med. 12

As I said with Moliere, Sheridan should cut down on all the over the top fighting too. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it and it was very funny, I just think it would have been good without being over the top. All the gossip and backstabbing were funny, but there is already too much of that in reality for me to enjoy too much of it in a play. I like to try and make comparisons that relate the real world to the world that playwrights create for us, but I also enjoy to have reality suspended so that I can be in a different world, not be in high school again. The dialogue between the characters was clever and funny, most of the characters were ridiculously funny, and the plot was entertaining, but I think that when plays try to be too outrageous they lose their ability to connect with the audience. Its hard for the audience to suspend the reality if they can’t connect with the reality that Sheridan is providing for them.

med. 11

I really liked that this play was written in verse. A lot of language is hard to read in these plays, but I think that verse makes it much more pleasing to the ear. I also liked how there was so much conflict, but sometimes it seemed kind of unnecessary, like high school girl drama. I don’t think that because of all of the conflict that it makes it like real life. On the contrary actually; the seemingly chaotic fighting makes it much more unrealistic, but I think that Moliere achieved what he intended to in this play. I think Moliere wanted to create a slapstick comedy that gave energy to the audience through chaos, so that the audience would, in turn, give energy back to the cast members. All in all, I think he did a good job. As I said before, the verse was nice, and the play was very funny. I just wished Moliere would have calmed down a bit with all the fighting

med. 11

I really liked that this play was written in verse. A lot of language is hard to read in these plays, but I think that verse makes it much more pleasing to the ear. I also liked how there was so much conflict, but sometimes it seemed kind of unnecessary, like high school girl drama. I don’t think that because of all of the conflict that it makes it like real life. On the contrary actually; the seemingly chaotic fighting makes it much more unrealistic, but I think that Moliere achieved what he intended to in this play. I think Moliere wanted to create a slapstick comedy that gave energy to the audience through chaos, so that the audience would, in turn, give energy back to the cast members. All in all, I think he did a good job. As I said before, the verse was nice, and the play was very funny. I just wished Moliere would have calmed down a bit with all the fighting

med. 10

Life is a Dream is definitely one of the better plays I’ve read this year. I don’t think it’s a good comparison to Shakespeare or anything, but I do think it is a good comparison to some of the Greek tragedies we read in terms of dialogue and the overall feeling that things are not going to turn out well by the end of the play. Luckily, I was wrong. I liked that Segismund decides to not avenge his father at the end of the play. The play reminded me of Amphitryon in that both Amphitryon and Life is a Dream are putting their characters in dreams even though they believe it to be real. All of the deception and scheming were also very reminiscent of the Greek tragedies that the class has read this year. This is one of the special plays where a person dwells on it for a long while after they read it. I know I found myself wondering if life really could be a dream.

med. 9

I could see a few similarities between Hamlet and Everyman, but not many. The first would have to be Death in Everyman and dead King Hamlet in Hamlet. Both come to the main character as a warning to prepare for a large undertaking. In Everyman it is to die, and in Hamlet it is to take revenge for his father’s death. Both protagonists are abandoned by almost everyone they encounter, the exceptions being Horatio and Good Deeds. Indecisiveness would also be a similarity between the two, with Hamlet not being able to decide whether he should kill Claudius or not, and Everyman putting off his death and not wanting to die alone. I think the closest comparison would be when Hamlet is giving the speech with Yorik’s skull, and Everyman is finally faced with death. Both come to terms with what they have to do and realized at that moment that death is very real and very frightening. Now that I really think about it, these two plays really do have a lot in common.

med. 8

I really liked The Mysteries; I thought that it was ahead of its time as a production as was its content. I think my favorite part of it was the scene with Abraham and Isaac. It was definitely the most touching scene I saw in The Mysteries, even more so that the Crucifixion scene. I realize that the very point of the Abraham-Isaac scene was to parallel the Crucifixion, but I just felt so much worse when Isaac was going to die than when Jesus was going to. I think it might be because with Jesus its easier just to vilify Rome and the guards who are joking as Jesus is dying, as opposed to just feeling sorry for Abraham. I had read that story in the Bible, but the effect isn’t the same, mainly because you don’t hear what Isaac is saying to his father before he is about to die. Another scene I liked was the End of the World scene, when Satan and his demons were dragging people to hell, but I think that most people liked that scene because of the broken tie.

med. 7

Lysistrata is the dirtiest piece of literature I have ever read. It has fart jokes, sex jokes, shit jokes, dick jokes, and every other sense of dirty humor you can imagine. Simply put, all the makings of a good comedy, but in order to have a truly great comedy, it has to be staged well. First of all, I would keep the stuffed genitalia, as well as finding other phallic symbols randomly placed in different scenes. I would put the first scene with Lysistrata near a fountain where the women soak their feet, wash their clothes, etc. Women would enter the stage from all sides, even having some ridiculous entrances, like a trap door, or falling. The fortress would consist of a cardboard wall, because I think that fakeness would add to the humor, and the place where the women chorus and men chorus argued would be two risers behind a kind of tower, so that the people can be seen but the risers cannot. The only way for the comedy to be captured at its fullest would be to get over the top actors for punch lines and stone faced straight men for the sarcasm. This play would be so much fun to do.

med. 6

I thought Dionysus was a bit of a bastard in this play. I think that though he came to Thebes for a good reason, this play shows in its fullness the Gods’ abuse of their power. I feel that as a God, Dionysus should exercise some self control, instead of humiliating, and then murdering Pentheus. I thought it was a little harsh to do that just because people called your mom a whore, and to top it all off, he turns Pentheus’s grandpa into a snake. I am not sure if Euripedes wanted the reader to feel sorry for Dionysus and not like Pentheus, but it had the opposite effect on me. I ended the play feeling that Pentheus, as arrogant as he was, was a victim in unfortunate circumstances (though none so unfortunate as when he was in the tree). I think that Dionysus, while having the right to be angry, was petulant and childish.

Med. 5

This is one of the saddest stories I have ever read. It was too much sorry for a man who truly didn’t deserve it. He was a jerk when he killed Laios, but he didn’t act any differently than any other member of royalty would. There was so much discussion in class about how wrong it was to try to find out things that someone shouldn’t, how ignorance is bliss. I only agree with that to an extent. I agree that someone shouldn’t go to the oracle and ask their future; in that respect, ignorance is better. I don’t agree that people should be left in ignorance about their own past. Oedipus had every right to know what he did, however painful it was. He’s a man who absolutely cannot go without knowing, which can be admirable, only in this case it turned out to be disastrous. I think what truly caused this tragedy was when Laios received the Delphic Oracle. I believe that if he had not received her, none of this tragedy would have happened. If someone asks for their future, it will come to pass, but who says that asking doesn’t change it. Maybe he Laios would have had a different fate had he not asked about it. Maybe Oedipus would not have killed his father had he not asked the Oracle what would happen when he went to Thebes. No one can ever know.

med. 4

I liked Euripides’ Electra better than Sophocles’ Electra. In Euripides’ version, the characters are much more like real people. In Sophocles and Aeschylus, everyone seems to rely on fate to guide their choices for them, while in Euripides, they decide what to do based on logical thought and choice, even though the results seem illogical. Orestes is by far the best character. His telling Clytemnestra that he’s going to kill her and there’s nothing she can do about it is some of the best dialogue I have read in a play. I felt kind of bad for Clytemnestra because she made some good points, but Apollo decreed that she had to die, so more power to Orestes. Orestes and Electra both got their revenge, which was all well and good, but Orestes ended up getting taunted by furies. Electra, to me, seems like a much more subtly strong character. She seems to whine, but ultimately betters her situation by convincing Orestes to kill Electra.

med. 3

In reading Agamemnon, the most prevalent theme is revenge. Revenge drives the plot, and eventually ends it. It is similar to much of Greek Theater in that respect. I think what it reminds me of most is Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Both plays are driven by scheming and plotting for the sole purpose of taking revenge on someone who wrongs them. In Agamemnon, it’s Clytemnestra on Agamemnon. In Hamlet, it’s Hamlet on Claudius. There is one major exception to this comparison though: the main characters. In Agamemnon, I found Clytemnestra to be a villain, plotting against a man who did not wish to harm anyone, but was forced to by the Gods and pressure from his army. She was by any definition (except literal), a horrible bitch. Her affair, her manor of taking revenge, and especially the act itself, paints Clytemnestra as the real antagonist of this play. Hamlet on the other hand is seen as the protagonist. He is not plotting to kill his uncle, but rather plotting to find out whether he should. The fact that he is going to murder his uncle eventually is justified in the minds of the audience, whereas the audience roots against Clytemnestra. Maybe the two aren’t so different after all, but in the way that the authors portray them, it is clear which character that people should root for, and which they shouldn’t.

i dont know how this got left out

One of the more curious aspects of the Electra’s that I found was the relationships between the children and Clymnestra. The act that begins this whole tragedy was the slaying of Clymnestra’s daughter. However, following Agamemnon’s departure she treats her children terribly. Orestes has been forsaken and Electra, while her fate varies between the three stories, has also been made a prisoner by her father’s murder. So, it appears that Clymnestra, in truth, cares little about her children. If this the case, then Clymnestra’s actions are completely unjustified, for if we are asserting revenge as a form of justice then one of the major factors in the delivery of this justice is motive. If Clymnestra’s motives were impure then she is most certainly an evil character. Despite her claims to be avenging her daughter, her actions are even further sullied by her affair with Aegisthus. Also she states that if Agamemnon had not returned with a mistress the she might have not murdered them. This indicates that it was not an act of revenge, but of jealousy, which certainly is not justified grounds for killing them. In short, Clymnestra has her own gain in mind in killing Agamemnon. She has reigned in her husband’s absence and I believe she has no intention of relinquishing that position with his return. As we had mentioned Clymnestra might embody what the Greeks though of as the danger of the feminine and reading further into her actions, I believe, solidifies that fear.

Meditation 12 - The School for Scandal

I dunno if I've posted this one already... but whatever... I've enjoyed readin gmany of the plays we've studied this semester. However, rarely did I find myself laughing or at least genuinely entertained throughout each entire reading. Yes when I was reading The School for Scandal it was like I was watching a modern movie. I could see the events unfolding each one before the next, andI was anticipating each character's next move. Perhaps that is why it is one of my favorite plays - it kept me entertained from start to finish. Personally, I loved reading Act IV, scene 3 - the scene where both Lady Teazle and Sir Peter are secretly listening to Charles and Joseph's conversation. I constantly found myself laughing at the absurdity of the situation. Perhaps this laughter was not a result of word jokes but instead of discomfort. After all, sometimes laughter can be used to phychologically remove an audience member from the action of the play. In this case, maybe I found the scene so funny because I was using laughter to remind myself that it is not real. Nonetheless, I found the plot of the play reminded me of the game "clue." It is as if no one could trust anyone else. This was even confirmed at the end when even Snake, Lady Sneerwell's accomplice, is bribed to turn against her. The entire play lives up to its name The School for Scandal since no one can be trusted and everyone is a suspect of backstabbing.

Title/Subject:

WHO STILL NEEDS CRITQUES OR MEDITATIONS

Okay so with the chaors of the thunderstorms finals poor planning etc I still need a few more crtiques on both sides of the equation if your in the same boat please email me back at artpoet@gmail.com it's Julia D'Ambrosi by the way but please
DON'T use my school email.

The Bacchae Meditation 6

The concept of the play The Bacchae is obviously ignorance is bliss. It’s was pretty funny that Dionysus a God, was just walking around with all the common people and checking out how life was in another perspective. This really reminds me of how I was when I was in elementary school. Whenever the teacher was out of the class room I run around act stupid do whatever. The second I saw her coming back though my butt was in my chair pretending to do work. The people in the play have it bad they don’t know that Dionysus is watching them. If my teachers in elementary school had seen what I did when they were gone I would have gotten in a lot of trouble. Ignorance is bliss fits with Dionysus because if he gets his revenge with the help of the people with out them actually knowing he was watching.

Meditation 12

To me this play is very similar to The Misanthrope, because the whole play is so similar to my life right now. The play surrounds around the characters telling each other stories, just like I do everyday with all of my friends. This play much like The Misanthrope also made me thing back to high school gossiping. It gossip in the play is like coming back to school on a monday after a wild weekend and everyone telling their story about how crazy they got.

Meditation 1

Meditation 1 Theater background

Before taking this class I had very little prior knowledge of theater, how it was presented, who presented, where, when or anything. Basically the only thing I had done that involved with theater was read some Shakespeare plays in high, which did not go into very detail. I have actually seen one play though, when I was in New York I saw “Jackal and Hyde”, but at the time I was ten I don’t remember much and probably didn’t understand much when I watched it. When I came into the class I was not aware of how in depth the writing of the plays were, and I still am a little confused when reading the plays. I am the type of person that reads words in one way, so it was hard for me to understand a lot that was going on, but I think I have gotten better from the first time I came to class.

Oedipus Rex Meditation 5

Oedipus Rex Meditation 5

In the play Oedipus Rex I believe that the major theme of the play is fate. It seems like it should be easy for Oedipus to make the right decisions, but as the play goes on he doesn’t and harsh consequences come from his actions. I do not understand why Oedipus would still sleep with his mother even after a messenger has told him who she really was. It makes no sense to me why you wouldn’t want to know for sure before you did something so wrong. I Oedipus had made the better choices I believe he would still think he was an adopted kid and no one would be dead. It just seems odd to me that the play ended the way it did when I my opinion should not have even happened.
Dionysus Meditation 6

You bitch!

In School for Scandal, I cannot get over how horrible everyone is to each other - backstabbing, two-timing, bitching, gossip and hypocrisy riddle every page of this play. I don't mean to be cliche, but I don't know what else to compare this play to save for high school. A good example would be Mean Girls as well - the way all the girls are in little groups bitching about each other's flaws, even though they have the exact same ones. Regardless of how screwed up things are from being passed through the grapevine, things all end well for everyone - well, they at least end fairly - everyone learns the truth about Joseph's intentions, Lady Teazle is caught cheating on Sir Peter, Sir Oliver ousts Snake, and consequently, Charles and Maria reconcile. So everything ends as it should, despite all the chaos.

The Error of My Ways

Title/Subject: Meditation 6

Euripides is completely guilty of creating a seriously deficient deity. In the final and most dismal scene of The Bacchae, Dionysus remains completely indifferent to the suffering he has caused the mortals Cadmus, Agave, and Pentheus. Even the faithful Chorus acknowledges his ill deeds when they divulge, “I grieve with you, Cadmus: your daughter’s son has justice now, but so much grief for you” (Sc. 6, pg. 57). This is significant because throughout the play the Chorus shows nothing but the utmost fervor and devotion for the god. Yet something clearly gives when Agave appears on stage still unaware of the slaughter and the Chorus refers to her as pitiful and poor. Dionysus is ignorant of his injustice until the very end stating finally, “If you had understood your mortal natures…you would now be in blessedness” (Sc. 6, pg. 60). The sight that follows indicates that it is the god who refuses to understand the natures of mortals as Cadmus and Agave say their goodbyes. Their mutual suffering unites them in a way that Dionysus cannot even begin to comprehend. They will endure while he just comes out looking like a merciless a-hole.

The first time I read The Bacchae last spring I was stunned by the insolence of the human characters. How could they deny this amazingly powerful and appealing god? Why was Pentheus such a little prick when the truth is right there in front of him? I just assumed he was bitter because the ladies were having a good time in the woods while he was in town having to deal with two silly old men. Now I know I was taken in by Dionysus’ charms just as the women of Thebes were. I was drunk with love for this audacious figure. I praised his violence as just and satisfying. For I felt that nothing could be “nobler than to hold a dominating hand above the bent head of the enemy” (4th Chorus, pg. 37). I lament that it has taken me several readings to realize that these poor characters are not my enemy at all but my kindred. The ways of the Divine are mysteriously cruel and there is no solace save that which you find in other mortals. Euripides subverts the supposedly splendid quality of Dionysus to reveal that humans are capable of something far beyond the gods’ facilities: compassion.

A School For Scandal Meditation 12

Using Moliere as the only example of classical French Restoration style would be a disappointment to the era. While I believe Moliere is one of the key comedic writers, others like Sheridan deserve recognition as well. In "A School For Scandal", the over the top play is complete with gossip, drama, lies, seductions, and most of all, scandal. In short, all of the elements to create an outstanding performance. The play is completely atypical of French Restoration, chock full of farce, physical comedy and situational irony. With ridiculous characters like Lady Sneerwell and Lady Teazle, one cannot help but laugh hysterically at the outrageous circumstances. "A School For Scandal" does an excellent job of setting an example for other French Restoration comedies and playwrights. Before reading Sheridan, I had it in my mind that the only playwright of the restoration period was Moliere, while he was a trailblazer of that style, he was not the one and only. I am glad I was presented the opportunity to expand my horizons and try a new farcical comedy, which was thoroughly enjoyable.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #12

In A School for Scandal, I developed an incredible dislike for Lady Teazle. With all of the gossiping and adultery that she commits it’s amazing that she herself isn’t committed. Its women like that, and yes I know it is just a play, but it is women like that that ruin things for intelligent women who actually are educated and concern themselves with things that are not of the material world. She is self-absorbed and incredibly materialistic and reminded me a lot of, I hate to say it but, Paris Hilton, but in the 18th century instead of the 21st. I mean it’s really just sickening how she acts. However, I also give the woman kudos for using what she had to manipulate the situation to get what she wanted. So it may be mildly unfair of me to call her uneducated, because she’s not dull, she’s has to be bright for being as sly as she is.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #11

mis·an·thrope: person who hates or distrusts humankind

I could not agree more with Alceste’s point in The Misanthrope that he makes about society, and how one of mankind’s worst flaws is hypocrisy. I am saying this while being guilty of being a hypocrite myself, but it is a valid point that is made. It is easier to criticize someone else’s mistakes or false steps or anything like that rather than your own. People say that the things that bother you the most in other people are the attributes that you don’t like in yourself. It is one thing to dislike a person for seeing in them characteristics that you do not like in yourself, but it is quite another to dislike mankind as a collective whole because YOU contain typical traits of mankind that disgust you. That is not mankind’s problem; that is your problem. Granted we are raised in a society in which it is hard to trust people and so it becomes so easy to distrust mankind as a whole. Especially after having a couple of experiences in which a single person lets you down, its hard to trust again and it’s even harder to want to trust again. However, I personally think the hardest thing to be is not the one that distrusts humankind but to be the eternal optimist and to trust everyone. Yet being the one that does trust people and believes in the best may very well be worse purely due to the fact that you are almost always continually let down by those around you. Both the misanthrope and the optimist are wrong because it is not right to assume that all people act the same, or even all people act like you do. I think that is where both stray, the misanthrope and the optimist are both wrong in their beliefs of society because there will always be those people who seek out those that they can take advantage of, and there will always be those people that will always seek out those that they can help. I think that to survive in today’s society you have to find a happy medium between the misanthropic view and the optimistic view because either way you are not seeing the world or yourself for what you really are and before the state of humankind can be fixed it is necessary to fix yourself.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #10

Life Is a Dream, to begin with is probably one of my favorite titles of a work because there are so many days were you just kind of wander through them, not really realizing who you are or what you’re doing, mostly you just exist. I believe this is what happens to poor Segismund every day of his life. He is forced to just be, chained and held prisoner due to a bad omen on the day of his birth. When give what I would call a “trial run” to see what kind of king he would be he fails miserably and they have to put him into a drug induced sleep in order to safely return him back to his prison. And when Segismund awakes he is told that the entire day was actually just a dream that he had by his jailer. Calderon really focuses on the philosophy of the time, mainly that of Decartes, about how life might quite possibly only be a dream, how there is a fine line between life and dreams, and also how we might dream ourselves into existence. The question of whether or not life is a dream and the dream philosophy lead to one of Rene Descartes’ most famous quotes, “I think; therefore I am.” You see he concluded logically that because he could think and even pose the question of whether or not he was living life or whether or not he was dreaming life clearly meant that he in fact was alive. However, Segismund does not think, he does not have to think because he is a prisoner, a captive, being chained and kept in a tower. So the real question I pose is what part of his life is the dream, does he even exist at all, because he doesn’t think and so logically following he cannot be. So in the end King Basilio gets his way, Segismund does not exist at all.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #9

Everyman one of the best known morality plays from the Middle Ages; Hamlet is one of the best known Shakespearean tragedies, but both being the best known from their era is not where the similarities between the two plays stop. Shakespeare was a playwright that was constantly influenced by many things, Greek and Roman tragedies and comedies as well as plays from the Middle Ages. While reading Everyman each character had what I recognized as a counterpart in Hamlet. Take for instance King Hamlet, he returns as a ghost to tell his son of the wrong that was done and how he must be avenged. The ghost is so similar to death, sent to Earth with a message, a message that ends up sending the one that was told on a journey, The journey in Everyman made by Everyman is very similar to that made by Hamlet; once one leaves there is no return. The Fellowship that Everyman approaches supports what is happening, just as Horatio supports Hamlet’s decision to avenge his father’s death. However, when asked to accompany Everyman, Fellowship quickly flees the scene. Hamlet and Horatio have a similar relationship to that of Everyman and Fellowship; he’s there to back him up until it actually comes down to it and then he’s just too afraid. So both men, Everyman and Hamlet, conclude that blood is thicker than water, but in both plays even the kin refuse to help or see the other side. In Everyman the kin ask, no beg, to be excused. Hamlet attempts to talk to his mother, after talking with the ghost again, to confess her sins but again blood actually is not thicker than water.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #8

I’m not going to lie, I was not at all looking forward to spending an entire Saturday watching a ridiculously long movie; I was however looking forward to the free food. Interestingly enough though I found The Mysteries to be quite entertaining, and actually found some sort of pleasure in spending a Saturday cooped up in Ida Green. I was mesmerized by Lucifer. Reading back over that it makes me sound somewhat like a Satanist, but the man who played him was so talented and brought such a different side to someone that I was brought up only hearing about how he was a fallen angel, a heretic, and just all around a really bad being. However while watching The Mysteries I was drawn in by his charm and his humor and how sly he was in situations. But this all makes perfect sense when talking about the devil, even as displayed in the Adam and Eve scene in the Garden of Eden, Eve was sucked in by his charm. He is a master at commanding attention and manipulating to get his way. I also was envious of the comedic timing that Lucifer had all throughout the show, comedy is much more difficult than people think—timing is the most important thing, and his was perfect. I found it so odd that to me the Devil was the comic relief because typically the source of all evil isn’t too funny.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #5

I absolutely love Oedipus Rex; it’s like a Greek soap opera. It is filled with murder, marriage, suicide, incest, and deceit. Oedipus is the epitome of a tragic hero; he is his own worst enemy. However the entire time I was reading it all I could think of was how many different ideas it had inspired, all based on this horrid, yet somewhat intriguing myth-- most notably, Freud and his theory of the Oedipus complex, when little boys fall deeply in love with their mother. But then again Freud was crazy and had a strange obsession with his own mother; does that make Freud equal to Oedipus? Freud believed that everyone was fueled on sexual desire and was motivated by their own sexual desires, even if it’s not that obvious. So was Oedipus driven by his sexual desires, his lust for his mother, or was he simply fulfilling a prophecy he was trying so hard to avoid? I believe that by trying so hard to avoid something he actually fell right into the trap. His destiny was set for him, since day one. You cannot go around attempting to avoid your own fate. Oedipus was made to believe that he had freewill, allowed to leave and try and be the better person, however from the second the prophet spoke those words the tragic chain of events was set into motion. He had no choice, no say in his life or his decisions and single-handedly destroyed his entire family, everyone that loved him and caused his mother/wife/lover to commit suicide and in the end he himself had to gouge his eyes out so that he could stand to live with himself.

Amanda Mims' Meditation #2

If I were staging Prometheus Bound I would have mostly just an empty stage, except for Prometheus chained to his rock downstage to either the left or the right and have a scenic backdrop displaying the Greek land. The set would be kept simple as not to distract from Prometheus and the pain and suffering he is going through. The costumes would be elaborate and colorful, particularly for the Daughters of Oceanus in billowy costumes to show that they are free like the Sea. I really think that simplicity is key for all aspects in the staging of this play. I think that the bare stage would allow for the audience to better connect with Prometheus because it is more of a one on one experience. I think that simplicity would give a more intimate feeling between Prometheus and the audience and I think it would be very beneficial to the story as a whole. Prometheus is alone in the world and so it would be very fitting for him to be isolated on stage, in some sort of untouchable area, possibly raised, so that his isolation was not only seen by the audience but also felt by him through his words and inability to act. Isolation is something everyone can connect to because there is always sometime during someone’s life in which they feel as if they are an outsider and alone and so it would be easy to connect with him. There is always that one social situation in which people feel as if they are alone while still in a room full of people, which is exactly what Prometheus would be—completely alone.

Hamlet: my final post, WOOT!!

What I feel gripping me about Hamlet is the comedy within the tragedy. The games that are played in both word and deed. For instance, we have the grave digging scene, the classic skull in hand moment, it’s not often we think of something like this as a great place for some comedy to take place. Also, the constant in and out with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, mostly because this is where we see Hamlet particularly fuck with what we think is madness. We can never know whether he is really mad. It may just be a guise or he may only be somewhat crazy (that is to say only north northwest, “when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw”). It is this crux that allows hamlet to be interpreted in so many different ways. We don’t know just where he ever is mentally. In sooth, we may not even know whether the apparition of the ghost was real. This whole concept is particularly crucial because, for what we know, Hamlet is obsessed with knowing the Truth.

The Misanthrope

This play seemed to be very funny to me because it makes me think back to when I was in middle school. The play reminded me of when I was young and girls were talking bad about girls and other dumb gossip that most people should not have ever cared about. It seemed so childish to me two guys fighting over one girl, and the girl going back and fourth with whom she wanted to be with. I really loved the part in the play where Alceste told Oronte his honest opinion about his poem and Oronte was angry with him. Oronte seemed so childish to me also, if you don’t want to hear anything negative about your work then why ask? When I was younger I never wanted to hear anything negative about what I did but now I don’t mind because it makes me do what I am doing better.

Blog 6

The play Dionysus is very creative in the way everything worked out for his revenge. Since he is a god, he would be recognized by a lot of people and wouldn’t be able to fulfill is need for revenge. One of the key points to this play was that Ignorance is Bliss. Dionysus was able to roam and mingle among the people, or mortals, without being noticed as a god. Since he was not considered to be a god and acted as just another normal individual, Dionysus was able to do and see things that he would have never experienced. He got to see hoe people act in front of other people. He is used to how people act in front of him because he is a god. I think that the people being ignorant to the fact that they were in the presence of a god was a good idea to have a story around.

Blog 5

Oedipus Rex is a play that I was actually interested in; not that the other play’s were not interesting. There is one thing that sticks out that I had trouble understanding. When reading the play and seeing the plot unfold, I realize that when ever something bad happens it is whenever Oedipus Rex causes it. He himself is responsible for his own actions. Even when he hears his fate, he doesn’t check to see if the women he is about to sleep with is his actual mother. After hearing something as weird as that, I would have to get to know the women as much as I could so that I could be sure that she wasn’t my mom. Maybe my thinking is unreasonable but to me that seems like something that would be mandatory for me. On the other hand maybe Oedipus doesn’t mind the whole mother son relationship thing.

Blog 12

This play is very similar to Misanthrope in the sense that each one has a lot of gossip. I like to think that everyone enjoys each other’s company and has no problem with one another. Honestly, that is not the case at all. You are not going to please everyone. When it all comes down to it, an individual who talks about you behind your back is usually jealous. That person envies you. In order to make themselves feel better they talk down about you to other’s so that they will feel the same way. It is a very sad mindset, and I admit to doing it sometimes. The only defense for gossiping is you don’t realize you are doing it. It is like an unconscious act of jealousy. Some people do these things on purpose and I truly feel sorry for them, but without people who feel the need to talk about you, then how will you know how important you are?

School for Scandal

I think I am finally starting to understand what Kirk meant when he said that this play was "indicitave of its time period, but the way in which we access it can be universal." Obviously the idea was that misfortunes dealing with higher class society (which usually results in death) and the lower class society (which often is just comical, but can also lead to death) must not have been as prevelant. This leads us to be able to infer that, although still relatively sparse, a middle class seems to have been growing. No longer is the separation between peasants and noblemen as great as it once was. An expanding merchant class allows for different situations in everday life. For the plays of lowerclass, its all about finding food, shelter, and clothing. With the powerful people, it was all about who can get to be the most powerful and stay in power. This new middle class, however, begins to set a new precedent by living life not too differently than the way we live it today. This is your basic soap opera, only all of the rumors are fake.

In high school I performed in a production entitled "Rumors." It was a comical play, with MANY of the same elements that a School for Scandal had: heads popping out left and right, people JUST missing the person talked about by a split second, telephone effects, and more. This play obvsiously is the persona of its time period, but that doesn't limit its effectiveness of empathy over time.

Meditation 12

This play cracked me up. Much like my meditation over Misanthrope this play really reminds me of a real life situation, for the most part. Many times in my life I’ve heard stories about what had happened latest. When I read the play it seemed sad that basically all these people did was tell stories, but when I thought about it, what dominates our conversations at the lunch table or as we walk from class to class? It is usually about someone else, and it is usually something we did not hear from the person themselves. Many times I’ll catch myself listening to the story and getting caught up in it, then a few days later it turns out to be just a rumor started. When reading I like to think that we are nothing like this play at all. In reality however, our lives are almost a copy of this play except for some over exaggerations.

Meditation #12 -- Katie Marchant -- School for Scandal

The one word that sums up this play would have to be “ridiculous”. It is so sad that these people have nothing better to do than talk about everyone around them, including those who they consider their friends but what is even sadder is that I can not say that I haven’t ever done something like this. This play basically sums up my high school experience. I never knew exactly what the latest gossip was but it seemed like every day there was some new rumor circulating about who slept with who and who threw the best party the weekend before and who had gotten totally hammered at that great party and slept with the person who had just been mentioned as sleeping with someone else! Amazingly, this all sounds very similar to what is happening in School for Scandal! But one difference between my high school and School for Scandal was the fact that the men were almost more involved in the gossip than the women. In high school it seemed like the guys didn’t really care all that much about everything the girls were talking about. I also loved all of the exaggerations about events that had happened. Like we were talking about in class, it is so funny how the characters exaggerated the same things that real people do! It was so funny to read the back and forth lines when they were talking about the screen incident because as a reader you get so wrapped up in line after line of people contradicting each other. The scenes with dialogue like this were so much more fun and easier to read.

Katie Marchant -- Meditation #10 -- Life Is A Dream

I really did enjoy reading this play, it is interesting to compare the writing the writing style of Calderon, a Spanish playwright, to the English playwrights we have been focusing on. I like how similar the styles are even though the culture in the two countries is very different. I really liked how Calderon worked in the love and relationships aspect of the story without making them the major plot of the play, like some of the others we have read. It gets kind of boring after a while when the entire context is about who is whose lover and what they have been doing. In Life Is A Dream there is the plot of Segismund seeing Estrella and falling in love with her but the more important plot is how he is convinced that it was all a dream. I did some research on Calderon and learned that he was a priest; I think that is part of his life may have influenced some of the themes or ideas in Life Is A Dream. The idea that a person can make their own future out of their dreams and aspirations and that honor and loyalty are very important virtues to have could stem from his faith.

Katie Marchant -- Mediation #9 --Hamlet vs. Everyman

The major similarity that stuck out to me in reading Hamlet and Everyman was the journey that both men are sent on by a figure that is not real. For Hamlet this journey is to avenge the death of his father and in my opinion to find himself. For Everyman this journey is to find someone who will accompany him on his journey to death and to help him discover who he really is and the reason Death has come for him. Both of the characters seem unprepared for this journey and look for people to go along with them. Their problems both lie in finding people who are loyal to them and trust them. Hamlet finds this support and companionship in Horatio, his friend from school. Everyman looks for this support from many different people but finally finds the companionship he wanted from Good-Deeds after everyone else has turned him down. To me this need for companionship and support shows the weaker sides of these men and helps the audience relate to characters that the audience may feel like they can’t relate to because they are better or higher in the social class.

Katie Marchant -- Mediation #8 -- The Mysteries

I really did like The Mysteries, once I got over the fact that I had to sacrifice an entire Saturday to sit in a dark room to watch some 6 hour movie.
I found the choices that they made about staging and the effect of having the audience literally in the middle of the action very interesting. Because I was raised in a Christian church and learned all the typical bible stories from preschool on to high school I found it very intriguing to see the stories I know so well played out before me in a dialect that was hard to understand and with jokes that sometimes were lost on my American ears. I have done Christian themed musicals like Godspell and Joseph and as a child had the leads in church pageants with titles like A Star is Born where I literally played a star. The difference in these plays and The Mysteries to me is how these stories are presented. There are no musical theatre-esque production numbers, the actors are dressed in either period costumes or modern day clothes, they take the time to interact with the audience and because the material for this work is well known the audience feels comfortable interacting with the actors. I really liked the things they used as set pieces like the cherry picker lift for God and the tractor claw as the mouth to hell. I also really loved the rotating world that was revealed to the audience near the end of the production. Because the scale of the production up to that point wasn’t so grandiose this reveal was quite unexpected and impressive.

Katie Marchant -- Meditation #7 -- Lysistrata

I think that there are some very interesting things that a director could do with Lysistrata. One thing that could make this show hard to produce is the type of actors needed to successfully pull It off. Because of all of the jokes and sexual innuendos a director must cast actors who can pull off that level of comedy and the type of actor who can pull that off has to be a pretty good actor which makes a really great show to watch. This play requires actors who can express the comedy without losing the drama within the comedy. There are many times though out the play where a character will say a line that is very comedic to the audience but in the context of the show the other characters do not find it funny. Another thing that would be interesting for a director to play with is costuming and time period. It would be very cool to see this show done in a completely modern setting, no masks, women playing women, the whole bit. I think that it has some ideas that could have some weight in today’s society. The ideas of women taking a stand and speaking up for what they believe in is very poignant and lots of women today feel like hey should be able to express their views fully.

life is a dream and so is my desire to be two weeks in the future

i really enjoyed the rhetoric in this play, however i am a sucker for Spanish writers(lorca, Marquez,etc). as a play it is a bit monologueish which are lovely but makes it hard to read through like some of the earlier Greek stuff we read. now as for the plot; well, we have ourselves a good old "overthrow of the old power by the younger generation" story going on here. The premonition is also another old one. its all over ancient and forgotten lore. What distinguishes this play is the language, the philosophy, and the ending. The language is terrifically beautiful and contained within the soliloquies are some quite poignant notes on the human condition. in addition, to tell the truth, the ending took me by surprise. what i cannot conceive of is how seigsmund, who has really known not but despair throughout his life has forged a merciful spirit. this is shown with his touching introduction (i dream of freedom yadda yadda yadda), then again with his final sparring of the king, which i could not believe.

Let's back stab just one more time, please. (Meditation 12)

When reading The School for Scandal, I got very vivid images running through my head of various plays, characters, and even some scenes from movies. For instance, when reading Act 5, scene 2, the only thing I could relate this to was Mrs. Helseth from Rosmersholm. For some reason all the exaggerations and the attempt to make the story sound more important and more entertaining that the truth actually is, reminded me so much of Mrs. Helseth when she explains Mrs. Kroll's experiences, or her experiences with Mortensgaard, and even with other people around the neighborhood. The way she talks about people, basically "back stabbing" them, is what happens in both The School for Scandal and The Misanthrope. In both plays they are doing just that--talking about someone and giving the idea that they have a deep down hatred of the person, but when said person is in their prescence, they are automatically their best friend. Which reminded me of the movie Mean Girls. They act like they are best friends, act like they like each other and would never do anything against each other, but then they talk about the other girls behind their backs and say things that are rude, and cruel. Much like in The Misanthrope when Celimene is saying horrible things about her friend, but when she arrives she suddenly becomes another person. Also like Sir Peter in The School for Scandal when he is talking about his wife to Joseph Surface while she is hiding, but when they are revealed to each other, he becomes a great husband and stands up to Joeseph Surface in her favor.
All the rediculousness of the play makes it that much more humorous to read. I think this is because it is a lot like real life. People talk about others all the time. It happens; everyone does it. But no one would expect the person they are talking about to be hiding behind a screen or in the closet. The slap-stick style of the play makes it more enjoyable to read and easier to imagine how it would be staged, and I think that is a major reason in why people, myself included, enjoy this play so much.

Meditation 12 - The School For Scandal

Title/Subject: The School For Scandal

I think this is my favorite play we have read thus far this semester. I don’t think I have ever found a play so clever with it’s wordplay before. I thought Shakespeare was funny, and I laughed at The Misanthrope, but this play was ridiculously hilarious.
The exchanges between most of the characters are just absolutely outrageous. Mrs. Candour talks about how it’s not just the people who make up the gossip that are ‘bad’ people, it’s the ones who spread it – then she goes on to try and get gossip abut Surface’s brother. As soon as Snake leaves for the first time, the characters left on stage immediately begin talking about him. I’ve actually probably done this, so it’s funny and a little disconcerting to observe it from the outside. I also love the implications of a woman having sheep children – I’m not sure I get the whole joke, but I do get that someone put their foot in their mouth.
This play is simply amazing, from the way Richard Brinsley Sheridan uses the names of the characters to the ultimate revelation of the play - Lady Teazle was only pretending to have an affair because everyone else was doing it. I usually find it amusing to watch adults act like high schoolers, and this play is no exception.

School for Scandal postage

reading this play, i can certainly see the ties to other comdies of manners like missanthroppe and oscar wilde. However, I noticed something different durring this read. as you may have noticed, most of the characters are horrible people, hippocrites, gossips, and liars. Sheridan's wit and humour make the play very readable and entertaining, but i kept thinking that with the characters and content contained in the text, the play could just as easily be written much darker. Take Becket's Godot, for instance, the words and characters can have us as an audience laughing hysterically all the way up to the point we realize the bleak dark world that the play is conveying.

Meditation 11 4-25-07

I really enjoyed reading The Misanthrope; it was very amusing and beautifully written. I thought that it was an intriguing translation and I am glad that we got to read the “good one,” I am not sure I could have stomached the play though another translation. I thought that it was an easy and enjoyable read because it was all in verse and because it was so humorous. I suppose verse isn’t always easy to read, in fact it took me a little while to get into it, but once I caught on the play was a very smooth read.

The interaction between the characters is similar to college students today. The petty fights, the gossip, the hierarchy, and the fight for the beautiful girl all seem to coincide with college life. I found it amazing that a play written about life so long ago could relate so perfectly with life today. I have been able to sort of relate to plays we have read this year, but none so far have been as accurate to contemporary living as The Misanthrope. I think this just goes to show that theatre is based off a real life story. Theatre is essentially life; the players are just choosing to play a different character from their own.

Misanthrope

In this play the characters seem real, and conflicted. I saw Philinte as the voice of reason, trying to get Alceste to have some common sense. You can't always tell the truth, one cause society is built on a set of lies and by doing so will cause society to fall apart, two because men have failings and because alceste is man he of course has the same failings. Also Alceste has to choose between his quest for complete and total honesty or the love of the most hypocritical woman ever. The gradations between characters in this play makes ever idea pop up more in the conflict that ensues from the huge amount of difference in characters and goals. The way Moliere crafts the characters really gets the message across, however this play doesn't really have the nicely tied ending that most Moliere plays have.

Blog 11

This play was very unique. I actually could relate to it, sort of. The people in this play seemed to behave like everyday people that you would meet in real life. There is always an instance where someone doesn’t like so and so’s hairdo or something petty like that. You can see these situations happening throughout this play. People talking about someone behind there back, more than one guy fighting over a girl, or someone not liking another person over something little and meaningless. Which in the end, it is these things that ruin relationships. Most of the time the girl that is being fought over either doesn’t realize it, or doesn’t actually like the guys fighting over her. It seems very complicated, but in reality it is simple. There is no sense in getting worked up over petty things in life, and you shouldn’t allow them to bother you.

Life is a dream

Thought I had already published this:

Life is dream reminded me of not only the matrix, but also the book neuromancer by william gibson. Due to the dreamlike quality of the alternate realities in which each of the main character's live. In life is a dream Segismudo lives in a prison so for him the real world is a dream, and in his first interaction with it he acts as though it were a dream doing things that are only ok in dreams. Same goes for the matrix when neo first gets explained that the world he lives in isn't real he start to attack people and scream this isnt real. In neuro mancer case when he becomes uncrippled, starts to try to do things that will mess himself up, unfortunately there is a safety mechanism that makes it so drugs cannot affect him. the ending in neuromancer is very dreamlike as well - "And one October night , punching himself past the scarlet tiers of the Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority, he saw three figures, tiny, impossible, who stood at the very edge of one of the vast steps of data. Small as they were, he could make out the boy's grin, his pink gums, the glitter of the long gray eyes that had been riviera's. Linda still wore his jacket;she waved, as he passed. But the third figure, close behind her, arm across her shoulders, was himself." This dreamlike quality to the world and the lifes of the main characters is what all these creators were trying to broach through different art forms.

Meditation 11

I found this particular play to be a little more amusing than some of the plays we have read this year. It has aspects that many of us can relate with to our daily lives - namely, all the petty fighting. Isn't it great when you make a giant scene and drag a fight out over something completely stupid??? It seems like everyone is fighting in this play. At first everyone likes each other, then they nitpick and start noticing all the little things they don't like about each other. Some of their social graces are a little off - notice the way Alcaste treats Oronte at the beginning of the play. Basically, "I don't want to be friends with you because your poetry sucks!" The best part is when his rudeness comes back to bite him in the ass when Oronte files a lawsuit against him. Before that happens, he goes off and insults his love interest - this guy has no idea how to treat people. Karma wins again, as they wind up apart at the end of the play.

The Misanthrope

The first thing I noticed about The Misanthrope is how much more empathetic the characters seem than past plays we have read. This story and plot are much more identifiable with the readers than many of the other plays we have read where everyone ends up dead or an entire community goes on sex strike. Finally, a play for the social class that is most likely to read/see it.

From what I can tell, this play embodies the themes of hypocrisy and bluntness. It is apparant that the lead character Alceste is honest, brutally honest. Any possession of tactiful honesty is not present in him. His good friend Philinte, however, seems to possess the kind of disposition that Moliere portrays as the most desirable to have. Celimene's hypocrisy is exposed at the end, leading everyone to judge her as unworthy of their time. Even Alceste, who goes as far as to forgive her leaves when she reveals her true feelings toward him. This play most likely was a response to the kind of situations/types of people Moliere was observing at the time.

Meditation 11

This play was interesting to me. It reminds me much of real life. People are going behind each others back to try and get what they want, which in this case, along with most instances, is a member of the opposite gender. I know many times in my life I have seen people go behind their friends back to get what they want. In this play though, I would not consider everyone to be friends. What was funny was in the end no one ended up with anyone. This is almost exactly like a real life situation. How many times have we seen several guys fighting over one girl, but in the end none of them end up seeing her and she ends up dating someone completely different? I know I can count several times that has happened to some of my friends. I especially liked this play because it was not a fairy tale ending like many plays and movies we have read or seen, so it was unexpected.
I really liked this play and the other Moliere play I have read before, Tartuffe. Both these plays were funny and had an unexpected ending. Based on that judgment I would say that I like Moliere and the way he writes. It keeps me interested because I have no clue what is going to happen next.

Meditation 11 - Polarity of Characters

When reading The Misanthrope, I could not help but realizing the polarity of the different characters. It seemed to me that two of the main characters fit into two stereotypes – they were either harsh and inappropriate or rational and insightful.

The two most obvious examples of characters from The Misanthrope that are complete opposites are Alceste and Philinte. Alceste fills the role of the brutally honest yet improper character. He passes judgment (often harshly) and scolds other characters for their faults. Examples of this can be found regarding his brutal critique of Oronte’s poem and his scolding Arsinoé for her offer to improve his rank. In both of these examples he behaves in an unappealing and offensive manner, but Alceste justifies his behavior by saying that it is more important to be brutally honest than politely deceiving. This contrasts directly with Alceste’s friend, Philinte. In the very beginning of The Misanthrope, the audience is made aware that Alceste and Philinte have very different views regarding socially acceptable and moral conduct. Unlike Alceste, Philinte believes that discretion should be used in public. He accepts the fact that humans are not perfect and therefore knows that it is tactless to scold others for human flaws. Philinte demonstrates this compassion and acceptance of faults on many occasions throughout the play – including his review of Oronte’s sonnet and his conversation with Eliante regarding Alceste’s behavior in front of the French Marshals.

Therefore, one can see that Alceste and Philinte are extremely different. Alceste fills the role of the loud, viciously honest front man. He is the title character that unforgivingly criticized everyone else. On the other hand, his good friend, Philinte, is more of a background character because he never gets terribly involved in the action of the play. Philinte is patient, understanding, and loyal; he demonstrates an understanding for discretion and politeness. In general, these two characters are polar opposites. They demonstrate very different values and personalities, yet they also seem to balance one another’s characters.

misanthope-addison

so, as for most translated plays the first thing i thought was "i wish i spoke french". i hate reading rhyme in translation, not that i don't appreciate the work of the translator, but know things are being altered and I'm missing out on some wordplay.
anywhoo, alceste as a character rather annoys me instead of making me laugh. i certainly admire is frank honesty. his idealism is certainly something I myself am constantly subject to. however, his total scorn for society is so completely over the top; he just sound whiny and angsty and whatever respect one has for his idealism is defeated by his love for Celimene. This manufactured love is the most shallow of all the relationships in the play. when people extend one another kindness in greeting, there is no shame in that. The gossip and backstabbing displayed is quited detestable, but his falling in love with a woman that embodies all that he hates makes him just pathetic and difficult to sit through.

When Karma bites back

I absolutely love this play. I love the play on words and the irony that is built into it. It really reminds me of dramatic shows like "Dawson's Creek" or some soap opera. The intense relationships between characters and the humor in most of the lines was a great addition to the play. I especially loved the part when Celimene is talking about Arsinoe, basically saying bad things about her behind her back, but then as soon as she shows up, she acts like they are best friends. Straight from Mean Girls, in my opinion. I also loved the first Act when Oronte is reading his sonnet and Alceste is telling him what he truly things of the sonnet, saying that it was a rediculously horrible sonnet, and my favorite line of the whole play "Oh, blast the close; you'd better close your face" (Act 1, lines 333-334). Every time I read over this I can just see someone completely playing up the humor in this scene and it just sounds funny in my mind. The ending is absolutely wonderful when the letter that Celimene wrote and the truth about her other feelings are exposed and no one ends up together like one would expect. Out of all the plays we have read, this one is by far one of my favorites!

Meditation 11 - The Misanthrope

Title/Subject: The Misanthrope

When I sat down to read The Misanthrope, I wasn’t too excited. Then I started talking to Liz about it and she told me it was a comedy, something I wasn’t aware of. She told me it was reminiscent of commedia dell’ arte style, which fascinates me. That’s a term I’ve always heard in theater classes, but no one ever bothered to explain it before this class.


I asked Liz if she wanted to read the play out loud together, each of us playing different characters, so we could stay focused and get it done. While we were reading, I realized that we found some of the same parts funny, but we found a lot of different things funny as well.


Some of the things that made me laugh may have had to do with the translation – I’m not sure Morliere would have used terms like ‘willy nilly’, but the point that the modern words made was still entertaining. I also found the honesty Alceste was trying so hard to maintain entertaining, because he was being offensive but thought he was doing the right thing. I also found it funny that Oronte admitted that the poem he wanted Alceste’s opinion on so badly he only spent about 15 minutes on. No one writes good poetry that quickly! Philinte was so willing to say he loved it – I saw a lot of class/status play throughout the play as well.


What I think I’m attempting to say is that I originally didn’t think I was going to enjoy this play, but I did. It wasn’t as hilarious as I thought it was going to be, but it was clever. I’m very glad I got a chance to read it.

Life is a Dream vs. Oedipus Rex

In class we were asked to compare Life is a Dream to The Tempest or some other play we read. Therefore, while reading Life is a Dream I tried to think of all the plays we have studied in this course and how they might compare to this week’s piece. I found that my mind kept going back to Oedipus Rex. Of course, I could see similarities between Life is a Dream and other Shakespearian plays like Hamlet because of the prevalence of revenge. However, in my mind Oedipus Rex seemed to parallel even more than any of the others. I feel that Life is a Dream reminded me of Oedipus Rex for two reasons. The first and most evident is the interconnectedness of the characters. In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus unknowingly encounters his birth father and kills him. Then, he continues to travel back to his place of birth – back to his home palace – and marries his own mother. This reflects the complex web of relationships between the characters in Life is a Dream. For example, in the beginning of the play, Rosaura finds herself where Segismund is held captive. Segismuns is only visited by one man – Clotaldo, Rosaura’s father. This network continues to get increasingly complex as the play progresses. In addition, the insestual relationship between Oedipus and his mother is paralleled in the relationship between Astolf and his cousin, Stella. The second way in which Oedipus Rex and Life is a Dream are similar is the way in which fate affects the plots of the two plays. In both works, the kings learn that the heir to their thrones will grow up to fulfill horrific prophecies. In return, both kings take drastic measures to prevent such fate. In the legend upon which Oedipus Rex was written, King Laius is told Oedipus, his son, will kill him and marry his mother. Therefore, Laius decides to send him away. In Life is a Dream, King Basil learns Segismund will be cruel and reckless if allowed to become king. Therefore, he tells the kingdom that the child was stillborn, and he instead locks the child up in solitary confinement (visited only by his tutor, Clotaldo). Granted, Oedipus ultimately fulfills his fate whereas Segismund essentially disproves it. However, the plots of the play are affected by kings who attempt to defy the predicted fates of their sons. Overall, I feel that Life is a Dream is an amazing play – probably my favorite play we have read this semester. With an intricate plot and a surprising ending it was a fun play to read, and I imagine it would be amazing to watch. However, the connected characters and the notion of fate made me see how similar this play is to Oedipus Rex.

Life is a Dream

After reading Life is a Dream the first thing that I thought of was the movie Vanilla Sky. Both Vanilla Sky and Life is a Dream are both similar stories, which leads me to believe Life is a Dream must have been inspiration for the movie. Both of the stories have a character struggling to understand if life is a dream or not. One major difference between the two is that Segismudo has an idea that he may be dreaming, while Tom Cruise’s character is confused and doesn’t know. Also in Life is a Dream and Vanilla Sky both stories have a happy ending. In Life is a Dream Segismundo become the king and marries Estrella, and Tom Cruise gets fixes the glitch in his dream life. I found this play to be the most entertaining play so far; I find that the idea of living a dream life most interesting.

life is a dream

Life is a Dream reminds me both of "The Tempest" and As You Like It ."Rosaura is alot like Rosalind complaining and dressed like a man.Many of the lines remind me of a fool wise but silly "before your birth you did by heavens decree."Like all good plays it messes with our perception of reality it also reminds me of Dr. Caligaran.

Dreaming life away...

Reading Calderone's Play Life is a Dream was very refreshing. The plot twist at the end, and the differences in the characters was a great change from all the same characters we have read in the Greek Tragedies. There is one question I have to ask: What would you do if life really was a dream? This takes me back to Everyman. He knew what was ultimately going to happen to him. What if you knew what was going to happen, what if everything around you wasn't real, but was leading you towards your death. What would you do?
In all honesty, I must confess that I was incredibly confused for the first part of the play and I had to go over it a few times to understand what was going on exactly and how each character was related. On the other hand, after I figured some information out, I thought this play was ironically funny. The way each character is related is astounding, and the way the relatins are realized is great, like with the sword being the reason, much like with Electra how she realizes its her brother by his hair, or by his foot prints. I also love the aside comments that show that what just happened is very important, and will eventually effect the whole story line.

Life is a Dream

Wow. I have to admit, so far this play ranks among the top of my favorites that we have read so far. I know it was suggested that we compare this play to others, but to be perfectly honest, I think this one is fairly unique. Granted, the overall idea/plot of having an aire to a thrown that is being hidden goes back to the stories of Zeus eating his children to stay in power. But there were many twists to this plot that make it quite original. The idea of Sigismund being king for a day to test his ruling abilities (which totally isn't fair since he is kept in a castle with his only contact as Clotaldo, his teacher and prison guard) was a biased, yet still good idea. Of course Sigismund is not going to have a very good idea how to handle nobility if he has lived in a prison his whole life. Still, the king DID give him that chance, when he could have kept him in the tower or killed him altogether. After he is returned to the tower, Sigismund goes through this huge introspection where he pretty much talks about Solipsism, a very Matrix-like philisophical idea. For me this was a change in the pace of the play. All this plot going on, and then Calderon decides to take a brief few minutes or so to talk about a vague idea. Very effective.

There is so much plot and intricate side stories that its hard to mention them all, like with Altofonso and Rosaura and Estrella. You know, now that I think about it, this movie is set up very much like Snatch and 4 Layer Cake, and other movies of that sort. Many stories that seem unrelated that all come together at the end.

Speaking of the end. This play seems like it is going to be a tragedy throughout its entirety, but the end just goes ahead and does yet ANOTHER plot twist. The king gladly gives up his crown, the two lovers finally get to marry, the rightful aire is now king, and everyone lives happily ever after. EXCEPT FOR THE VERY SOLDIERS WHO ALLOWED THIS ENTIRE UPRISING TO HAPPEN WERE PUT TO DEATH FOR TREASON! wtf? Don't give me wrong, I like the ending because its different. But still, its just a little bit disconcerning, which is partly why I like this play so much.

Meditation 10

This was possibly one of my favorite works we have read this year. It kept me interested especially in act two when Segismundo goes wild. It was a good strategy to make him believe he was just dreaming instead of actually ruling by giving him drugs. I also liked how the ending was unexpected because I know if that was me I would have been very upset with my father.
I agree with others when they say it seems like a Greek tragedy rather than more recent works so I will compare it to something else. While this may be a stretch, this play reminded me a little bit of the Movie Shrek. In both the movie and this play there is a character that is held captive because of basically nothing they did. When they are given a chance to live the normal life they show their true insides. Princess Fiona chooses to go with the short prince when she and Shrek have a misunderstanding. In Life is a Dream, Segismundo acts somewhat like a tyrant when he gets the chance to rule. What was more similar in these works was the ending. They both had a “fairy tale” type ending. This is what made Life is a Dream different from the Greek Tragedies. In the play, Segismundo and his father re-unite and when he becomes king, he marries, and in Shrek the princess drops the short prince and marries Shrek despite their original misunderstanding. This was an obvious stretch on my part, but I really couldn’t think of any particular work that this reminded me of, and it’s overall storyline was somewhat similar to Shrek.

Blog 10

Life is a Dream is very unique, yet interesting to me. Even though I find this play different from anything we have read, I find it hard to compare it with other plays. One major subject to this play is that you are living a life that is actually a dream. Therefore it is not real; your life is just a figment of your imagination and is only in your mind. That being said I feel that Life is a Dream can be compared to The Matrix. In the Matrix you go through life assuming everything is real, but in actuality you are in a tube with wires in your head feeding your mind incorrect information. You are part of a make believe world artificially created. Segismund realizes after he wakes up that the life he was living before was pointless. The same point is made in The Matrix when Neo is awaken and brought to the real earth. The life Neo was living was pointless and had no purpose other than to make him believe he was actually living.

life as a dream

I found this play to be interesting enough, and very much in the vein of the plays we have recently read in class. The writing style reminded me of shakespeare, with the characters and plot development and all. Of course, the dialects and words weren't exactly shakespearean - no "wilt" or "henceforth" did appear to jump out at me while i was reading this particular play. I noticed that this play really grabbed my attention, as opposed to some of the other plays we've read - I seemed to really care about the characters, as though I knew them. The story regarding the sword was particularly intriguing as well, and for reasons i'm not entirely clear on reminded me of the sword in Harry Potter. (Don't ask).

Meditation 10 4-18-07

I found Life is a Dream interesting because it is unlike anything we have read this year. In trying to compare it to other things we have read this year, I found that it was more similar to all of the Greek tragedies than the more recent plays we have read from medieval times or from Shakespeare. It was similar to the Greek tragedies because it a distant play about royalty and watching other people that have a higher rank than the common person suffer, as well as it is written in mostly monologues with some rapid dialogue and a lot of references to the Greek gods.

However, it resolved itself in a better fashion than most of the tragedies we have read do; it wraps up all nice and tidy, Segismund chooses to be kind instead of seeking revenge upon his father, which I think is a unique quality to the plays we have read this year. Everything we have read has shown us characters who strive to do what will help them raise their status the most or what will help them out, Oedipus blinds himself so he doesn’t feel the pain, Prometheus seeks revenge on those who imprisoned him, Hamlet avenges his father’s death, Prospero imprisons his banishers, everyone seeks revenge to give themselves to upper hand in the end. However, Segismund doesn’t. I think that because he has truly suffered and has come to understand and accept his suffering as part of life that he can not wish that upon another human being. I think that he has discovered after waking up from his dream that he thought was life that the world is already a harsh and bitter place, but you aren’t making any progress or living a productive life if you don’t wake up. I think he realized that life is not worth living unless it is lived awake and alert of the real world, putting someone into a dream is letting them off the hook and allowing them to live an easy life hidden from the pain and experiences of the world. Segismund is admirable because he has awoken from his dreamlike state and come to understand that there is a world other than what he has known and he has accepted it and learned how to deal with it.

I didn’t so much enjoy reading this play as I did thinking about living in the clouds and waking up from a dream after I was through reading. It really sparked some thoughts in me about how I see life and how I deal with my problems and how people I know do the same. I really enjoyed the thoughts that Caldrone has inspired from his writing, so in retrospect, I really enjoyed reading Life is a Dream.

Is Life A Dream, and are we all figments of one person's imagination?

Life is a dream, and one is constantly creating explanations for the stimulations one experiences. It seems that Segismund spoke profound words: “And now experience shows me that each man dreams what he is until he is awakened” (II: i). Does one sleep among the clouds that take form from thoughts to mutate into a reality? It’s definitely a disconcerting thought; I have criticized a friend for feeling that he is always in a dream, bound to wake up at any moment. It seemed too detached from life; yet if life is a dream, then it is less painful to be at ready for the brutal wake up. Perhaps. I just can’t believe how philosophical this play is. Waking Life must have been influenced, or at least it is continuing the discussion.
Segismund is an interesting hero- I really rooted for him, especially since he wooed me with his poetic admirations, but I got anxious at his inability to step from his grief. He is a flawed hero; his fury is justifiable since he was deprived of so much of his “natural privilege”. His actions are abhorrent though, since one can no longer side with a man who continues to be as vile as he was predicted to be. That is why his decision in the end to forgive all injustices is so extraordinary. It is a such a contradiction to so many Greek play finales; the insistence that fate is unavoidable is completely foiled, because Segismund decided to shape his own clouds as he saw fit. He went against the stars (even though he married one). However, I don’t want to say that the Greeks were not aware that this was possible- I think they just wanted to underline the plays with self-fulfilling prophecies: it was the action to avoid the prophecy that caused the prophecy more often than naught. Segismund puts it perfectly: “What Heaven decrees and God writes with his finger…never deceives or lies. They only lie who seek to penetrate the mystery and, having reached the it, use it to ill purpose” (III: iii; 289). By the way, I wonder if Thomas Dumas was inspired by this play when he wrote Man In the Iron Mask.
I think all these characters were incredibly human- full of desires, follies, and acts of compassion and profundity. Especially Clarion, he spoke when he wanted and when he died- in an eery Everyman way- spoke his last words to say that one cannot hide from death: “no hidden path is safe from the inclemency of fate; and so, although you flee from death, yet you may find it quicker than you expect, if God so wills” (III: iii; 287). I was quite sad that Clarion died; it felt a little pointless, but it made the play a little more intense; however, I don’t feel like any of the characters felt bereaved at his death. I guess he was just a lowly servant, but ironically he was the only one who refused to play the game of the classes. He was definitely the Harlequin- he was funny and clever. He also avoided work and was a bit of a coward. I guess this is the little epitaph honoring him: You were funny and lovable Clarion; you were also wise beyond all the people surrounding you- you lived past the ridiculousness other insisted on living in. And you made fun of it. A tribute to your memory!
Anyways, I loved the play for many reasons and the last one I would like to mention is the strong female characters; especially Rosaura who defied gender. I know Shakespeare did this, but I feel that Calderon took it to another level. Rosaura became ambiguous, or maybe more appropriate, ambidextrous. I mean ambidextrous in that Rosaura became both sexes, not just defined by what she was wearing at the moment; she embraced her whole, complete genders and therefore so much more powerful: “I must become three things today at one- passionate, to persuade you: womanly, to ply you with my woes: manly, to gain honour in battle” (III: iii; 284). She was not a character related through men, she was a character with her own ambitions and scruples. I loved her. That is what I feel Shakespeare fails in: he does not create female characters that have an existence beyond their relationship with the men around them. They exist vicariously through men.
Well, I’m going to wrap this up (I swear!). It was a good play. I would like to see it performed in fact.

Meditation 10 - Life is tragic

Title/Subject: Life Is A Dream

I know that Kirk had mentioned comparing Life Is A Dream to The Tempest or something else we’ve read lately, but as I was reading it I saw a lot of similarities between it and the Greek tragedies we read at the beginning of the year.


At the beginning of the play we meet Segismund, who is in prison and seems to have been in prison for a very long time, if not for his entire life. This immediately made me think of Prometheus Bound, where Prometheus is sentenced to being chained to a rock for eternity. One huge difference beween the two is that Prometheus gave light to the humans and basically pissed the other gods off, but we are not sure of Segismund’s crime when we meet him, and neither is he.


The sword Rosaura has that Clotaldo eventually recognizes reminds me of the rocker that Oedipus Rex’s mother sees at the end of Odeipus Rex that causes her to realize the man she is married to and sleeping with is actually her son. There is all kinds of backstabbing and deception that ties the plot together, another staple of Greek tragedies. I also felt that there wasn’t going to be a happy ending to the play, just like I do whenever I start a Greek tragedy (That’s to be expected for a tragedy, though). There is also similarity between Life Is A Dream and Amphitryon – trying to convince characters that they are simply in a dream, not living what is going on around them.


While I am sure there are more than one ways to look at Life Is A Dream in comparison to The Tempest or any of Shakespeare’s other plays, I think it is more obviously comparable to a Greek tragedy.

The Mysteries

So this is going to seem a little bit overdue to everyone else, but I didn't get to attend the weekend thing for a choir trip, so here is my post about The Mysteries!

Although most of the movie was a drama, I found it very interesting how they included absolutely obvious comedy in it also. Even some of God's lines were funny, which just proves to show that most people believe that God has some kind of sense of humor. But despite all the humor (which really helps you interested in a five and a half hour play) one of my favorite parts of the play was a dramatic one. The Abraham story. Magnificently told. It made me really wonder if I could do such a thing, if I had the kind of faith and capability to take my own son's life for God. I am pretty sure I would write it off as insanity of myself if I ever even thought God would ask such a thing of me. And that got me thinking.

How could Abrahama even consider doing such a thing? Was this easy for him? Wouldn't he also rather think that he is just going insane than take his own son's life? Did he even think of that?

Right when I am asking all of these questions, all of them are answered. Abraham had just flipped his son over, and began raising the axe or hatchet over his head. It paused and showed a slight close up of Abraham. His expression made me think "He is insane. That's it. He's gone completely nuts." Tears were streaming down his eyes, but he wasn't crying. I think the only way that he could do what he thought was right was to trick himself maybe. If he thought he was insane, then it would easier to do God's bidding. Let's be honest, that is the same with all of us, right? Who really WANTS to do the right thing? Do you want to sit and talk with the smelly kid? Or (especially as a college student) give 10 percent to help others? I don't know, I am just trying to provide an example that we can relate to.

As a closing statement, let me really help you understand what kind of effect this part of the movie had on me. I was eating pizza at this particular part of the movie, and after having stuffed my mouth with meatlover's pizza, I was of course vehemently chewing. As soon as I saw Abraham's face, though... I put the pizza down, stopped chewing, and lost any kind of awareness as to what was going on around me. Everything I mentioned in my previous paragraph ran through my head in less than a second.

I attribute this profound moment to both the playwright understanding how to arrange this moment to really slap the audience across the face, and the actor who utilized every opportunity to make the audience empathize with him.

So anyway, that is why the moment in the Abraham story is my favorite part of The Mysteries.

Hamlet vs. Everyman

FINALLY! Blogger decided to agree with my computer!

In class, we were asked to compare Hamlet to Everyman. However, when I was reading Hamlet, all I kept thinking about was how very different the two plays are. To me, the prevalence of death and the focus on a single character are the only consistencies between the two works.

Like I said, I found that both works seemed to be focused on one person’s point of view. In Everyman, the plot revolves around Everyman and his search for a companion. In Hamlet, the story concentrates on the Prince Hamlet and his efforts to avenge his father. If both of these stories were written as novels, they would be told from first person point of view.

Another similarity between the plays is the awareness of death and the mortality of the main character. In Everyman, Death the character comes to Everyman to tell him that he has sinned and will die. This appearance serves as a reminder to the audience that Everyman is indeed human and will pass on. From this respect, Death parallels to the ghost of King Hamlet in Shakespeare’s play. King Hamlet, after being murdered by his brother (now King Claudius), appears as a ghost to his son and asks him to seek revenge for his death. In both instances, these deceased characters (who are both supernatural) speak to the main characters about deaths and dying.

Therefore, Everyman and Hamlet can be considered similar plays for two reasons – they both focus on telling a story from one particular character’s point of view, and they both use supernatural beings to remind the main characters of their own mortality.

Meditation 9

When comparing Hamlet and Everyman there are many things that come to mind that are similar and different. The main part of Hamlet and Everyman is obviously that death is mentioned. Death is not only mentioned but it plays a big role and is throughout each play. Death is known to be unavoidable. That statement is true for all people though. The difference is that Hamlet and Everyman knew how they were going to die. They were told how they were going to die and that there death was unavoidable in that way.
A main difference between Hamlet and Everyman is the storyline and the way each person dies in their play. Hamlet is about a man who has a messed up life. His uncle kills his father and then proceeds to marry his mom. That doesn’t happen everyday. While Everyman on the other hand is just that, the play is about “everyman.” The main character has to deal with everyday things that each person in life has to deal with. Yes those things can be difficult at times, but Hamlet definitely had it worse.

Hamlet by JD'

“To be or not to be that is the question” is not in my mind the greatest part of Hamlet,because It is an over simplification. In fact I think that it is an over simplification is one of the key messages of the speech. Hamlet wishes he could end his confusions, but he can’t be sure that in ending his life things will be easier. Who’s to say there is not another place with more problems to deal with? He’s searching for finality and can’t find it. He is attempting to distract himself from his real problems the “little” things which make up one’s life. The average person does not wake up and ask “life or death?” but rather how am I going to deal with life. Hamlet is betrayed by his friends and family .If he just killed himself it would not be an interesting play.At the end of the play Hamlet tells Horatio"If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, / Absent thee from felicity a while, / And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain / To tell my story."The story is clearly more than “Hamlet chose death.”One of my other favorite set of lines in Hamlet is shortly after “to be or not tot be in Act 3, Scene 1
HAMLET Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest;
but yet I could accuse me of such things that it
were better my mother had not borne me: I am very
proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at
my beck than I have thoughts to put them in,
imagination to give them shape, or time to act them
in. What should such fellows as I do crawling
between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery.
Where's your father?
This to me is where the action picks up again where Hamlet deals with his problems and at the same time avoids them.A nunnery is both a whore house and a cloister because Ophelia is either to good for him or another betrayer. He can’t or won’t decide but either way she needs to leave because he can’t fully understand her or connect with her because he lives in ambiguity. He doesn’t know what to classify himself as. The real question of Hamlet is What to be, and who he/we are whether we can change or control it.That is the truly universal question we deal with everyday identity and what we want or can make our story be.

Hamlet v. Everyman

The plays have one theme in common they both deal with death. But Everyman never really contends whether or not he should commit suicide would it be better than the life he is living. Everyman doesn't wonder why he should stay alive, rather he is wondering why he has to die. Both of the main characters die, but there ways of getting there are different. Everyman is followed around by different virtues until when he reaches his grave at which time a majority of them leave. Hamlet is killed in a plot by a ursurper to the throne who wants him out of the way so that he can rule. Everyman is a story about the different virtues of mankind and how your good deeds will help you in the afterlife. Hamlet is showing moral corruption in a royal family. Which play is more fun to read and most likely watch(I haven't seen everyman on stage or in a movie) Hamlet. Because the world around us is so messed up that this seems pretty everday, and you know shakespeare wrote it...which doesn't hurt seeing as though he created half the english language.

Hamlet vs Everyman

I see some similarities between Hamlet and Everyman but the most common comparison I found in the play was that they both talked a lot about death. In Hamlet there are plenty of examples of death by all the people that are killed in the play. Also, in the play Everyman, Everyman has to face his own death. I think another key theme in the plays is fate. In Everyman it is much easier to see that he sees that his fate is that he will die. In Hamlet fate is seen in a different way, he sees that his fate is to kill his uncle for killing his father. Hamlet is told to kill his uncle by his father’s ghost and from then on his fate is known. I had a hard time connecting the two plays on a deeper level than just what I saw on the surface, but I still saw similarities between them.

similarites between Hamlet and Everyman

In comparing the two plays, I found a few differences, but the ones that really jumped out at me were the concepts of death and abandonment. It goes without saying that Hamlet is a play full of death - hell, the main character even dies. The story isn't directly telling you that it is a process of death like Everyman did, but the reader/audience can probably infer that that is the road down which Prince Hamlet is headed - toward his own death. Meanwhile, Everyman, from the beginning, is about one man's journey towards death, and the audience follows along until the aforementioned death of everyman.

I also found abandonment to be an issue in both plays. It is certainly way more clear in Everyman, the way all of his friends, upon learning he is dying, start leaving him. In Hamlet, it's more of a concept of everyone turning against him and/or dropping like flies as the story progresses. I mean, when your friends die, part of the grieving process is anger - it's rather normal to feel abandoned by them, even if they didn't actually mean to die.

Meditation 9

The plays Everyman and Hamlet can be compared if one really puts their mind to it. Both plays talk about death early and often. In Hamlet, the whole play is virtually about revenge by means of death, and in Everyman the whole work is talking about Everyman the character going to his grave. Also, in both plays the main character (Hamlet and Everyman) realize that their fate is going to happen and there is nothing to they can do about it. Everyman realizes he is going to die and tries to get people to come along with him, but no one wants to go to his grave with him. In Hamlet, the main character, Hamlet, wants to seek revenge on his uncle Claudius, for killing his father. That is Hamlet’s whole purpose throughout the play. He performs a test on his uncle (having travelers re-act his father’s death in front of Claudius to see how he reacts) to attempt to prove his guiltiness. From the beginning, Hamlet knows what his job is because of his father’s ghost that tells him to take revenge.
These plays also talk about outside worlds intervening. In Hamlet, there is a ghost that comes and talks to Hamlet. In Everyman, God tells death to go and tell Everyman his fate. Both of these situations occur at the beginning of the works and influence what the main characters will do throughout the rest of the writings.

Hamlet vs. Everyman

Hamlet and Everyman hold key similarities and also very distinct differences. The main difference I see is the playwrights' purpose for writing the play. Everyman is clearly a morality play, which means its main goal is to influence people to think a certain way or about something (here it is most likely the church's point of view). Hamlet seems to be a bit more complicated with its plot. This effectually does two things. One: It places characters and story in a place that is not quite so emphathetic towards the reader. Two: It highlights the faults of men and interrogates the loyalty of relatives and friends.

However, these two plays do, in two different ways, try to point out that dishonesty, bad deeds, and corruption lead to a terrible life. Everyman does this by making the feelings of the microcosm a generalization. This in effect brings the issue eye-to-eye with the reader. Hamlet points out the same mistakes and follies by the misfortunes of his characters. This plot does not seem quite feasible, so it gives a hyperbole effect that relays the information quite well: Do you want to end up like this?

These two plays are revelieving very similar truths, they just do it in two very different manners.

LInk between Everyman and Hamlet

While Hamlet and Everyman encounter similar themes within their context, I do not believe they are comparable on a much larger scale. Due to the problems that are more internal in Hamlet's case, and in Everyman, they are more physical. Hamlet struggles with life and death, betrayal, guilt, and numerous other Shakespearean attributes. Like Ann said in her meditation, I think she made an excellent point when she was talking about kinship, fellowship and good deeds, in reference to Everyman. I have read Hamlet before and seen it performed on stage, it makes much more sense when it is actually being performed before your eyes, the characters come to life and take on a shape of their own, obviously. The staging allows readers to understand some of the themes more clearly, like darkness and it's metaphorical meaning. Shakespeare, in general, is overplayed and overrated, but I have an odd fondness for Hamlet, I can't tell if it is because of the complex characters or the ingenious plot, but I love Hamlet.

I believe there could is a way to relate, and even compare Hamlet to Everyman. Take, for instance, the fact that Everyman is faced with problems. Hamlet is as well, obviously. Yes, there are major differences between the problems that each of them face, but if we are to compare the works as a whole, than this would be a logical place to start. Then, we could look at each problem that Everyman is faced with, and compare them with Hamlet's.
First, Everyman is faced with Death. It could be compared to Hamlet that he is also faced with Death many times throughout the play. His Uncle killed his father in order to marry his mother. Ophelia kills herself after he has gone insane. Hamlet's mother, Gertrude, is murdered by poison. Hamlet kills his uncle in a fencing match, and eventually, like Everyman, faces Death himself.
Another character from Everyman that could be compared with Hamlet is Fellowship. In Everyman, Fellowship vows to be there with Everyman until he is asked to follow in the journey of Death. Fellowship then declines. In Hamlet, his two best friends could be compared to Fellowship. They are there for him until they are sent in to England with Hamlet after Polonius' death. It is then that they are given the task to kill Hamlet, and they decline. They do not go through with their task.
Kinsmen in Everyman could be compared to Hamlet's mother. She is there for him, loving him and taking care of him. Yet at the same time she is a very confusing character about whether or not she actually believes Hamlet when he tells her that he isn't crazy. So in a way, she is like Kinsmen when she shows the "fake side" of her personality, making it so she is not truly all-together with Hamlet.