Hold the Anchovies

The opening scenes of both plays give an exposition that foreshadows the bloody violence that unravels throughout the scenes. Both the scenes present two main male characters advocating for something. In Julius Caesar, Falvius and Murellus are scolding citizens for have such appraisal and acniticpaiton for the return of Caesar for the military triumph, while in Titus Andronicus, Saturninus and Bassianus are asking the massesto determine who shoudl succeed to the throne.

Julius Caesar seems to have the elements of revenge in tragedy in the forthcoming scenes just as Titus Andronicus' main element is revenge. The idea of conspiracies to achieve power or take power from others is prevalent in both plays as well. The opening scene is also smiinar to that of Titus andronicus in the senese that the reader can tell that both are depicting England's anxiety over the succession of leadership. Honor and patriotism are again seen as main elements that drive the characters to make the decisions they do but also serve as major conflicts within the characters self and opposing characters, just as we see in Titus Andronicus.

Falvius and Murellus plan to control the power rather than the traditional family lineage of succession which has led to chaotic turmoil in the past. In this sense, Titus and Andronicus is similar in that different characters are fighting for the power of the deceased emperor of rome.

You're falling for Richard III.

It seems as though quite often someone is dating a great guy, a nice, sweet guy, but that's just the problem, "He's too nice."  We don't know why but we all want the evil one. We want Richard. Here's Why:

I think the most dominating characteristics that makes a villain a villain is their ability to manipulate, and we see this within the character of  Richard lll towards the play characters and the audience.  

In the very first scene of Act 1, Richard goes on his tirade about his villainous ways stemming from his traumatizing life lacking love and suffering from a daunting physical deformity.  While he speaks of this, the audience is drawn into believing the other characters in the play are the evil ones for ridiculing his helpless appearance, and that we ought to sympathize with Richard despite his thoughts and actions.

We also see Richard possessing a complicated and intricate mind full of self-reflection and intellect. It is the "brains" that often make a villain as menacing as he/she seems to be. Have we ever seen a truly evil villain who is foolish, and simple minded? The Joker in Batman may be as evil and chilling as he seems because of his unparalleled thoughts and theories and plans. They would have no success without their 'brains," which also correlates directly to the unnerving ability to manipulate. 

Richard's  foolhardiness and perseverance lead him to not stop at anything to achieve his schemes, and his mental state of pure wickedness allow him to disregard the normal moral and ethical dilemmas a non-villainous person would adhere to.

So his villainous traits lead him to both manipulate and also impress us, so it is this awe and sympathy that blind us from his real nature. And it's not just the audience that falls victim to this. Lady Anne, who knows very much of Richard's true self and true motives and desires, still somehow allows herself to fall into his seduction. He relentlessness and intelligent wit with words plays into this. 

It is not until the end that we can fall out of his trance to see how evil he really is, as his nature becomes explicitly apparent. So after he charms your parents when you bring him home, and after countless dates, you'll realize you should have never left that guy who was just too nice... 

I'll have the Shakespeare shake (Titus Andronicus con'td)

The question of right or wrong in this play can be better described in a sense of sympathy for the characters or lack of. Upon reading the entire play, my feeligns towards the chracters varied immensely. Although in my first post I discuss how the honor does not surpass the excessive killing, I now see the characters actions as more of concern of a means to an end. As I said in class, a praying mantises way of reproduction falls along the same lines. The male rapes the female, and the female attacks back, biting his head off and eating it, yet it still impregnates her. The comparison I am trying to make here is that when we learn of this or maybe see this take place, we immediately have negative feelings toward the male and think his actions are wrong. But as angry as this may make us, the male is doing this for a cause, he is continuing his species existence. So as Titus killing his own son may seem very wrong, he is doing it for the sake of carrying on the honor. And with the other characters who kill, they kill for their country. So when you look at the play at a whole, this is what I mean of it all being done for a means to an end.

But then again, the female praying mantis does not cook the male into a pie and serve it to the queen praying mantis. Not really a praying mantis dessert delicacy. So revenge is another thing...

Titus Andronicus

The vengeance and malice present in the entirety of the first two acts seems almost excessive. But the repetition of the perils of the 'hole' whether it be a hole in the ground or the 'female hole' does not seem as excessive, as its different uses through varying metaphors, language, and diction prove to be symbolic and works well in the play. 

Examples from act 2 scene 3 are as follows:

"this abhorred pit" 

"some loathsome pit" 

  "this unhallowed and bloodstained hole"

  "this fell devouring receptacle" 

  "this gaping hollow of the earth" 

My reaction in terms of sympathy to the characters as the play progressed in the opening scenes changed from me understanding of  pride in their men and their country, to a feeling of them having an unwarranted sense of audacity, and the thought that they were over stepping their boundaries. Pride and virtue, tradition and vengeance, all got tangled in a the mens pursuit of lust and anger.

The Romans being praised as civil and the Goths as barbarous seems like an inaccurate as their actions lead them to be portrayed otherwise. The importance of Honor is taken to far as Titus slays his own son, without doubt, for that sake of that virtue. That to me is more barbaric then civil.