioius and Pagan References

In Twelfth Night, I noticed that there were some interesting contrasting references throughout. Nearly back-to-back, Shakespeare writes references about religious characters directly following references to pagan myths. In 1.5, ll. 20-22, Shakespeare weaves in a pagan myth to illustrate his character's feelings: "That instant was I turned into a hart, And my desires, like fell and cruel hounds, E'er since pursue me." Soon after, another character refers to a "cloistress" (l. 27), or a nun. This is clearly a religious catholic reference. Later on, there are references to Elysium, Arion, and other mythological characters and places. I'm wondering what Shakespeare's purpose was in using both kinds of references. It would seem that Shakespeare pushed the societal norm on just about everything, and maybe this was his way of continuing to challenge his readers and make them a bit uncomfortable. Obviously, Shakespeare had a flair for the dramatic, so perhaps this just served to further the edgy quality of his work.

Another possibility could be that Shakespeare was making a statement arguing for the fact that maybe it doesn't have to be one other the other, pagan or religious. My guess would be that Shakespeare was an instigator, a person who liked to press boundaries and stir things up. It would seem likely that, whether or not he actually believed in this kind of philosophy, he would try to push two seemingly opposite things together in his writing to make people think. Maybe it was just for attention. Who knows?

Wakefield Mysteries

Miranda Cloyd

EL207

Sugano

10.20.2013

            The “Wakefield Mysteries” are a series of scenes written back in medieval times and adapted for musical theater. The musical casts a small group of actors who play a wide variety of parts. The production starts out depicting creation and Adam and Eve’s time in the Garden of Eden. The musical progresses through the Old Testament in this way, telling the stories in a simplistic and comical manner. Songs and dances are integrated for entertainment and illustrative purposes.

            The first story following the Fall is when Cain kills his brother Abel. Both brothers are presented as simple, rustic characters. They are presented in an interesting mocking manner, but as with the rest of the musical, the point of the story is expressed. The production goes on to tell the story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, Isaac, Noah and the ark, Moses freeing his people, and many other stories all leading up to the time when the angels came to announce Jesus’ birth to the lowly shepherds.

            I was anxious to see how things would be portrayed in relation to the piece we read, “The Second Shepherd’s Play.” It is very interesting that this was how people told the story of the Bible back in medieval times since so few people were literate. Preservation of traditions and stories came mostly through orally passing down the tales through generations. The way the Bible stories were portrayed seemed a little childish and simplistic, but maybe they were helpful at the time they were told. It makes me wonder how much has been lost or changed in translation from oral and theatrical productions to written stories. While it seems to me like there could be some consequences to only passing things down verbally, I think there could be some benefits as well. The passion and meaning behind the stories could be much better portrayed through theater and the telling of stories. The inflections and body language could be much more effective in these ways. 

Mikayla Ludiker

Doug Sugano

EL-207

22 October 2013

The Usual Suspects: Shakespeare and The Wakefield Mysteries

            The Wakefield Mysteries, put on by Whitworth’s theatre department, anticipates both Renaissance comedies and tragedies in several important ways. Since we will be studying Shakespeare for the next few weeks, I have interpreted Wakefield in terms of his works. Shakespeare’s dramatic technique of subverting authority is especially visible in Wakefield. In much the same way that Oswald disrespects King Lear, Lucifer imagines himself on Christ’s throne while an angel encourages his fantasies, Cain withholds the largest of his crops from the sacrifice, and Noah’s wife takes her dear sweet time getting aboard the arc, claiming she has more useful work to do than to escape a flood that will obliterate every human on earth. Other characters throughout display similar subversive behaviors, forerunning Shakespeare’s clowns and fools. (Interestingly, the lowly shepherds [fools] beat the wise men [authorities/nobility] to the stable to see the savior. As in Renaissance or Shakespearean literature, the so-called “fools” are the first to recognize the truth.) However, whereas Shakespeare employs subversion to illuminate the shortcomings of authoritative figures, The Wakefield Mysteries imparts moral instruction about the terrible consequences for disrespecting or disobeying authority figures.

            Another of Shakespeare’s comedic conventions is a progression that heralds the reversal of earlier conditions. For example, an unwed character will become wed or war will progress to courtship. In The Wakefield Mysteries, Lucifer and the angels begin in a state of order, happiness, and union with God that is dashed when Lucifer attempts to usurp his throne. Adam and Eve experience a similar fall from grace. From a state of confusion, discomfort, and separation, the characters in the play constantly strive to reconnect with God and restore their former conditions. While the play does not end in perfect union with God, the birth of Jesus heralds a coming age in which this is possible. Shakespeare employs similar story arcs when Malvolio’s plight is finally untangled, when Hero and Claudio are made happy in marriage, and when Viola and Sebastian are reunited.

            Just as Shakespeare’s comedies mirror the devices at work in the funnier moments of The Wakefield Mysteries, so do his tragedies recall its serious thematic material. The focus of Wakefield is on charismatic individuals—Abraham, Noah, Moses, and the like—with flaws often embodied by Shakespeare’s characters like Othello, who loves his wife so much that he would kill her for the “higher purpose” of preserving their reputations. Abraham would similarly kill his son for God’s higher purpose. There is a sort of domino effect as well: Lucifer is cast out of heaven, and the angels who side with him follow into hell. Eve tastes first of the apple, convincing Adam to do so, and as a result, all of humanity must face death forever. A parallel is found in Iago, whose bitterness convinces a number of characters to perform terrible deeds that lead others into horrible deeds until many are dead.

            If the characters are similar, so are the tragic worldviews of both Shakespeare and The Wakefield Mysteries authors and actors. Shakespeare was a realist, allowing for neither the optimistic view that everyone will live happily nor the pessimistic view that everyone is inherently evil and will fall. Similarly, Wakefield’s “holy trinity” takes a que sera sera attitude: God gives a character a mandate, and the character may or may not obey. Noah obeys and lives, along with his family; Cain disobeys and brings a curse upon himself. Shakespeare may have taken his sense of realism from the same source material as the play: the Bible. In worldview and in many other ways, The Wakefield Mysteries anticipates Renaissance comedic and tragedic conventions, especially where Shakespeare is concerned.

The Wakefield Mysteries

Jennifer Rudsit

Doug Sugano

British Literature before 1800

October 21, 2013

The Wakefield Mysteries

            The Whitworth Theatre Department’s production of “The Wakefield Mysteries” effectively modernized the plays while still holding true to the original intent of the plays. The modernization of certain character portrayals made the stories more relatable and humorous to the audience, surprising most attendees with how funny and enjoyable the plays were. While in the original production there were a lot more plays that encompassed major stories from throughout the entire Bible, Whitworth’s version stopped at the Nativity scene. Act I contained the Prologue, The Creation, The Fall of Lucifer, The Garden of Eden, The Killing of Abel, and The Flood, while Act II included Abraham and Isaac, The Flight Out of Egypt, The Annunciation, Herod and the Three Kings, and The Shepard’s Play. While presented as separate stories, each one of them led into the next, literally setting the stage for the culminating story of the birth of Jesus with the weaving in and out of themes like God’s redemption, love, and grace, at the heart of every story.

            The modernization of certain parts of the plays, as previously mentioned, was very effective in relation to audience enjoyment. Cain riding out on a John Deer tractor instead of using a plow unites the audience through humor, as well as helping the audience identify with Cain, a character people try to separate themselves from, seeing as people usually do not want to identify with the first murderer in existence. In the post-production discussion with Doug Sugano and Dianna Trotter, they discussed how while they did modernize some of the characters and props, the lines and the jokes included in the plays remained the same, revealing how there is such continuity in humor throughout the ages. Modernization was also used, however, to stay true to the original intent of the jokes. The most striking example of this, in my opinion, was when Dianna Trotter explained her reasoning behind gender-swapping of Noah and his wife. Her reasoning was that it would make the scene more humorous, as well as avoid any hints at domestic violence in the scene. Because of modern values and societal implications surrounding relationships, her decision was necessary in order to uphold the original intent of the jokes, keeping it light-hearted and funny instead of uncomfortable and inappropriate.

            The modernization was also effective because it made the characters more relatable to the audience. The demons danced hip hop with Lucifer, the three shepherds were homeless, Moses was the over-eager, terrified nerd, and all of these character portrayals are characters that the audience can relate to, with both the cultural references and the weaknesses exemplified through modern social norms and expressions. Going in, I was afraid that the plays would be hard to understand and not very exciting, but because of the original writing and humor in the text, and because of the modernizations in the play, I really enjoyed the play a lot more than I thought I would. Modernizing a play while staying true to the original script is a very difficult thing to do, and I think that the Whitworth Theatre Department did an excellent job.