Hello,
This is my first post on the forums. I was assigned an open-ended 3-5 page essay on A Midsummer Night's Dream. I turned in a draft and got a 3.0. Now I have the option to re-write it for a new grade. Below is my new draft based on my teacher's notes on the first draft. Let me know what you think. It's pretty unpolished at this point, and very rough and probably not too flowing. I can attach the teacher's notes if needed.
Bottom: Ignoramus, or Ground Breaking Innovator?
In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare writes his characters to mean something. Each and every trait is given deliberately. Bottom is one such character. Bottom is a weaver by day, a playwright by night, and an ignoramus all the time. This trait is intentionally given to Bottom to use as a power for Shakespeare to challenge social conventions. Bottom is given this power of ignorance by Shakespeare to subtly challenge typical sociological organization.
Bottom's status as working class man fosters an ability that lets him challenge the social boundary between working and higher class. Bottom's environment has done nothing to change his ignorance, and has in fact encouraged it. For example he assures the reader that "some plaster, or some loam, or some/roughcast" (3.1.67) is all that is needed to portray a realistic wall, and none of the members of his crew object. Shakespeare wrote Bottom this way on purpose, as it gives him power. Bottom is unable to comprehend typical social boundaries and is ignorant to their constraint on him, allowing him to play by his own rules. As a result his ignorance allows him to see past the limitations of his social class, to the point where he is completely oblivious to "his place". The royalty that attend Bottom's play are of higher class and education, making them bound to follow the rules of social convention. They attempt to assert their dominance over Bottom and his working class battalion by mocking how "the moon shines/with a good grace" (5.1.282-283). Because Bottom is ignorant to these conventions he foils their efforts to group him socially, and thus challenges the organization between working and upper class. This is one of many examples of how Bottom's ignorance allows him to blur an established social boundary making him not just a weaver by trade, but also a "weaver between worlds". Shakespeare uses this power through the rest of play, challenging social organization in various forms.
Shakespeare uses Bottom's power to challenge the institution of theater. Bottom directs the "play-within-the-play" with naivety as his main inspiration. Bottom insists that Snug, the actor portraying the lion, claim he is "no such thing; [he is] a man as/other men are" (3.1.43-44). Bottom's foolishness has led him to believe that doing so would be a safe pursuit, but such a direction muddles the relationship between audience and stage that defines theater. As a result, Bottom is interweaving the worlds of fantasy and reality. The audience knows that he is "no such [lion]", but the convention of theater is that the audience suspends disbelief and buy into the reality of it. Bottom is challenging the audience "not to fear, not to tremble" (3.1.41), which brings the definition of reality and fantasy into question. The perception of what is real and what is fantasy is changed drastically. When the performance commences, the royal audience begins to debate whether the lion is "a goose for his discretion" or perhaps that "his discretion...cannot carry his valor" (5.1.246-247). The audience is debating the authenticity and validity of a minor role such as the lion, challenging the definition of what is a real lion and what a performance of a lion is. Viewers of A Midsummer Night's Dream would see the reaction of the audience members (similar to themselves) understanding this innovative technique, and this would evoke similar thoughts in themselves.
Shakespeare uses Bottom's ability to question the social construct of perception based on what others tell you to think. Bottom is notable for being the only non-faire to interact with fairies throughout the whole play. Had it not been for Bottom's interaction with Titania, the "fairies" could be a thematic symbol that wasn't real. Instead thanks to Bottom beautifully articulating that "reason and love keep little company" (3.1.145-146) the fairies are understood as beings that have a valid place in this world. Bottom was able to break the barrier between the social standard for what is real and what isn't due to his ignorance. He stumbled into the woods because he was ignorant enough to have a dress rehearsal in the woods and despite having the head of an ass, and being courted by a faerie didn't care and thought of it as normal. While most normal characters and people would question this situation, Shakespeare uses Bottom's ignorance to challenge the idea of "what is real". Shakespeare uses the extreme example of fairies to make the point that while society will tell you to believe that something or someone isn't real, first hand experience should be your main foundation for validating someone or something's existence. In Midsummer, the fairies were established as fake, but Bottom's ignorance showed audiences that this assumption is false. While the majority of people would define others as less valid than themselves, this may not be the truth. Shakespeare suggesting that people should assign validity based on their own individual experiences, not based on the social definition of what is real and what isn't. Essentially, people should play dumb like Bottom would and shape their own opinions of other's validity.
Robin says "lord what fools these mortals be!" (3.2.117)
Bottom is many things, most of which is ignorant. This trait is often seen as something negative. Most dim-witted people aren't expected to do great things. This is the fundamental tragedy that Bottom shows is false. Bottom is used by Shakespeare to challenge these perceptions that society tells us we should believe. And he does so all with the power of his own ignorance. This re-defines the established definition of what greats things are, and that only "smart" people can do them. Is Bottom perhaps the new definition for genius?
This is my first post on the forums. I was assigned an open-ended 3-5 page essay on A Midsummer Night's Dream. I turned in a draft and got a 3.0. Now I have the option to re-write it for a new grade. Below is my new draft based on my teacher's notes on the first draft. Let me know what you think. It's pretty unpolished at this point, and very rough and probably not too flowing. I can attach the teacher's notes if needed.
Bottom: Ignoramus, or Ground Breaking Innovator?
In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare writes his characters to mean something. Each and every trait is given deliberately. Bottom is one such character. Bottom is a weaver by day, a playwright by night, and an ignoramus all the time. This trait is intentionally given to Bottom to use as a power for Shakespeare to challenge social conventions. Bottom is given this power of ignorance by Shakespeare to subtly challenge typical sociological organization.
Bottom's status as working class man fosters an ability that lets him challenge the social boundary between working and higher class. Bottom's environment has done nothing to change his ignorance, and has in fact encouraged it. For example he assures the reader that "some plaster, or some loam, or some/roughcast" (3.1.67) is all that is needed to portray a realistic wall, and none of the members of his crew object. Shakespeare wrote Bottom this way on purpose, as it gives him power. Bottom is unable to comprehend typical social boundaries and is ignorant to their constraint on him, allowing him to play by his own rules. As a result his ignorance allows him to see past the limitations of his social class, to the point where he is completely oblivious to "his place". The royalty that attend Bottom's play are of higher class and education, making them bound to follow the rules of social convention. They attempt to assert their dominance over Bottom and his working class battalion by mocking how "the moon shines/with a good grace" (5.1.282-283). Because Bottom is ignorant to these conventions he foils their efforts to group him socially, and thus challenges the organization between working and upper class. This is one of many examples of how Bottom's ignorance allows him to blur an established social boundary making him not just a weaver by trade, but also a "weaver between worlds". Shakespeare uses this power through the rest of play, challenging social organization in various forms.
Shakespeare uses Bottom's power to challenge the institution of theater. Bottom directs the "play-within-the-play" with naivety as his main inspiration. Bottom insists that Snug, the actor portraying the lion, claim he is "no such thing; [he is] a man as/other men are" (3.1.43-44). Bottom's foolishness has led him to believe that doing so would be a safe pursuit, but such a direction muddles the relationship between audience and stage that defines theater. As a result, Bottom is interweaving the worlds of fantasy and reality. The audience knows that he is "no such [lion]", but the convention of theater is that the audience suspends disbelief and buy into the reality of it. Bottom is challenging the audience "not to fear, not to tremble" (3.1.41), which brings the definition of reality and fantasy into question. The perception of what is real and what is fantasy is changed drastically. When the performance commences, the royal audience begins to debate whether the lion is "a goose for his discretion" or perhaps that "his discretion...cannot carry his valor" (5.1.246-247). The audience is debating the authenticity and validity of a minor role such as the lion, challenging the definition of what is a real lion and what a performance of a lion is. Viewers of A Midsummer Night's Dream would see the reaction of the audience members (similar to themselves) understanding this innovative technique, and this would evoke similar thoughts in themselves.
Shakespeare uses Bottom's ability to question the social construct of perception based on what others tell you to think. Bottom is notable for being the only non-faire to interact with fairies throughout the whole play. Had it not been for Bottom's interaction with Titania, the "fairies" could be a thematic symbol that wasn't real. Instead thanks to Bottom beautifully articulating that "reason and love keep little company" (3.1.145-146) the fairies are understood as beings that have a valid place in this world. Bottom was able to break the barrier between the social standard for what is real and what isn't due to his ignorance. He stumbled into the woods because he was ignorant enough to have a dress rehearsal in the woods and despite having the head of an ass, and being courted by a faerie didn't care and thought of it as normal. While most normal characters and people would question this situation, Shakespeare uses Bottom's ignorance to challenge the idea of "what is real". Shakespeare uses the extreme example of fairies to make the point that while society will tell you to believe that something or someone isn't real, first hand experience should be your main foundation for validating someone or something's existence. In Midsummer, the fairies were established as fake, but Bottom's ignorance showed audiences that this assumption is false. While the majority of people would define others as less valid than themselves, this may not be the truth. Shakespeare suggesting that people should assign validity based on their own individual experiences, not based on the social definition of what is real and what isn't. Essentially, people should play dumb like Bottom would and shape their own opinions of other's validity.
Robin says "lord what fools these mortals be!" (3.2.117)
Bottom is many things, most of which is ignorant. This trait is often seen as something negative. Most dim-witted people aren't expected to do great things. This is the fundamental tragedy that Bottom shows is false. Bottom is used by Shakespeare to challenge these perceptions that society tells us we should believe. And he does so all with the power of his own ignorance. This re-defines the established definition of what greats things are, and that only "smart" people can do them. Is Bottom perhaps the new definition for genius?
Do You Need