If I were to date Scalia, is that outside my social class?

     Ok, so first things first. I don't really think social class is that important in Twelfth Night but it is prevalent nonetheless. However, Scalia made this blog non-negotiable so I'm gonna be pulling so much stuff out of my ass. While the idea of social class is definitely important for the subplot, I don't really think it has much to do with the overall plot of love. So I'm going to try and break this up as well as I can.

     Cesario/Viola. The upper-class disguised as the lower-class. If social class has any deeper meaning I believe that it is centralized around this character. So let's summarize. Olivia (high class) likes Cesario (low class). Orsino (high class) likes Olivia (high class). Viola (high class but disguised as a low class) likes Orsino (high class). So would love between classes work? Yes, I believe it can. There is nothing wrong with Olivia going after Cesario. I don't really think that Shakespeare meant for it to be such a taboo thing for her to do. When the play was written the idea of crossing social classes was something quite frowned upon but in this case, it seems entirely normal. It could be due to Olivia's overall status. She has a lot of power and is not just of a higher class, but is the higher class. So there you go. Love between classes can work. However, is it stable? Would loving someone from a lower class automatically pull you down to match their level, or would they rise to match yours? I think in the case of Twelfth Night it would be the latter. If Lady Olivia truly loved Cesario, she would bring him up to rise with her on the social ladder. I do not believe that if the two were to wed that there would be this huge scandal that the Lady Olivia has married a commoner. A servant, no less. It's something I would have to think more about, but currently, I do not really think it would matter.
     This brings me into my next topic. Can someone of a lower class truly love someone of an upper class? Let me explain. If you saw the opportunity to marry someone with exuberant fame and wealth would you love them for who they are or what they are? Does Malvolio truly love Olivia or does he love what Olivia is? Malvolio may very well be just lusting after the power and glory that the Lady Olivia holds. Marrying into an upper class would ensure a better life and would essentially guarantee the easy road for the rest of his days. On the other hand, Olivia liking Cesario gains her nothing. She has no reason to like Cesario for anything he has or is. He is simply a servant to Count Orsino. Olivia has power and wealth and could, in essence, have anything her heart desires. The only reason to love Cesario is that she loves Cesario.
     This could explain why the joke was played on Malvolio. Maria and the rest of the servants understood his ambitions and sought to knock him down a few pegs. They knew that he liked Olivia because he wanted out of his social class and wanted to move up in the world. Playing this prank on Malvolio would ensure this never to happen. However, I don't think they would have done this simply just to prevent him from achieving his goal. I definitely get the sense that Malvolio thinks he is better than the rest of the servants and the joke is probably played on him because, to put it simply, the guy is a dick.
     So anyway, social class is definitely prevalent in the play and I won't downplay its presence. As I wrote this blog I began to realize that it may be a bit more important than I originally thought but it's still no main theme. If this was on the AICE test I could probably write a bit about it but I hope it's not.

Gender is a social construct

     Ok so here we are. We've watched the movie and listened to the play. But nobody has yet dared to ask: what do I, Vincent Piranio, think of it? Well, to put it simply I thought the ending of the movie was much funnier than the end of the play (considering we never read the ending of the play but when comparing the end of the movie to the beginning of the play I do find the former the funnier of the two). Let's get one thing straight right at the beginning. I love awkward romance. I think it's super cringy but it's also stupid funny when it plays out. Personally, I would try to find a happy balance between the two ways in directing the play. In all honesty, my direction is based off my initial perception of each character in the play.
     I really liked how Olivia's character was portrayed as this romantic type. I don't really believe that her romance should be seen as funny. If anyone should be treated as a romantic it should be her. Her backstory is quite tragic but it is very glossed over even though it is quite important in terms of the plot and why Viola attempts to work for her. Her love should be seen in its truest form. Truly earnest and selfless for Cesario. I don't really think it should be seen as funny as Scalia puts it. He says that it's funny that she falls in love so fast but I would not direct it like that. In my stage direction, Olivia would be sincerely in love but the audience would feel bad for her because we know the one that she loves does not share the same feelings (Viola/Cesario). Olivia's love would continue not to be reciprocated and Orsino. I think the summarize, Olivia's love should be portrayed as tragic as opposed to the humorous love of Orsino.
     Orsino. What a guy. This guy is what the locals call an iron chode. He's hopeless. Loveless. And nobody loves him the same way he loves them. This is where the comedy should be. I think that the play only grazes the comedy of this but the movie hits it spot on. It should be an awkward love. He should be acting like he knows what he's doing but it should be quite obvious to the audience that he does not. The bumbling buffoon of the play, if you will. His love for Olivia is completely idealized. He has no proof that they would be good for each other, and (from what the play has portrayed) has spent no time with her at all. How does he even know he loves her? The loved he has is a joke and should be treated as such.
     Augencheek. AKA Asscheek. Is he gay? Bi? Just a flamboyant heterosexual male? Well, the play and the movie see it as much different. I think his dual personality is downplayed extremely hard in the movie and I think in turn the movie missed out on a lot of the comedy Augencheek provided in the play. During Shakespearean times, this flamboyant/homosexual nature was very comedic but in a different way than it would be today. The sassy gay is in, the flamboyant gay is out. I would try to take his character into a modern twist of homosexual behavior.
     Ok, the finale. How would I direct Cesario/Viola's love? Well, in my opinion, I don't really think it holds too much weight in terms of the overall plot. I think the main part of the plot is how Orsino like Olivia but Olivia likes Cesario. I, personally, do not think that Viola's love for Orsino really matters. However, if I had to portray her love in any way I would try to find it as funny. I believe that her love holds no purpose for any tragic undertone so it should add the comedy of the overall play. Shakespeare knew what he was doing in trying to make his audience laugh. I think the audio of the play got much closer to the original intent than the movie. If I had to pick one way to do it I would follow the audio. However, I think a combination of both in different ways would be ideal.

Love is hard. (Like Scalia's ax-helve for grading blogs)

     In Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake, Nikhil goes through three separate relationships: Ruth, Maxine, and Moushumi. These relationships range from seriousness due to Nikhil’s growing maturity throughout the novel. Each relationship is a testament to how much Nikhil grows as a character and how he becomes more in touch with his personal identity.
     The big beginning: Ruth. When he first meets Ruth, Nikhil had never been in a serious relationship. When he met her on the train they immediately struck up conversation. Ruth was a way for Nikhil to become someone new. She had not previously known his as Gogol, nor was she a Bengali. This was his opportunity to try out the American lifestyle that he so desperately wanted. However, being the young couple they were, when they were separated from each other their love faded. They were not together long enough to have enough memories to look back on when they missed each other at night. The extension of Ruth’s stay in England sealed the deal for the death of their relationship. While intense in the beginning, it was not meant to last. When dealing with a long distance relationship like that, there needs to be a large enough base to look back on. To love. So once you are together again, it seems as if no time as passed at all. This was the first failure of Nikhil in the love department. Both Nikhil and Ruth fell out of love.
     The sequel: Maxine, or Max for short. This was the true American. Owning a townhouse in the suburbs, having a vacation property in another state. Nikhil was still looking for an escape from his Bengali heritage, he did not hate it or anything to that extreme, he just refused to take part in traditions that he felt were not a part of him. So he instead participated in American traditions with Max. This worked for a while. He was happy and she was happy. However, with the death of his father, Nikhil changed. He did not grow to hate Max or anything to that effect, but he did begin to grow out of love for her. She didn’t like how she was uninvited to many of Ganguli family events and this began to turn her off of Nikhil. His father’s death had turned him cold to love. This could be because he subconsciously blamed Max for taking away time that could have been spent with Ashoke before his death, but the novel never explicitly says why Nikhil falls out of love with Max. This time is was just Nikhil to fall out of love.
     The final act: Moushumi. This one was a Bengali. After his father’s death, Nikhil had a newfound love and admiration for his family and culture. While still not wanting to fully partake in all the traditions that being a Bengali entailed, he loved being a part of his family again. His mother had pushed him to meet up with Moushumi, to his displeasure he did. However, to his surprise he actually really liked being with her. This relationship got really serious. So serious it turned into a marriage. A somewhat traditional Bengali wedding. Both the bride and groom were wearing traditional Bengali wedding dress, and the food was Indian. This wedding was the culmination of Nikhil’s journey of trying to prevent himself from partaking in his Bengali heritage. This time Nikhil was very happy but his lover was secretly not. Nikhil kept telling himself that everything was fine and that the two of them were happy together. However, much to his dismay, he finds out that Moushumi had been having an affair with a long lost lover of hers. His journey had reached rock bottom. Finally, it was just Moushumi to fall out of love.
     At first it was both, then just Nikhil, then his lover. His love life was integral to the growing of his character, as he became increasingly aware of his own identity. Was he a Bengali or an American? Everything in this book comes back to that. When is it right to abandon those you love for something else you love? Nikhil has to deal with that his entire life. Is it right to live the way you want, but leaving your parent’s wishes behind?

Millions of families suffer every year. (Go to Danya's for the first part)

     In Jhumpa Lahiri’s The Namesake, identity is a huge part of what makes up the character’s motivation and personalities. In the novel, cultural clash and traditional values plays a large role of the many families that Nikhil joins throughout. Nikhil has two families throughout the novel: his own and Maxine’s. Nikhil also suffers from his own personal identity crisis throughout the entire novel that isn’t resolved until the very end.
     Within the Ganguli family is where most of the culture clash is centralized. His parents are entirely Bengali, but they also believe their children to be Bengali. This is where the trouble starts. Sonia and Nikhil see themselves as American, not Bengali. They like to participate in American traditions and fun, not the events their parents have brought over from India. Christmas celebrations become a staple at the Ganguli household, however Ashima tries to keep it as secular as possible to avoid the religious meaning behind the holiday. She simply wants her children to enjoy the American way of life, and with that comes, Christmas: Hallmark Edition. During Nikhil’s childhood birthdays, he always had two. One for his American friends and one for a Bengali celebration. This was the difference between the two generations: the need to constantly come back to their heritage. Sonia and Nikhil see no need to surround themselves with other Bengalis, like their parents do. Ashoke and Ashima seem to be friends with every Bengali on the East Coast but their children couldn’t seem to care less about the heritage of their friends. The older generation is still clinging on to the past, while the younger generation is looking towards the future by becoming more American, since they were born and raised here. Nikhil’s identity is torn, does he want to please his parents by acting like a Bengali or does he want to please himself by being an American?
     Within Maxine’s family, Nikhil discovers something he never had known: lack of responsibility or duty to one’s parents. From Nikhil’s point of view, Maxine seems to be able do as she pleases, her parents will be happy either way. The couple can live in Maxine’s parents’ home, eat Maxine’s parents’ food, and go on vacation with Maxine’s parents without worrying about criticism or following certain rules. This is an American family, Nikhil comes to realize. This is what he has been striving for his whole life. But he comes to realize that this isn’t his world. He doesn’t belong living this life nor does he want to. After the death of his father, he realizes that his place is with his family not with someone else’s. His identity is called into question once again. Is he a Ganguli or a Ratliff? This leads him to find love with Moushumi, a Bengali that he met when he was a child (I know Scalia, the love blog will come next but don’t get mad at me if I say similar things in both blogs). He returns to what his family wants and what his culture requires. He ends up marrying Moushumi because he truly believes he has found who he is. He believes himself to be a Bengali.
     However, he is proven wrong once again. Moushumi has an affair with a long lost lover, this ends in divorce for Nikhil. The path that he thought was right for him had just slapped him in the face. Neither the American life nor the Bengali life seemed to be who he truly was. While it is never explicitly revealed as to what is best for Nikhil, as the novel ends shortly after his divorce, I believe that he must learn to accept that there is no perfect culture for him to identify with. His journey ends when he learns to accept himself, not what others think of him. Cultural identity is extremely important to him but he understands that his father did not choose America to live in because he wanted to be American, he chose to come here because he wanted to be the best version of himself and America would allow him to do that. It’s not about the culture, it’s about who you are.

Take me to your leader. (Get it? Alien-ation)

          In Juhmpa Lahiri's The Namesake, there are many instances in which the main characters experience a sort of alienation from the rest of the world. Whether it be through the emigration from their home country or leaving their immediate family for the first time for college or work. Lahiri uses these moments of alienation in each of the character's lives to have a chance to let them evolve, grow, or show an aspect of their personality previously unknown to the audience.
     The biggest use of alienation in the novel would be the Ganguli's separation from their homeland. This mostly pertains to Ashoke and Ashima, as they were the only ones to previously live in India; their children, Sonia and Nikhil, visit India often but have no sense of home when there. Ashoke and Ashima have both come to America in order to pursue Ashoke's career as an engineer. Ashima feels the brunt of this alienation from her homeland because she feels as if she has no purpose in America. Afterall, she is only there because of the arranged marriage to Ashoke. At the beginning of the novel, she is often left home alone when Ashoke works at the university or when the kids are at all school. It is shown that often feels homesick for the country that holds her parents, cousins, and other loved ones. On their periodic trips back to India, Ashima and Ashoke are shown as happy and outgoing as opposed to their reserved nature back in America. The alienation from their real home has changer their personalities and forces them to take on new lives.
     Later on in the novel, following the death of Ashoke, Nikhil is sent to his father’s apartment to collect or dispose of his things. He sits there, alone, isolated from the outside world. His girlfriend, Maxine, calls and tells him to not stay in his father’s apartment but to get a hotel room, a request which he ignores. This is the moment that spells the end for their relationship. Nikhil feels alone, as he should, and the one person trying to reach out and help him find his way in the darkness is ignored. The moment in his father’s apartment, offers Nikhil a form of clarity that being with others would not allow. Lahiri uses Nikhil’s isolation from his family and girlfriend to change his character for the better. He seems to regret leaving his family so often, this is a cliche story of how a child seems to have no time for his family but then before they know it, it’s too late.
     When Gogol goes to the courthouse to legally change his name to Nikhil, he is alone. The narrator points out how the event is not ceremonious nor is there anyone there to celebrate with him. He simply tells the judge that he hates his name and he request is accepted. He is completely isolated at this moment. Lahiri again uses alienation here to allow for a large change in one of her character’s. The name that Nikhil abhorred for so long is no longer with him, a huge turning point in his life and yet he is alone. Even after this name change Nikhil sometimes shows symptoms of isolation. He is technically a new person. When he looks at his old schoolwork, it all has the name Gogol written on top, not Nikhil. Nikhil has not yet lived, and now Gogol is dead. He is alone in this new world he has created for himself.
     It seems that Lahiri likes to use alienation or isolation during important events in the character’s lives. Ashima is alone when Ashoke dies, Nikhil is alone in his Father’s apartment, the Ganguli’s are alone in an unfamiliar country that they now live in. Alienation is an important tool used by Lahiri to show that great change has happened in one of the characters, usually through sadness. However, at the end of the novel, Nikhil is found in his childhood room, alone. He is happy because he can finally read the book his father had bought for him so long ago. This is the one time alienation/isolation is used in a positive manner in the novel and yet it still shows a big change in Nikhil’s character. He has finally come to accept his birth name. Previously he had refused to read any of Gogol’s work because for whatever reason he felt that if he did, it would be admitted defeat to the name he so despised. Now here he is, reading Gogol’s work, thinking of his father, happy.

Baby don't hurt me.

     What is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me. No more. What is love in Twelfth Night? Well, I think it's a joke. I only think I've read about three of his plays (Macbeth, Hamlet, and possibly A Midsummer Nights Dream). Yet another example of the school system failing me, according to Scalia. So I'm just going to assume Twelfth Night is very unique in the sense in which it portrays love. In Romeo and Juliet, I hear it is very tragic. The two main characters fall into a forbidden love and then die for each other three days later. Honestly sounds pretty far fetched and stupid to me. But then again I've never actually read it (I've seen Gnomeo and Juliet tho so that's basically the same as reading the play). In Twelfth Night love is portrayed as being very funny. Love triangles, homosexuals and cross-dressing all wrapped up into a nice little package. Shakespeare at his finest.
     When taking a step back, at least at the point where we're at in the play, love can be seen from two points of view. From the audience's or from the characters'. The audience knows that Orsino likes Olivia, but Olivia like Viola/Cesario, but Viola/Cesario likes Orsino. What a conundrum. It's supposed to seem funny because we know that while each thinks that no one with love them back they actually do have a secret admirer. However, Viola/Cesario has recently come to the realization that Olivia has a crush on him. We'll have to see how that plays out. This is also funny for the audience because we know that Viola/Cesario is actually only Viola. A female. And yet the Lady Olivia has fallen into a bit of a crush for another female. In Shakespearean times I guess this was funny. At least it was supposed to be.
     From the characters' point of view it is seen as very tragic. They can not be with the ones they love because nobody seems to reciprocate their feelings. Olivia has to constantly turn Orsino down every time he tries to woo her into loving him. After a while it could be seen as quite pathetic from the audience's point of view. However, Orsino still has intense feelings for Olivia; her saying no is not just going to flip a switch in his brain to stop liking her. Love does not work that way. Orsino even goes as far to say that no one can ever love someone as strongly as he loves Olivia. How tragic. So, in conclusion, love is portrayed in the play from two different perspectives: the comedic and the tragic. It all depends on what point of view you look at it with.
     Now let's forget about Twelfth Night for a little bit. Let's look at real life. Are there different kinds of love? Yes. Now I'm not about to hit you with a bunch of the "7 or whatever different kinds of loves" from a freshmen year psych textbook. I'm just going to be sharing my opinion on the matter. I think there are about 3 main different kinds of love: familial, romantic, and love for an action/object. I think those are the big 3 but there are definitely subsets within each main one. I'm mostly just going to focus on the first two because the last one doesn't really matter in this context.
     Familial love is all about the love you may or may not have for you parents, siblings, those closest to you, your dog, or even your pet fish, Brian, and the love that all these things or people may or may not have for you. You do not have to be related to someone to feel familial love (That's kind of a different argument of whether or not your family is your blood or those you choose to surround yourself with). Familial love is extremely strong. It is not easily broken. Especially parental and blood love. That type of love is nearly impossible to break once established. You can mess up again, and again, and again but your parents will continue to love you even if they do not show it. Even in the Big Sick, Kumail's parents decide to disown him but in the end we see that his mother still makes him his favorite food for his cross country journey. Again, this type of love (once established) is very hard to break. The thing that makes this love special is that you can both be unable to choose who you feel it for or you can. Friends can be turned into family even without blood relation if you have familial love for them.
     Romantic love is slightly different. You have to pick this. Hang on let me rephrase that. You might not have a choice in the matter because sometimes we love those we can not have. What I mean is that this type of love has nothing to do with blood relations. This is also joined with sexual feelings. If you have intense feelings for someone but not sexual you may either just be asexual or have very strong familial love for them. This type of love tends to be the most tragic because of the dangers of it being not reciprocated. This is where Twelfth Night comes in. It is just a buffet of not reciprocated love. This type of love tends to be very idealized within a person if it is not acted upon. For example, while Orsino believes he has very strong feelings for Olivia, if Olivia and him were to get together he may find she is not what he thought she was. This type of love also tends to expire more quickly than familial. Sometimes romantic love just runs out. That is why I believe it is the weakest of the two I talked about.
     I have one more love to talk about and it is the strongest of all loves there are. My love for Keith Scalia. It will live on into eternity and will never die. Now if only he would say "I love you" back.

Sweet Bird of a Boring Play

     So let's start off by saying I did not really enjoy the play. It is to my understanding that most if not every person in our class did not enjoy the play. In my opinion, it didn't really go anywhere and it wasn't very entertaining. However, when reading the criticisms (I didn't know what criticism meant in this context so I looked it up. According to Google it is the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.) of the play I began to think more about the inherent message behind the characters and events rather than the narrative's main story. When reading each criticism I had a hard time looking past my initial thoughts on how pointless the play seemed to be at first glance. I still hold that opinion however, each essay actually gave me ideas on what I should actually write on the AICE test. I was really at a loss for what I would even talk about on the test but this really helped.
     Ok now that we got that out of the way, let me start by saying I don’t fully agree with any of the criticisms. However, I do for the most part like the approach Annette Petrusso took in her criticism of the play (I feel like I’m overusing the word criticism). I like the idea that Chance’s whole character arc and struggle is based upon the fact that he is denying his own reality. He comes back to St. Cloud in order to try to regain his former glory because deep down he knows that things have not worked out in his life the way he expected them to. Petrusso talks about how Chance is trying to create this false illusion of himself to the townspeople, he wants to make them think that he made it big, even though the “Princess purchased his clothes, the wad of money he flashes in act 2 is hers, and the Cadillac he drives is hers.” Essentially, he is in denial of how much a failure he truly is. He thinks that just because he signed the contract with Princess it will change everything. Sadly, he's used up all of his chances to truly make it big.
     He’s too old to start now and Princess knows it. I would also like to point out that I do agree with Foster Hirsch’s assessment on the point of Princess’ character as she is “necessary only as a thematic reinforcement of Chance’s lust for success and his fear of growing older.” However, I would like to add to that and say that she also serves as Chance’s last chance to become a star. When she leaves for Hollywood after she finds out that her comeback was a success, Chance elects to stay behind and accept his fate. I disagree with Hirsch when he says Princess only represents Chance’s lust for success and fear of aging, I believe she also represents how much denial Chance is in but in the reverse. She sees herself as a failure, doomed to never succeed again. However, she turned out to be a huge success in her new movie. Chance on the other hand sees himself as someone who has yet to make it big but has the potential to be on top, to be the greatest. He thinks that one big movie with the Princess’ contract is all it will take for him to make it big. This shows that Chance is in extreme denial. He has no talent and no chance at making it big. I believe that Princess and Chance are supposed to mirror each other which brings me to the point about the mirror.
     When Chance forces Princess to look in the mirror she can finally see clearly who she is: “Alexandra Del Lago, artist and star!”, Chance on the other hand is nothing. Alice Griffin says that the mirror is meant to show the difference between the two characters; however, I disagree. I believe the mirror is supposed to emphasize the amount of denial Chance truly is in. In a way the mirror breaks down the grand illusion he has created for himself, but it’s not the mirror that directly causes this. It is Princess that attempts to wake Chance up out of his dream world. Princess says to Chance: “But you? You’ve come back to a town you were born in, to a girl that won’t see you because you put such rot in her body” that she had to get a hysterectomy. Chance is still in denial even when staring himself straight in the mirror. I think this really backs up Petrusso’s claims that Chance is in denial of his life and how it has turned out.
     Anyway, I enjoyed reading the essays and I really think they offered great perspective on how to better interpret the play and write about it for the AICE test. For the most part I believe the three authors had some similar opinions on parts of the play but the prompt forced me into finding parts from the two other essays that I, and therefore Petrusso, disagree with. The reason I picked Petrusso’s essay is because I thought it made the most sense without stretching the play too thin attempting to look for meaning. I agree with the main points made by each author but I found the way the other two went about backing it up to be unbelievable at parts. Ok well I’m pretty tired right now and I’ve been writing this for about two hours. Love you Scalia, hope you’re having a good weekend. Or week. It really depends when you read this.