Guess who hasn't seen Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One in two months. That's right. This one.

Well, that was unsatisfactory.

In summation, Act V, scene ii... is a veritable bloodbath in which none of the favorites survive. Except maybe Cassio. He was all right, as characters go, although I didn't care for his laughing at Bianca, strumpet or no.

I would like to comment on the moment of Emilia's mortal stab wounding. We just get these stage directions about Othello lunging at Iago, and Iago stabbing Emilia and running. What's he thinking? What did Emilia do? Well... I suppose she betrayed him. But I mean... she poses zero further threat, and Othello's an inch from stabbing Iago in the face, so shouldn't he have gone for Othello? I guess we should know better than to think we'd get off that easily-- there would have been no place for a dramatic Romeo and Juliet-esque suicide if he'd been murdered.

Definitely "to." Always "to."

Kinda like Facebook recently, the events of Othello seem to happen, for the most part, in real time. For example, we don't have to wait until later to see Othello's rage in response to the laughter of Iago and Cassio -- "Look how he laughs already!" IV.i.107-- because good ol' Billy Shakes just couldn't wait five minutes to let Othello vent at Iago, so then the reader has to sift through the monstrosity of they're-all-in-the-same-room-but-they-nobody-really-knows-what's-happening. Anyway, the suspense isn't built in the typical way, through building up anticipation and making the audience wonder. There's some of that, of course, like with, y'know, wondering who was going to die and all. Most of the time, though, suspense is built into the moment as a result of Iago's scheming.

Consequently, the audience knows most of what the characters know. Actually, we know considerably more than some of them because of the intriguing twist that the character with the most stage time is the villain, so we're in on his schemes, thanks to all his helpful asides. So... we know what's supposed to happen next, but that doesn't mean some plans don't go awry here an there-- the shenanigans in the brothel, for instance, could have gone more smoothly.

On my honor... I will try... to serve God... and my country... to help people... at all times... and to live by the Girl Scout LAW!!

Clearly, Othello is a tragedy. First, there are all those deaths (**spoiler alert!** Desdemona, Emilia, Othello, and Roderigo D=). Then there's Othello, who is, as the title would tend to indicate, the story's hero, in spite of all Iago's stage time. His tragic flaw, one might argue, is that he is too trusting of Iago. Certainly, he wasn't too trusting of Desdemona, although he must have felt that way. (We can see this from the way he lays into her, calling her a "whore" and an "impudent strumpet" in IV.ii.71-80.) Really, he's just got really awful instincts about who to trust.

I also think the play might have had elements of a melodrama. If something like this actually happened, it would be all over the news, and we would all probably sigh and change the channel because who needs the hysteria of another tragedy? The story'll make its way into your arsenal of knowledge through some means, inevitably, so it might as well be put off another hour or two.

I don't know that the audience's ability to classify the play can really be tied into their watching experience. If it was a comedy, that might be different, but I'm thinking of a comedy as it is defined today. When people know something is a comedy, they have a tendency to laugh harder, as if they're compelled to follow the conventions of it. This guy apparently disagrees; he thinks we feel everything in general more in a group of people. I dunno. I personally don't laugh aloud at funny movies when I'm by myself. More emotionally evocative movies and such cause more embarrassing reactions that are probably easier to allow in the privacy of one's own home. In any case, I don't really think knowing this was a tragedy was essential to my reading throughout, although perhaps it gave me the sense to avoid real attachment to any of the characters.

Furthermore, 1119 is very close to 1117, which was my Girl Scouts troop number.

By the power of Greyskull!

Weird. Weird weird weird. But that was my favorite part of the play so far. I always use "ZOUNDZ!" as an exclamation of sorts--an interjection, if you will. For these Othello guys, it means: Corruption of by his wounds, referring to the wounds of Christ (used as a mild oath). <-- http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xOthello.html#Notes

My font changed, and I am not fixing it >=[.

But yes, I am here today to complain about Shakespeare's ridiculous lexicography. I'm actually grateful for the "'Zounds," which has evolved quite nicely to my benefit, but I protest the footnote that explained that nephews are actually grandsons. I most certainly do not have two grandsons and one more on the way.

Also, we talked in class on Wednesday about the significance of Shakespeare's switching to prose. We speculated that he was probably trying to make that part stand out, and maybe he was experimenting a bit, because writing in iambic pentameter was just kind of what people did back then. But why? Did people speak in iambic pentameter? One time, I went around only speaking in haikus for a little while. It was difficult.

Dramatic chipmunks are dramatic.

In response to the first question, Othello is dramatic. Iago's attempt to break up Othello's marriage to Desdemona is an exaggerated response to his jealousy, but it could happen. That kind of thing does happen. The fact that it's absurd is what makes it a story worth telling.

Certain parts are less realistic, such as the asides. "O, you are well tuned now!/ But I'll set the pegs that make this music/ As honest as I am." II.i.199-201 I know that's just a literary technique, and it conveys the thoughts of the character, but... I don't like it. It feels like the author took the easy way out. Surely there's a way to slip that information/impression into another conversation or something.

That's true of all plays, though. Othello in general seems to be pretty realistic for a play. There are no hippogriffs or anything like that. It all could happen. It just usually doesn't, which is good, because I hear this is a tragedy.

in which Abby deftly expresses confusion

Rather oddly, it would seem thus far that Iago is the protagonist in this story. That's odd to me because the hero is typically the protagonist in stories, except for in this book Montmorency that I read one time and actually sold on Monday. (Debatably also Artemis Fowl.) Also, the play is entitled Othello, so one would be inclined to believe Othello would be the protagonist. Actually, the more I think about it, the less sure I am who the protagonist is, but I'm going to stick with Iago for the time being. In any case, the first act opens with Iago and Roderigo discussing Iago's contempt toward Othello. Supposing that Iago is indeed the protagonist, Othello might be considered the-- nope. Othello still thinks Iago's great. Othello must be the protagonist. Iago is the antagonist. Hence, "I hate the Moor." I.iii.386

Well that was confusing.

I think possibly Othello foils Iago. Othello's black, and Iago's white. Othello is driven by love and courage, whereas Iago is driven by jealousy and the thirst for revenge.

Roderigo helps advance the plot because the audience learns of Iago's true feelings through their conversations together, and this is not as awkward as a giant soliloquy. I think he also embodies the overall infatuation of the city of Venice with Desdemona, whose beauty "tire[s] the ingener," II.i.65 because he expresses the feeling first, although it is Cassio who speaks the line I quoted.