I do not respect Lancelot, the servant of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. He had no right to leave his master, Shylock the Jew, in the midst of a crisis (Shylock's daughter eloped with a Christian). Furthermore, not only did he suddenly abandon his fair master, but Lancelot immediately offered his services to Shylock's archnemises, Antonio. Maybe Lancelot was only carrying out his father's wishes, and 'honoring thy parent' is an honorable deed. But if respecting your father's wishes means disrespecting another human being, then 'honor thy father' no longer applies. It is now a matter of human decency and morals. A child should try to do as their parents please, but within reason. And there was no apparent good reason for Lancelot to do his master, who was not unkind, such a disservice and dishonor. The only reason I can come up with is antisemitism, which is not a valid reason at all.

In Shakespeare's King Lear, the fool and Edgar may be minor chracters, but in actuality, they play vital roles in Lear's tragic tale. The fool is the only person in the play who, from beginning to end, has insight as to what is really going on. He understands the truth, and attempts to relay it to the poor king under the guise of seemingly senseless songs. Had the king paid closer attention to his fool's wise words, he may have realized the faultiness in his "love test" much sooner, and perhaps this tragedy would have had a happy ending.

As it turns out, however, the king's true epiphany is brought about by another secondary character named Edgar. Edgar's illegitimate brother Edmund set him up for banishment and hatred from his father, which is how noble Edgar wound up as Tom the pitiful naked fool. "Tom" ended up speaking with King Lear in Lear's time of mad desperation during the wild storm. Edgar, who was unclothed and blunt, made King Lear realize that "nothing" is something to be embraced and respected, for talk is cheap and true justice is served through nature and not custom, as one may mistakenly think. In other words, Edgar aided the king in having his epiphany of his tragic flaw, and to understand how he wronged his most beloved daughter Cordelia.

Both the fool and Edgar are comic creatures on the outsides, but wise men on the inside. They are the only ones in this sad tale who know the ruth about King Lear and his familial conflicts. The only difference between the two vital characters is, that King Lear chose to ignore the fool and dismiss his silly remarks as meaningless, while Edgar's seemingly nonsensical words and actions caused the flawed king to have his ultimate epiphany.

Edmund, the illegitimate son of Gloucester, would rather visit Costa Rica than Paris. Since he is a strong believer in nature as opposed to custom with its many rules, he'd choose see a place filled with natural wonders, such as the rain forests and volcanoes which exist in Costa Rica. Since Edmund has been mistreated and labeled all his life because he was of "natural" birth rather than the offspring of a legal marriage, he resents civilization and all the laws that come with it. He would have absolutely no interest in a city rich with culture and art. Being that society had rejected Edmund and not given him the same respect they gave his legitimately-born brother Edgar, Edmund would probably not care-maybe even scorn- the history of a society and advances its made over time. He'd much rather travel to a place where he would be free to live his own life, away from his fellow discriminating and rule-bound men. That is why Edmund of Shakespeare's King Lear would choose to visit Costa Rica over Paris.

My class and gender affect my life in certain ways. The place where my gender plays the most crucial role is in my house. I am treated differently than my brother because I am a girl. There are more restrictions placed upon me than on my brother. For example, I am not allowed to hang out at night. My brother, on the other hand, is free to drive anyplace he chooses so long as he is home within a reasonable hour. Furthermore, my parents have different expectations from my brother. If he receives mediocre grades in school, that's fine. But the minute my grades slip to the average range, my parents become concerned. They think that as long as my brother knows what's going on, he doesn't need the grades to prove it. Another way we differ is in our familial "roles". While I clear the dinner dishes on Friday night, my brother should be reading torah. My situation is analogous to the character is The Taming of the Shrew. Just as I as a female am expected to be home more often than my brother and my freedoms are more limited, so to Baptista restricts his daughters to inside his house frequently and gives them orders they are supposed to follow. The male characters in Taming of the Shrew, on the other hand, are independent, free to do what they like, when they like. Both my father and Baptista of Italy are overprotective of their priceless daughters. I'm sure that if Baptista had a son, he wouldn't pressure him half as much as he did his daughters to attract a suitor and get married.

Given the choice whether I can associate more with Petruchio or Katherine in Act IV Scene 1 of Taming of the Shrew, I'd say I can identify with Petruchio. He "tames" his previously defiant and free-spirited wife by starving her, preventing her from sleeping, and generally causing difficulties for her to act the way she would have if she was given her way. Similarly, I attempted to train my little sister Kaden not to misbehave. When Kaden was two years old she liked to throw toys all over the place carelessly, so that sometimes they landed on people's heads which hurt to some degree. I was able to tolerate the mess, because I am aware of the fact that little kids are prone to make messes by way of having fun. But when the toys hit me in the face and she didn't even care to stop chucking things everywhere, I took action. First I told her to stop, and when she didn't listen, I threatened her with "time-out". When she again did not obey, I took her to the corner of the den and told her sternly that she would stay there until she behaved nicely (obviously, I spoke in terms a two-year old could understand). When she screamed and cried in time-out, I resisted the urge to scoop her up and hug her, because if I did that, she'd never learn her lesson. So I kept telling her that if she played nicely with the toys I'd let he go. Eventually, she stopped fighting with me and asked if she could play with her toys in a very sweet tone of voice. So I let he play, reminding her not to throw the toys or she'd wind up in time-out again. She must've taken this warning to heart, for she didn't throw her toys at anyone anymore. My story with Kaden is comparable with Petruchio's dealings with Katherine, because both Petruchio and I attempted to "tame" the other person by some sort of punishment. Fortunately, both stories ended successfully. But one important difference between Petruchio and I, is that he enjoyed taming Katherine and getting her to succumb to his will, while I was simply trying to teach Kaden an important life lesson that it's not nice to hurt people. For this reason I cannot fully identify with Petruchio's character in Act IV (but I can assosiate with him more than I can with Kate.)

I can no longer tolerate my overprotective father. I know he means well and only wants to do good by me, but he goes about it entirely wrong. Does he honestly believe I wish to be treated like a young, immature child, retreating inside the house for security the moment my older sister acts rudely? I can handle her, even if she does smack me occasionally. I only wish I could prove that I am not the goody-good girl everybody thinks I am. I live under the guise of a quiet, obedient, tame lady. Well, that is a total deception. My father expects me to get married the minute Katherine has a man to call her own, for I have many suitors vying for my hand. Katherine, on the other hand, is often called a shrew behind her back (I know this because I don't always retire into the house like I'm told). No man wishes to wed an outspoken, disobedient, rash, insensitive person. Hence Katherine remains unmarried, while I must bide my time till it is my turn. I am not a 'feminist' by the definition of the extreme word, but I do admire Katherine for standing up to men so, and demanding that she have the same rights as any other male in Italy. Yet, as much as I secretly look up to Katherine, I maintain my "good girl" image. I am aware that I am not being true to myself, but I have no choice. I lack the courage Katherine seems to possess in abundance to defy my father, never mind my suitors, just as my sister does. I suppose I will eventually marry and be the loyal perfect wife everyone expects me to be, for I am almost positive that Katherine's dowry is enough to tempt some man to take her as his wife. And when that happens, Katherine will be forced to marry, as will I soon thereafter. But the difference is, she will oppose her wedlock openly, while I only in a clandestine manner, so no one shall know what I truly believe.

Note: The author of the postings below has been accused of treason to Her Highness the Queen and will be dealt will accordingly. He shall be heard from nevermore. ~ BPF (British Police Force)

Poor Mr. Lopez. That unfortunate physician just got sent to his shameful death while a mass of townspeople looked on eagerly. Now, if a criminal was receiving justice for some heinous act of violence, I'm all for his hanging. But Roderigo Lopez, the Queen's loyal doctor, was a different case. His so-called "trial" (a misnomer if you ask me) was no trial at all once his arch-nemesis Earl of Essex came to the stand;rather, it was merely a chance for the accused to receive one final blow at his reputation. Really, how the man kept his composure is beyond me. Especially considering the reaction he got from the public when he spoke the last words of his innocent life, with all the sincerity a man possesses moments before his death. "I loved the Queen as much as I do Jesus!" Lopez cried out, for he allegedly plotted the Queen's death by poisoning in cahoots with much-hated Catholic King of Spain. This utterance of desperate truth was met with (I regretfully recount), laughter on behalf of the bloodthirsty public. The once-respected man was reduced to a mere mockery. Not a soul took his words seriously, as Lopez was born a Jew and his conversion was never considered sincere. Thanks to Marlowe's dreadfully anti-Semitic play "The Jew of Malta" and Essex' persistent testimony, the public believed Lopez to be a villainous, traitorous Jew. One may ask how I am so certain of my controversial convictions. I simply reply that having previously lived in a land where Jews are common citizens, I know they are not an evil people like England makes them out to be. In fact, Jews are among the most dutiful and forthright people I know (or at least, used to know). Aside from the fact that I'd firmly believe Lopez' innocence had he been a practicing Jew, pure logic is all that is needed to assert the man's innocence. The Earl, being the anti-Semite anti-Catholic he is, concocted this story of Lopez and the King of Spain for his own personal satisfaction. Moreover, Essex resented Lopez ever since the virtuous man disclosed the Earl's sly plan to the Queen, which was to recruit Lopez as a member of Essex' own powerful gang. One must possess only an untainted mind to see through the lies and framing to realize the truth staring him in the face. Which, I concede, is almost (if not completely) an impossibility in Jew-hating England.