Friday, January 24, 2020

Paratextuality in Shakespeares King Lear Essay example -- William Sha

Pitching Mad Boy: How Paratextuality Mediates the Distance Between Spectators, Adaptations, and Source Texts. A popular anecdote used to introduce students and spectators to King Lear tells how, for 150 years, the stage was dominated by Nahum Tate’s adaptation, in which Lear and Cordelia are happily reconciled, and Cordelia is married off to Edgar. Here is what N.H. Hudson had to say about Tate: This shameless, this execrable piece of demendation. Tate improve Lear? Set a tailor at work, rather, to improve Niagara! Withered be the hand, palsied be the arm, that ever dares to touch one of Shakespeare’s plays again. (quoted in Massai 247) Of course, such sophisticated and erudite commentators as are assembled here today will be quick to point out a couple of ironies about Hudson’s condemnation of Shakespeare adaptation. First, Shakespeare himself was an adaptor. Most if not all of his plays are adapted from extant plays, renaissance romance novels, or even, as in the case I will be discussing today, old Norse sagas. King Lear was adapted from an earlier play, which was itself based on Holinshed’s chronicles. Second, popular adaptations by Tate and Colley Cibber, among others, by making Shakespeare accessible and tasteful to Restoration and Enlightenment audiences, played no small part in establishing Shakespeare at the centre of the literary canon (Massai 247). And as an afterthought, it might be worth noting that Tate’s adaptation does not so much ruin the original King Lear as restore it – Tate’s happy ending is more â€Å"faithful† than Shakespeare to Shakespeare’s sources, The True Chronicle History of King Leir and Holinshed’s Chronicles. I mention this by way of introducing Michael O’Brien’s Mad Boy Chronic... ...eares.ca/ Massai, Sonia. "Stage Over Study: Charles Marowitz, Edward Bond, and Recent Materialist Approaches to Shakespeare." New Theatre Quarterly 15, no. 3 [59] (1999): 247-55. Morrow, Martin. â€Å"A Viking Free for All.† Rpt. in O'Brien, Michael. Mad Boy Chronicle : From Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus, c. 1200 A.D. and Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare, c. 1600 A.D. 1st ed. Toronto: Playwrights Canada Press, 1996. Pp. 152-54. O'Brien, Michael. Mad Boy Chronicle : From Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus, c. 1200 A.D. and Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare, c. 1600 A.D. 1st ed. Toronto: Playwrights Canada Press, 1996. Shaner, Madeleine. Rev. of Mad Boy Chronicle, by Michael O'Brien. 2001. Backstage West 28 Sept. 2003. http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/ Stam, Robert. Film Theory : An Introduction. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2000.

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

Proof of Unreliability in the Cask of Amontillado

Michael Ljubsa ID# 1790093 Rashmi Jyoti ENGL-103 CU85 Word Count: 998 Proof of Unreliability in The Cask of Amontillado Edgar Allan Poe is an author known for his pieces of literature which capture the element of mystery. Many times, scholars debate over the true meaning behind his texts as they are often written as narratives. This combination of an unclear meaning behind his work and the fact that his stories are narratives often leads to the question of, â€Å"To what extent can the narrator be relied upon? † The same issue arises in Poe's, â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado†.The story is a reflection of the past, involving a plot that evolves into a murder mystery involving two gentlemen, Montresor and Fortunato. The story is told from Montresor's point of view, recalling an event that occured fifty years ago. Montresor secretly despises Fortunato due to past â€Å"insults† that are claimed to be unforgiveable. Montresor demands revenge for these acts and plans Fo rtunato's murder and later tricks him into death. The story provokes questioning as to whether the narrator of the story can be relied upon to accurately display the events described.In Edgar Allan Poe's, â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado†, Montresor does not provide enough insight into the information that remains with hidden meaning. He fails to provide significant causes for action due to the lack of description and proof, and the arugment of whether Montresor could be considered insane also arises. Montresor only further confuses the reader by pointing out all the obvious irony surrounding the two main characters Montresor and Fortunato. Therefore, the narrator's accounts cannot be considered reliable.The lack of Montresor's ability to explain the past and why he feels such a hatred towards Fortunato is why his account of the story cannot be relied upon. â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado† begins with Montresor providing his own reason for wishing death upon Fortunato. The two first lines read, â€Å"The thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge†(218). Right from the start the reader is confused as to what this â€Å"insult† actually is, as it remains to go unexplained for the remainder of the story. In her article discussing â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado†, Elena V. Baraban asks, â€Å"Why did he do it? (47) The intrigue of the story comes from attempting to answer this seemingly simple question. Many stories would provide a motive and reason for such horrendous acts; however, Montresor provides no such explanation for the murder he commits. It can be continually questioned as to what this â€Å"insult† was, as no rational person would avenge an insult with murder. The narrator's reliabilty is questioned even further considering Montresor withstood â€Å"thousand injuries† borne upon him by Fortunato. It seems as though Montresor was not remotely bot hered by these injuries, which reiterates the question of: Why did he do it?What exactly made Montresor take Fortunato's insult in such a disrespectful and hateful way that would make him wish death upon Fortunato? This confusion proves the narrators unreliability. A second idea supporting the notion that Montresor is an unreliable narrator is the seemingly apparent insanity of Montresor. Restating the thought of Montresor murdering Fortunato over an insult supports the idea of Montresor being insane. An instance where Montresor could be viewed as insane would be where he is imprisoning the helpless Fortunato behind a brick wall that he has constructed. I placed my hand upon the solid fabric of the catacombs, and felt satisfied. â€Å"(222) The gratification that comes of ease over Montresor as a result of his murder makes insanity a high possibility for a motif behind his actions. Montressor's fulfillment is also shown when he states, â€Å"My heart grew sick; it was the dampness of the catacombs that made it so† (223). Even after fifty years, Montresor feels absolutely no remorse for his actions. Such a lack of sorrow and guilt, even after fifty years, could only be found with a psychopath. Montresor's insanity makes his description even more unreliable.Another aspect of the story that makes Montressor unreliable is all the irony that he brings to our attention. We find that Fortunato is named ironically, as Fortunato, closely resembles the word â€Å"fortunate†. This man resembling the word â€Å"fortunate† actually ends up having a very unfortunate death as he is manipulated by Montresor and gets buried alive. Additionally, Fortunato wears a jest costume complete with the cap and bells. This provides early signs that Fortunato is to become a fool. On the other hand, Montresor wears a silk black mask showing the readers that he is indeed the dark, manipulative figure in the story.Another example of irony is how the setting of the story is initially the carnival, and quickly turns into that of the dark, damp, catacombs. All of these examples make the story sound too ironic in a sense, therefore, its credibility is hard to trust. This, along with other ironic events such as the Montresor family crest meaning, â€Å"No one insults me with impunity†(220), and Fortunato drinking a wine named De Grave (grave), proves this story's undependable plot. It can be clearly seen that the narrator provides a recollection of events that are obviously unreliable.The fact that no reason for cause is shown by the narrator, as well as the likelihood of the character playing the narrator being unquestionably insane, proves that the story is unreliable. These factors, in addition to the confusion resulting of endless irony would make any logical reader question the validity of the narrators accounts. A story such as â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado† shows readers that narratives require some sense of background information and that the character narrating should be viewed as logical, in order to be considered reliable.Also, the plot must not be twisted by some sort of other element, such as irony, which was seen in this story. A combination of such factors will allow readers to depict the narrators accounts as an accurate portrayal. References: Baraban, Elena. â€Å"The Motive for Murder in ‘The Cask of Amontillado. † Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature. 58. 2. (2004): 47-62. Print. Poe, Edger Allan. â€Å"The Cask of Amontillado. † Portable Literature: Reading, Reacting, Writing, Eighth Edition. Ed. Michael Rosenberg. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. 218-223. Print.

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

Major General Henry Heth in the American Civil War

Major General Henry Heth was Confederate commander during the Civil War who saw service both in Kentucky and with the Army of Northern Virginia. An early favorite of General Robert E. Lee, he saw action in many of the famed leaders campaigns in the East and is best remembered for initiating the action that led to the Battle of Gettysburg. Heth continued to lead a division in Lieutenant General Ambrose P. Hills Third Corps for the rest of the conflict. he remained with the army until its surrender at Appomattox Court House in April 1865. Early Life Career Born December 16, 1825 at Black Heath, VA, Henry Heth (pronounced heeth) was the son of John and Margaret Heth.  The grandson of a veteran of the American Revolution and son of a naval officer from the War of 1812, Heth attended private schools in Virginia before seeking a military career.  Appointed to the US Military Academy in 1843, his classmates included his boyhood friend Ambrose P. Hill as well as Romeyn Ayres, John Gibbon, and Ambrose Burnside. Proving a poor student, he matched his cousins, George Pickett, 1846 performance by graduating last in his class.  Commissioned as a brevet second lieutenant, Heth received orders to join the 1st US Infantry which was engaged in the Mexican-American War. Arriving south of the border later that year, Heth reached his unit after large-scale operations had concluded.  After participating in a number of skirmishes, he returned north the following year.   Assigned to the frontier, Heth moved through postings at  Fort Atkinson, Fort Kearny, and Fort Laramie.  Seeing action against the Native Americans, he earned a promotion to first lieutenant in June 1853.  Two years later, Heth was promoted to captain in the newly-formed 10th US Infantry.  That September, he earned recognition for leading a key flanking attack against the  Sioux during the Battle of Ash Hollow.  In 1858, Heth penned the US Armys first manual on marksmanship entitled  A System of Target Practice. Major General Henry Heth Rank: Major GeneralService: US Army, Confederate ArmyNickname(s): HarryBorn: December 16, 1825 at Black Heath, VADied: September 27, 1899 at Washington, DCParents: Captain John Heth and Margaret L. PickettSpouse: Harriet Cary SeldenChildren: Ann Randolph Heath, Cary Selden Heth, Henry Heth, Jr.Conflicts: Mexican-American War, Civil WarKnown For: Battle of Gettysburg (1863) The Civil War Begins With the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter and beginning of the Civil War in April 1861, Virginia left the Union.  After the departure of his home state, Heth resigned his commission in the US Army and accepted a captains commission in the Virginia Provisional Army.  Quickly advanced to lieutenant colonel, he briefly served as General Robert E. Lees quartermaster general in Richmond.  A critical time for Heth, he became one of the few officers to earn Lees patronage and was the only one referred to by his first name.   Made colonel of the 45th Virginia Infantry later year, his regiment was assigned to western Virginia. Operating in the Kanawha Valley, Heth and his men served under Brigadier General John B. Floyd.  Promoted to brigadier general on January 6, 1862, Heth led a small force entitled the Army of the New River that spring.   Engaging Union troops in May, he fought several defensive actions but was badly beaten on the 23rd when his command was routed near Lewisburg.  Despite this setback, Heths actions helped screen Major General Thomas Stonewall Jacksons campaign in the Shenandoah Valley.  Re-forming his forces, he continued to serve in the mountains until June when orders arrived for his command to join Major General Edmund Kirby Smith at Knoxville, TN.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Kentucky Campaign Arriving in Tennessee, Heths brigade began moving north in August as Smith marched to support General Braxton Braggs invasion of Kentucky.  Advancing into the eastern part of the state, Smith captured Richmond and Lexington before dispatching Heth with a division to menace Cincinnati.  The campaign ended when Bragg elected to withdraw south after the Battle of Perryville.   Rather than risk being isolated and defeated by Major General Don Carlos Buell, Smith joined with Bragg for the retreat back to Tennessee.  Remaining there through the fall, Heth assumed command of the Department of East Tennessee in January 1863.  The following month, after lobbying from Lee, he received an assignment to Jacksons corps in the Army of Northern Virginia.   Major General Henry Heth, CSA.   Library of Congress Chancellorsville Gettysburg Taking command of a brigade in his old friend Hills Light Division, Heth first led his men in combat early that May at the Battle of Chancellorsville.  On May 2, after Hill fell wounded, Heth assumed leadership of the division and gave a credible performance though his assaults the next day were turned back.  Following Jacksons death on May 10, Lee moved to reorganize his army into three corps.   Giving Hill command of the newly-created Third Corps, he directed that Heth lead a division comprised of two brigades from the Light Division and two recently arrived from the Carolinas.  With this assignment came a promotion to major general on May 24. Marching north in June as part of Lees invasion of Pennsylvania, Heths division was near Cashtown, PA on June 30.  Alerted to the presence of Union cavalry in Gettysburg by Brigadier General James Pettigrew, Hill ordered Heth to conduct a reconnaissance in force towards the town the following day.   Lee approved the action with the restriction that Heth was not to cause a major engagement until the entire army was concentrated at Cashtown.  Approaching the town on July 1, Heth quickly became engaged with Brigadier General John Bufords cavalry division and opened the Battle of Gettysburg.  Initially unable to dislodge, Buford, Heth committed more of his division to the fight. The scale of the battle grew as Major General John Reynolds Union I Corps arrived on the field.   As the day progressed, additional forces arrived spreading the fighting west and north of the town.  Taking heavy losses through the day, Heths division finally succeeded in pushing Union troops back to Seminary Ridge.  With support from Major General W. Dorsey Pender, a final push saw this position captured as well.  During the course of the fighting that afternoon, Heth fell wounded when a bullet struck him in the head.  Saved by a thick new hat that had been stuffed with paper to improve the fit, he was unconscious for the better part of a day and played no further role in the battle. Overland Campaign Resuming command on July 7, Heth directed the fighting at Falling Waters as the Army of Northern Virginia retreated south.  That fall, the division again took heavy losses when it attacked without proper scouting at the Battle of Bristoe Station.  After taking part in the Mine Run Campaign, Heths men went into winter quarters.   In May 1864, Lee moved to block Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grants Overland Campaign.  Engaging the Major General Winfield S. Hancocks Union II Corps at the Battle of the Wilderness, Heth and his division fought hard until relieved by Lieutenant General James Longstreets approaching corps.  Returning to action on May 10 at the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Heth attacked and drove back a division led by Brigadier General Francis Barlow. After seeing further action at North Anna in late May, Heth anchored the Confederate left during the victory at Cold Harbor.   Having been checked at Cold Harbor, Grant elected to move south, cross the James River, and march against Petersburg.  Reaching that city, Heth and the rest of Lees army blocked the Union advance.  As a Grant commenced the siege of Petersburg, Heths division took part in many of the actions in the area.  Frequently occupying the extreme right of the Confederate line, he mounted unsuccessful attacks against his classmate Romeyn Ayres division at Globe Tavern in late August.  This was followed assaults at the Second Battle of Reams Station a few days later. Major General Romeyn B. Ayres. Library of Congress Final Actions On October 27-28, Heth, leading Third Corps due to Hill being ill, succeeded in blocking Hancocks men at the Battle of Boydton Plank Road.  Remaining in the siege lines through the winter, his division came under assault on April 2, 1865.  Mounting a general attack against Petersburg, Grant succeeded in breaking through and forced Lee to abandon the city.   Retreating toward Sutherlands Station, the remnants of Heths division were defeated there by Major General Nelson A. Miles later in the day.  Though Lee desired to have him lead Third Corps after Hills death on April 2, Heth remained separated from the bulk of the command during the early parts of the Appomattox Campaign. Withdrawing west, Heth was with Lee and the rest of the Army of Northern Virginia when it surrendered at Appomattox Court House on April 9.   Later Life In the years after the war, Heth worked in mining and later in the insurance industry.  Additionally, he served as a surveyor in the Office of Indian Affairs as well as assisted in the compilation of the US War Departments  Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.  Plagued by kidney disease in his later years, Heth died at Washington, DC on September 27, 1899.  His remains were returned to Virginia and interred in Richmonds Hollywood Cemetery.