1. "There's a Woman Living in My Closet"

   This article was written in response to the Yahoo article about the man in Japan who realized after one year that a homeless woman was living in his closet. The title is really superb, but I have made less than a buck so far on this very funny (if I must say so myself), piece. I wrote it in less than an hour and I although I have received some positive responses, I am not sure Triond users get it. So I will type slowly and repeat. “There was a man in Japan who found a woman living in his closet after one year.” Get it? This true life title alone is funny!
   
   Perhaps I should have entitled it: “Hilarious and Spectacular Closets of Homeless People” or “Extreme Closets That You Must Bookmark.” I just don't know.

2. “What Color is Your Underwear and Other Critical Interview Questions”

   This hysterical article is not getting the recognition on Triond that it so richly deserves. It is funny people! The research that I conducted proves that most serious articles on “interviews” are marginally helpful and maximally obvious. But then I guess people can be pretty stupid. Instead of doing a parody on being an “interviewee” I brilliantly turned the tables and made it about an “interviewer.” I found the title to be absolutely riotous and while I have made a buck or so I am not going to be able to retire to my palatial “crib” anytime soon.
   
   A better title might have been “Essential Questions That You Must Ask When You Interview or Die After Suffering a Long and Miserable Life” or “Critical Questions About Your Undergarments and the Workplace That You Have to Read Today.”
   
   Yes, looking back perhaps one of these titles would have made me a Triond top writer. Who knows? But I have collected over 50 “I Like Its” and I only hit that button once, or maybe twice.

3. “The Mile High Club”

   This humorous piece is bursting with incidents that have personally happened to me. I thought the title was pure genius and that alone would give me plenty of views. But alas, no one around here must know what the “mile high club” refers to or they have a puritan sense of humor. The entire article is not just about becoming intimate in the Biblical sense while flying on a commercial airline. It is full of other funny experiences that we all encounter on airlines with the ugly, smelly and rude masses of humanity.
   
   A better title might have been, “Hot Pictures of Wacky Airline Passengers Rated XXX” and I could have included lots of pictures. People on this site do seem to like pretty photographs, like 5 year olds love picture books. Too many words must be really scary to so many.

4. “Coach Girl”

   This piece was a true classic and timeless in so many ways. I was truly shocked that this piece alone did not afford me the luxury of acquiring hundreds of new Coach Purses.
   
   I have to wonder if Triond readers live near a mall or know women who “shop til they drop” and live for designer labels. I guess the sophistication of the piece was too much for the average reader.
   
   A better title might have been, “The Real Cost of Coach Purses and Why You Must Read This Incredible Article.” Then of course if I provided extreme free music links that might have sent it skyrocketing through the top ten of Triond. Yes, that would definitely have produced a hit and I would have earned more than a buck so far. Music rocks!

5. “Ten Tips to Not Offend People”

   This article is satire at its finest. It was written in response to the outpouring of humans that were offended by my believing and non-believing groupies in my controversial piece entitled, “11 Mistakes That Parents Make.” Oh boy I managed to offend everyone from all walks of life and faiths in this piece. Take a moment to read the 300 comments.
   
   But this article “Ten Tips to Not Offend People” was rich and deep in dry humor like a fine wine or a bottomless pit. It was also exceedingly witty to the intellectual. I truly feel that it was one of my finest entertaining articles to date. Jay Leno and David Letterman are you reading this? Of course they aren't! Who believes that? (If you are Jay or Dave call me-okay?)
   
   Still, you readers here on Triond again left me wondering if another title like, “Fascinating Ideas to Make Everyone Happy and the Unbelievable Websites That I Can Cut and Paste For You to Prove It,” might have been better.

Poets have also been showcased here on the top hits of Triond. Anyone can be a poet as long as it is expressive! I will write about love. Yes, love! How is something simple like:

“Love is nice
Nice is love
I am happy
Happy I am
Go dog go!”

I know if I wrote this poem I would receive comments such as “You have done it again” and “Enlightening.”

Oh well, you get my point.

But where will I go now that I realize my comedy is not breaking the bank you ask? I won't be standing on a street corner anytime soon holding a sign that says, “I Lost on Jeopardy and Triond.” No of course not. I have some dignity!

But I was thinking about getting into television, game shows specifically as they seem to be hitting big. My article could be entitled, “Top Three Hundred Episodes of Wheel of Fortune!” At least I would be dealing with words and this is a site for writers after all.

Regardless, I have successfully proven that Triond readers have no sense of humor and I have done so without using any pretty, pretty pictures or free trampoline video links.

Yes, comedy does not pay here on Triond and what a shame for all of you to not experience me! But mostly, what a tragedy for my bank account!

With this said, Shylock is driven to into such a state of rage that he seeks to take Antonio's life. This is why in the end he seems to be portrayed as a villain. But is he really a victim or a villain?

In these sets of examples, Shakespeare uses language and scenarios to suggest Shylock is a victimized character. In the following situations Shylock is victimized by others around him because he is Jewish. In the Merchant of Venice, Shylock speaks of how he is offended by Christians and the names he is called by them. This is around during the time when then the bond is first made. Shylocks' daughter, Jessica elopes with Lorenzo and takes his money, jewels and family honour. This throws Shylock into a state of rage. This is where Shylock starts to act out on his villainous side. A quote made by Antonio states “the devil can cite scripture for his purpose”. This clearly makes the link between Shylock as someone akin to the devil.

Shakespeare sets up numerous cases of Shylock being victimized than those previously stated. Shylock is a victim of business due to the fact that Antonio lends out money gratis. It brings down the rate of interest in Venice and this means that Shylock is not able to make money because all the people who borrow it, end up going to Antonio instead. In court after Shylock loses his case, part of his punishment as well as monetary Owings is to become Christian. At this point, Shylock is basically defined as a villain, but because he is constantly ridiculed and humiliated by Antonio his revenge could be understood somewhat.

Shylock's victimization is also contrary to the fact that Shylock can also be seen ass a villain. He clearly seeks to kill Antonio by taking a pound of his flesh. Antonio and Bassanio interprets Shylock bond at first as a bit of a joke. But when Shylock is thrown into a state of rage when his daughter steals his goods, he decides to act out on his bond. A quote by Shylock says, “ He lends out money gratis and lowers the rate of usance here in Venice”. This quote tells us that Shylock's villainous actions if acted out would benefit him greatly in his business.

In the Elizabethan times, quotes like “ I hate him for he is a Christian”, would have provoked the audience. This is why Shylock would have been regarded as a villain as well during this era. Shylock speaks carelessly about the loss of Antonio's fortunes and sailors as sea, which demonstrates the spitefulness of Shylock. The real turning point of Shylocks evil doings is when his daughter Jessica runs away and takes all his wealth with her. Shylock quotes that he would “have his daughter dead at his feet” if he could. This provokes him into craving his bond and truly becoming villainous.

In conclusion Shylock is interpreted as an unfortunate victim but also as a vindictive villain. Had Jessica not left he may have stayed within reason of right and wrong. Because Shylock ends up being a greedy man, audiences remember Shylock as more of a villainous character than a victim, especially because he tried to kill Antonio. To attempt to take a man's life is a lot more serious than simply calling him names or spitting on him. This is why Shylock is regarded as a villain.

I guess one is supposed to read into this as "Love is in the eye of the beholder"? Shakespeare writes this beautiful sonnet about the unorthodox/unique beauty of his lover. He seemingly extols the virtues of what makes this woman ordinary, human, unattractive and maybe even ugly to the average person. But he is genuinely in love with her and finds her beautiful like any other person would view a model or any other woman who is considered to be beautiful by the mainstream.

My real thought about this sonnet is that Shakespeare was a player and he was tired of philandering with the British elite and attractive. He hooked up with this chic from the local pub and went home with her. The next morning they talked a little in bed and he realized that she was pretty cool. They hung out for awhile and then at the peak of their relationship, he wrote this sonnet. But then, after awhile, they probably broke up, but this work was so powerful, that it was immortalized in British Literature. So be it. That's cool. I personally prefer Sonnet 116:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove: O no! it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come: Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

When Prospero is talking to Ariel, he uses formal language and orders Ariel about as if he is superior to him. Their relationship is that of servant and master. In line 195, Prospero says “I bade thee”. This shows that Prospero commands Ariel to do as he says. Prospero also praises Ariel because he must respect his magical abilities to some extent. I know this because in line 207, Prospero says “my brave spirit”.

Ariel mentions wanting his freedom back by saying “Is there more toil?” on line 241 but Prospero chooses to ignore this and accuses him of being ungrateful. This is because on line 250, he says “Dost thou forget from what a torment I did free thee?” He then tells Ariel that he will imprison him back in the oak tree if he doesn't obey him. This shows that he has had enough of Ariel moaning and disobeying him.

After this outburst, Prospero speaks more kindly to Ariel and he tells him that if he does everything that he asks of him, he will set him free in two days. I know this because Prospero says on line 297 “Do so, and after two days, I will discharge thee.” Prospero desperately needs Ariel's magic powers for a little while longer.

Miranda

Unlike Ariel, Prospero uses kind and gentle language when speaking to Miranda, such as “Awake dear heart awake” on line 305. This makes it clear that Prospero loves his daughter dearly. The reader can clearly tell that his attitude changes considerably when he speaks to Miranda. For example, he is not as harsh as he is when he speaks to Ariel. Towards the end of the scene, Miranda complains that she feels tired but Prospero tells her to “shake it off” because they are going to visit Caliban.

This is ambiguity because it could mean that Prospero is telling her to shake off her tiredness or it could mean that he is telling her to forget about the story he had earlier told her. Overall, we see that Prospero is very protective of his daughter.

Caliban

Caliban is another servant to Prospero but he is more like a slave. Prospero thinks that Caliban is useless because on line 285, he calls him a “dull thing”. This shows that in his opinion, Caliban is useless and he can't do anything. Prospero also thinks that Caliban's mother, Sycorax, is just as bad as Caliban. This is because he calls Sycorax a “damned witch” and a “blue eyed hag” on lines 263 and 269. Adding to this, Prospero refers to how ugly Caliban is by saying he is “not honored with human shape.”

Prospero considers Caliban to be useless and worthless, even though he collects the wood for him. When Caliban first enters in the scene, Prospero shouts “slave!” at him and commands him to “speak”. He then orders Caliban to hurry up and insults him by calling him a “tortoise.” Overall, Prospero only really cares about Miranda and he takes advantage of Ariel and Caliban. Shakespeare shows this with the wide range of vocabulary used.

Macbeth is the man at fault because he took control of his actions. He was in charge and no one else had any influence in his actions. Before Lady Macbeth is even introduced as a character he says, “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir.”(pg. 8) Macbeth is allowing himself to become king before anyone can have a chance to influence him in anyway. Macbeth is saying he would allow himself to become king even if something were to happen to the king, Duncan. Macbeth also says, “Why hath it given me earnest of success commencing in a truth?”(pg. 8) he has already started to ponder about the idea of himself becoming king.

Macbeth defies himself as a husband, a thane, and as a kinsman. When he declares he will kill the king by saying, “False face must hide what the false heart doth know,” (pg. 18) he is defying himself as a kinsman and a thane when he kills the king. He denies himself as a wife when he says, “She should have died hereafter.” (pg.77) He denies everyone around him; therefore, relies on no one but himself. Also, Lady Macbeth couldn't have influenced Macbeth because after the killing of Duncan she says, “What's to be done?” (pg. 39) This clearly states that she had no jurisdiction over Macbeth's decisions.

Yes, Macbeth first gets the idea of becoming king from the three witches. However, all they say is, “All hail Macbeth, that shalt be king hereafter.”(pg. 6) they only speak of him becoming king and not killing the in order to become king. Also, Macbeth's downfall is his death. The witches prophesy to Macbeth that “none of woman born shall harm Macbeth” (pg. 54) and that “Macbeth shall never vanquished be until Great Birnam wood to high Dunsinane hill shall come against.”(pg. 54) The witches, in a way, are trying to help him by warning him. They try to warn him but Macbeth thinks their prophesy is a guarantee for safety. However, it actually is a guarantee of destruction.

Because Macbeth thought this was a guarantee of safety he thought that he was invincible when he declares, “Then live, Macduff. What need I fear of these?” (pg. 54) Now that Macbeth is invincible he starts to make commands, before he used to take commands and be influenced by others. Now he is influenced and takes commands from no one. We see him commanding others when one of the murderers says, “We shall, my lord, perform what you command us.” (pg. 37) This proves he is responsible for the killing of the nobles; therefore, he is responsible for his downfall.

In this essay I will endeavor to explain with further detail why this opening statement is true, with particular attention being paid to how some productions of The Merchant of Venice have been successfully produced with the Jewish aspect of the characters removed and how the play would still read just as well if Shylock were not Jewish, but a different race or religion altogether. I will also show that the other characters in the play would not treat the Shylock any differently than if he were not Jewish.

Finally I will show that the play is not about Jews or Judaism but is instead a play with themes and a plot that do not hinge on the fact that some of it's characters are of a certain religion, and in this regard I will be looking at the key theme of justice and mercy in particular. To say that The Merchant of Venice is a play only about Jews would be a massive disservice to its author, William Shakespeare, “the world's greatest playwright.”

If in The Merchant of Venice the central character of the Jew Shylock were to be replaced with a figure of another race or religion different to those of the Christians of Venice, the play would not lose much in terms of its themes or plot. For example if Shakespeare had chosen another minority group from which to draw the figure of the money lender, from which could inspire the same amount of derision from the Catholic Christians in his play, he could just have easily have chosen a Muslim, a protestant or even an atheist to play the role of Shylock.

For the main character device on which this play works is that Shakespeare has positioned characters representing a majority group against characters representing a minority group. In the case of the play's setting of Venice, Shakespeare sets the Catholics of Italy against the outsider minority group of the Jews. However if he had chosen to set the play in London, Shakespeare could quite as easily have set London's majority group of Protestants against the minority group of Catholics. This idea of the character of the money lender not having to be Jewish has been taken on by many theater producers and critics.

One run of performances of The Merchant of Venice saw the Christians of Venice played by an all Black cast with the Jews played by Caucasians, a different take on the majority versus minority theme of the play. Going back a little further in time, one critic even suggested in a study on the character of the Shylock that “for Jew, read German, time 1914-18, place, Belgium or France, England or America.” (Stoll, 54) Furthermore one production of The Merchant of Venice put on at the National Theater in 1974 did not concentrate on the religion of the Shylock but instead “emphasized Shylock's humanity and saw the basic conflict of the play as economic, not religious.” (Whigham et al, 106).

Another strong argument that persuades us that if we were to take out or change references to Jews in The Merchant of Venice that the play would still work, can be made when examining the treatment of the play in countries where Jewish people are something of an enigma, such as in Japan.

To the Japanese, especially in the 19th century, Jews and the religion of Judaism would have been completely foreign concepts. So in one of the first adaptations of The Merchant of Venice on Japanese soil titled Zeni, the play is set not in Venice but in Osaka during the feudal era and the Shylock does not appear as a Jew but rather as a Japanese money lender named Gohei.

If the play had been a failure then there would have been grounds to argue that changing the character of Shylock from Jewish to Japanese was to blame, however “Zeni was a great hit both in the newspaper and on stage.” (Ryuta et al, 22) “In one revival, Shylock was called Yokubari Gampachi (Stubborn Tightfist), in that way identifying the character's nature while hiding his western origin,” (Ryuta et al, 39) and this also proves that in the nature of the Shylock's character being a Jew was not necessary in conveying the play's central themes or plots. If being a Jew was necessary to the play, it would not have been as successful in Japan as Ryuta states it to have been.

For further proof that Shakespeare could have used another minority group instead of the Jews in The Merchant of Venice I shall examine the lines spoken by Shylock in Act 3, Scene 1.

Shylock:"I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

(The Merchant of Venice 3.1.57-66)

Now imagine that the play was set in South Africa during the years of apartheid, and instead of the dominant group of Christians as they were in Venice, we instead have the dominant group of White South Africans represented in the play. Now imagine that instead of Jews, the suppressed group in the play were represented by Black South Africans. In replacing the two groups, the play would then read something like this:

Shylock: "I am a Black man. Hath not a Black man eyes? Hath not a Black man hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a White man is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?"

(Adapted by Andrew Porteous from The Merchant of Venice 3.1.57-66)

As you can see from the example given above, the play still makes sense even when all references of Jews have been taken out and replaced with a different group, this time a different race. This shows that The Merchant of Venice can not be just about Jews if the play still works when all references to Jews in the play itself, have been replaced by something else. Paradoxically if the play were about Jews, the adapted version given above would have the audience confused, and would not make any sense at all, which it does not.

If Shylock were not Jewish the actions of the other characters in the play would also not change beyond recognition of that of the original version. For example if Shylock were merely an atheistic money lender, Bassanio and Antonio would still have sought him out for the loan of three thousand ducats, as it was against Christian beliefs to make financial gain from loaning money to people, and so Christian money lenders were few and far between. Therefore instead of seeking out a fellow Christian for the money, they would still have been forced to turn to a character such as the Shylock, although as stated he does not necessarily have to be a Jew.

The character of Lancelot Gobbo begins the play as the Shylock's servant. By the end of the play he transfers his allegiance to Bassanio and gives as one of his reasons to his father Gobbo for leaving Shylock's service as “for I am a Jew if I serve the Jew any longer.” (The Merchant of Venice 2.2.111-112) Taken at face value Lancelot's remark could be seen as a stark fear of himself becoming a Jew, which comes across as a terrifying proposition, and some may argue as an indication as to how important the Shylock being a Jew is to the play. However it is not because the Shylock is a Jew that Lancelot leaves his service, rather that he can see advancement through serving Bassanio.

In modern terms it would be similar to someone changing employers for a better title, job or pay in the same field, but taking all their former employers secrets with them. Lancelot is simply “a sly rogue with an eye for the main chance,” (Moody, 13) and is not forced into the employment of Bassanio simply because he cannot stomach working for a Jew. “Lancelot's journey (is) undertaken for his own benefit,” (Levin, 34) not to merely escape the Shylock because of his religion or the risk that he himself may turn into a Jew if he remains with the usurer.

So as one can see, if we take away or alter the Jewish aspect of the Shylock's character, the play still works in terms of the money lender and the other supporting characters around him, and so it also does in terms of the play's themes and plot. If William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice was merely a play that concentrated solely on Jews, it would be a very dull play indeed and the simple theme of Jews would have been most out of character with Shakespeare's other comedies, and indeed his plays of other genres, for “a Shakespearean comedy is not, of course, "laughs all the way."” (Brown, 10) Stating that The Merchant of Venice is only about Jews is akin to saying that Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play only about fairies. Neither statement takes into account the central themes and plots behind each play and in particular the themes and plot in The Merchant of Venice. Merely attacking Jews and Judaism, or perhaps even promoting them, would have made The Merchant of Venice stand alone amongst Shakespeare's stable of works for being so simplistic.

For "Shakespeare's comedies ... do not ... teeter on the edge of calamity here and descend to farce there" (Ornstein, 21) as you would expect a comedy which is based only on Jews to do in order to keep up its comedic value from beginning to end. However in his comedies, and in particular The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare avoids “the danger of superficiality” (Brown, 11) and hence one of the themes central to this play does not concentrate on the subject of Jews but rather the theme of justice and mercy.

The Shylock represents justice and the law in the play while the Christians stand for mercy. He “stands for the Law: for the legal system which, to be just to all in general, must only approximate to justice in particular cases.” (Bradbrook, 133) There is an old saying that states that the Law is blind, which generally means that all people are seen as equal under the eyes of the law regardless of race, sex or religion. Hence the fact that the Shylock is Jewish does not affect the legal proceedings of the court scene carried out in Act 4.

Some may point to the fact that because the Shylock is a Jew that the court punishes him when he refuses to take his forfeiture from Antonio. However Portia's speech in the court clearly states that the punishment is being meted out to the Shylock, not because he is a Jew, but because he is an alien, or in other words a foreigner, and the letter of the law which Shylock has begged the court to adhere to must be followed exactly. The Shylock could have been from Morocco, as indeed was one of Portia's potential suitors in Act2 Scene 7, and the same verdict would have been reached.

Portia:"The law hath yet another hold on you. It is enacted in the laws of Venice, If it be proved against an alien that by direct or indirect attempts He seek the life of any citizen, The party "gainst the which he doth contrive Shall seize one half his goods ... And the offender"s life lies in the mercy of the Duke only, gainst all other voice".

(The Merchant of Venice 4.1.362-371)

This sentiment of the Shylock being viewed as an alien and not as a Jew is one supported by Patrick Stewart, a Shakespearean actor who has played the part of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice as directed by John Barton. “Shylock is essentially an alien, an outsider. I think if you see him as a Jew, first and foremost, then he"s in danger of becoming only a symbol. Shylock is an outsider who happens to be a Jew.” (Stewart, 171)

Unfortunately it is the Shylock's stubborn alignment with the law that proves to be his downfall. As we see “Shylock's own insistence upon the letter of the law will be turned against him ... and will bring its own retribution.” (Palmer, 127) Some critics however, may point to the fact that Antonio orders the Shylock to convert to Christianity as being only able to happen because the Shylock is a Jew, but in Antonio's speech (4.1.396-406) he makes no reference at all to the fact that the Shylock is a Jew. If the Shylock were a Muslim he would still be ordered to convert to Christianity and if he were already a Christian, Antonio would come up with some other way to break the man, as this is what Antonio really wants - to break the Shylock once and for all.

So, as stated in my opening paragraph, to say that The Merchant of Venice is a play only about Jews, would be to serve a massive disservice to its author, William Shakespeare, “the world's greatest playwright.” (Eds. Mowat et al., xxx) Although many audiences do misconceive that the play is about Jews, performances of The Merchant of Venice have been successfully produced without any Jews or references to Jews in them and the play still reads just as well if the Shylock were not Jewish, but a different race or religion altogether. The other characters in the play would also not treat the character of Shylock any differently if he were not Jewish.

Finally this is a play with themes and a plot that do not hinge on the fact that some of its characters are of a certain religion, especially the key theme explored of justice and mercy in particular. For if justice (the law) is truly blind then a man's religion will not alter the outcome of its findings.

It would be a brave person indeed to claim that Shakespeare's Fool, in King Lear, follows any deep-seated ideology such as Communism, Marxism, Feminism or even anti-Feminism. The Fool is “A link between the stage and the auditorium... the role of the fool resembles that of the Greek chorus.” Due to this role, the Fool has a certain amount of impartiality (although his feelings towards other character are not wholly impartial) to the action going on around him and therefore does not follow any global ideology that we would recognize today. It could also be argued that the disappearance of the Fool from the play altogether in Act III, Scene 6, “clearly indicates that the poet did not take the figure as seriously as many of his critics do.”

However, in taking the definition of ideology given in the opening paragraph, it soon becomes noticeable that the Fool does have his own set of beliefs, which could qualify as certain ideologies he follows. One of the more prominent ideologies held by the Fool in King Lear is the belief in always being honest, and “to hold up the mirror and invite a true seeing.” We find out about the Fool's belief in telling the truth early on in the play in Act I, Scene 4.

Lear: Take heed, sirrah - the whip.
Fool: Truth's a dog must to kennel; he must be whipped out, when the Lady
Brach may stand by th' fire and stink.

(King Lear I 4 114-117)

In the build up to this passage, the Fool tries to point out to Lear, how foolish he has been in dividing his kingdom between his two daughters whilst banishing Cordelia. Lear warns the Fool that if he continues in this manner he may be whipped, to which the Fool replies that, “perhaps, truth telling is whipped out of the house while flattery is rewarded.”

Another ideology of the Fool, evident in the play, is his belief that he should remain loyal to King Lear. “The Fool is faithfully loyal to Lear, sharing his master's distress as he wanders over the heath. He remains at the king's side after he goes mad, and when Lear is finally persuaded to rest, he lies beside him.” An example of the Fool's loyalty to Lear occurs in the opening scene during the storm on the heath, when Kent asks a Gentleman of the King's whereabouts.

Kent: But who is with him?
Gent: None but the fool; who labours to outjest
His heart-struck injuries.

(King Lear III 1 118-120)

Here we see that the Fool's deep loyalty to King Lear has meant that, “all his faculties are strained to cheer and divert his master.” It is interesting also to note that the Fool's loyalty as displayed above, comes at a time when the King has been forsaken by his two daughters, Goneril and Regan, and deserted by his 100 knights.

I will also show what political implications there would have been for Shakespeare's contemporary audience, and in particular Shakespeare's patron, King James I of England, and his subjects.

Act III, Scene 2, is significant in that it confirms King Lear's descent into madness with his speeches that switch erratically between differing tones and themes.

"Blow winds, and crack your cheeks! Rage, blow!
You cataracts and hurricanoes, spout
Till you have drenched our steeples, (drowned) the
cocks.
You sulph'rous and thought-executing fires,
Vaunt-couriers of oak-cleaving thunderbolts,
Singe my white head. And thou, all-shaking
thunder,
Strike flat the thick rotundity o' th' world.
Crack nature's molds, all germans spill at once
That makes ingrateful man".

(King Lear III 2 1-11)

Here we see Lear crying for hurricanes to drown the tallest buildings, followed by the lines, “You sulph'rous and thought-executing fires, Vaunt-couriers of oak-cleaving thunderbolts,” which are so “densely impacted and mouth-filling that they come to their auditors more as enormous sounds than as precise sense.” The audience then catches “the violence of, "Singe my white head"” who's tone is then “picked up in his next speech in, "Why then, let fall/Your horrible pleasure.”

Finally we see that “the tone suddenly switches to pathos - "Here I stand your slave / A poor, infirm, weak and despised old man' (19-20) - and then … rises again to defiance ("But yet I call you servile ministers").

It is very important in relation to the action of the play up to this point for the audience to see the King go mad in this manner upon the heath. As J.S.H. Bransom asks, "Was Shakespeare aware that Lear's conduct in the first scene was affected by the same causes as were responsible for his insanity?"

It seems ridiculous that Shakespeare would not have had a plan on how the play was going to unfold before he started writing, and in showing Lear losing his sanity upon the Heath, he makes the audience sympathize with the King, whereas in the first scenes many would have disliked him and would have believed that with the treatment meted out to him by his daughters, Regan and Goneril, he got what he deserved. The fact that the King's madness is illustrated through his language, plainly for all to see, drastically changes the way we feel about the character, and thus makes Act III, Scene 2 a significant scene indeed.

Shakespeare wrote King Lear as a servant of King James I, who had the reputation of being the wisest fool in Christendom, and more than likely Shakespeare would have borne this in mind when penning the play. However, it must be noted that Shakespeare was not trying to portray an image of James through the character of King Lear, however Lear's greatness would have mattered to James and Shakespeare's royal patron in all likelihood sympathized with the kingdom-dividing Lear.

One feels though, that James I would not have been able to sympathize with a sane Lear, who had divided his kingdom in the earlier scenes, when James' own great ambition was to unite the countries of England and Scotland.

The only way James would have felt sympathy with Lear would have been in seeing how the madness of the great king, which we only fully begin to see in Act III, Scene 2, drove him into making this decision. Lear's greatness would have mattered to James, and without Lear's spiral into madness, James would have possibly come to the conclusion that Shakespeare was trying to tell him that a divided kingdom (in James' case a separated England and Scotland) was the intelligent thing to do, rather than something only a mad king such as Lear would ever set about creating.

Instead James would have seen in the play a great king dividing his kingdom, but dividing it under the influence of his insanity. This in turn would have told him that a sane king would have kept his kingdom united and would have confirmed in his own mind that the unification of England and Scotland was the best way forward.

As important as this message would have been for King James I, it would also have resonated with other members of Shakespeare's contemporary audience who were mostly James' subjects. The joining of England and Scotland into one United Kingdom was James' passion, but it was a passion not shared with many of his citizens. Therefore the message that only an insane king would divide his kingdom, may have helped to sow the seeds in people's minds that maybe James' aim of uniting the two countries was not as bad as had been initially thought.

Therefore, the passages in Act III, Scene 2 from “Blow winds, and crack your cheeks...” to “...I live before this time,” are vitally important to the play as a whole, as they confirm to the audience that Lear is spiralling into the depths of insanity. This notion of the king being mad is significant in relation to the action of the play up to this point, because it goes some way to explaining why Lear divided up his kingdom like he did and changes the way the audience feels about the character.

Also for Shakespeare's contemporary audience, including his patron King James I, Lear's madness as demonstrated in these passages, help to justify James' own stance on the unification of England and Scotland, for only an insane king would wish for a divided kingdom.

Given the accounts by Shakespeare and Herr overflow with lucid detail, Shakespeare's role as an observer more often than not allows him to study personal conflict better than the author Herr. Secondly, Shakespeare elaborates more on the humanity experience while Herr initiates his audience into the bigger picture by actively participating as a correspondent himself. In addition, perspective can also become likewise influenced according to an individual author's personality, albeit an introvert or an extrovert. If Shakespeare actively participated as a correspondent himself during Vietnam, his outlook would consist of the injustice to humanity or of some aspect of the human experience. However one difference between Shakespeare and Herr is likened to the assertion that Shakespeare uses the characters themselves as a model for humanity while Herr applies the experience itself to describe humanity.

It is evident that humanity can be studied through many different lenses when comparing Shakespeare's choice of verbiage to Herr's summary of events. In many of Shakespeare's works, psychological conflicts subtly call into question humanity compared to Herr's obvious comments about the soldier's deplorable conditions in Vietnam. Shakespeare also takes the liberty of employing soliloquies, as if to express to a barely perceptible audience one's personal health. Another difference is that Shakespeare's characters are forced into the public sphere no matter their personal conflicts, while Herr's character's seem to have more a choice given the bigger picture notwithstanding war. This variance also hints of the individual tones in writing, perhaps in part due to most of Shakespeare's life being in the public eye whereas Herr's was not, at least before his career.

Shakespeare and Herr also go against public consensus, even if the style of defiance is increasingly obvious in Herr's case as a pencil-toting soldier. In the same vein, Shakespeare's covert plots faintly indicates his characters are independent of their own accord. In contrast, Herr's personal milieu before Vietnam allowed him more objectivity in comparison to Shakespeare. Yet once in the drama of the war, Herr was too close to the situation to write objectively. In short, immersion in a social milieu doesn't necessarily promise objectivity, as the respective characters are indeed a cog on the sociological wheel. On the other hand, distancing oneself from current events exemplifies the observer from being too close to the situation. Therefore Shakespeare's and Herr's artistry via words is not only influenced by their particular milieu, but their respective work is also relevant to the voice of an era.

“To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether "tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?-To die,-to sleep,-
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks”

No doubt this is the most famous and quotable line in the English language quoted by Hamlet in Act III, scene i (58). The unforgettable line “To be or not to be” touches on a number of delicate considerations in the play. This specific scene represents clash of cultural ideals between old versus new values or faith versus doubt. These words emphasized the protagonist"s inner struggle with two opposing forces or the prevalence of two conflicting school of thought, which are preserving moral integrity and the need to avenge his father's murder.

The old or conservative values are represented by Hamlet's bid to retain moral integrity, clear conscience, spiritual faith, wisdom, justice, nobility and exercise of reason and will. The new or modern values are exemplified by apathy, cynicism, imprudence, disbelief, recklessness, vengeance and impulsiveness.

In this particular scene Hamlet was examining closely the pros and cons of committing suicide. Which is nobler? To suffer life, “[t]he slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” or to seek to end it? As Hamlet ponders on the question, he realized that the question does not end there. Hamlet restated his question by including dreaming to the metaphor of sleep. He says that the dreams that may come in the sleep of death are intimidating, that they “must give us pause.” To put it simply, the bigger question is what will happen to him in the afterlife if he chooses to commit suicide?

He answers his own question by saying that no one is inclined to live except that “the dread of something after death” forces people to undergo suffering rather than end their lives to find that they are in an even more miserable state after. The uncertainties of the afterlife, Hamlet believes, leads to extreme moral concern that hinders action: “conscience does make cowards of us all . . . thus the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.”

The speech is important because it reveals the quality of Hamlet's mind. His deeply passionate nature, the one inclined to be impulsive, reckless and imprudent, is tempered by logical intellect, wisdom, reason and innate nobility which typify the characteristics of the old world. Hamlet relentlessly sought to end his inner struggles by turning to religion to seek reasons to either kill himself or find the strength to kill Claudius. Then he uses philosophy by framing the immortal “to be or not to be” to come up with the necessary answer but still find the reasons inadequate.

In the words of Ernest Johnson, “the dilemma of Hamlet the Prince and Man” is “to disentangle himself from the temptation to wreak justice for the wrong reasons and in evil passion, and to do what he must do at last for the pure sake of justice.… From that dilemma of wrong feelings and right actions, he ultimately emerges, solving the problem by attaining a proper state of mind.”

The popularity and universal appeal of Hamlet hinges on the fact that his struggles and ideals sum up the dilemma each of us faces. Hamlet's conflicting emotions on how to act in a corrupt world with his moral integrity intact reflects the plight of every human being be it in the old or new world.