Docotor Faustus- Le Essay

Last lesson Mr. Francis split the group into two small groups in order to write an essay between us. The title of the essay was, “What do you find striking about Faustus?” Straight away the advantages of working in a group of four became apparent, we each only had to submit one point, and straight away we had a basic essay plan, no wracking of brains trying to find another point. I heard points that I never would have thought of and then we all discussed each one in further detail and so already we knew exactly what to write.

However, it was at this point, when some difficulties began to arise. The designated writer for a paragraph could not concentrate on writing and discuss every word that they were thinking of writing down. This took too much time and since we were under a time limit, was near impossible. Instead, we would together discuss the next few sentences and then the current writer would write up discussed ideas in their own way. This worked very well and we managed to write more than the other group (whooo!) but it does mean that the essay does not flow as well as if we had discussed exactly what to write word for word. Another disadvantage of doing a group essay is that we wrote far less than if we were doing the essays on our own.

When I came to do my solo essay at home, I found it so much easier because we had had chance to discuss potential points and ideas. And because it was written solely, I was able to finish it the last point, something we didn’t manage as a group and so hopefully this essay should be an improvement on my last Doctor Faustus essay.

Act 5 Scene 2

This lesson we were looking at the very last scene of Dr. Faustus (whoo finally finished!). The very first stage direction of the scene is interesting because it says, “Thunder. Enter Lucipher, Beelzebub, and Mephistopheles (above).” The weather has been used to show to the audience that the upcoming scene is going to be serious and full of tension. The other part of that stage direction that is interesting is that the devil comes from above. Hell is usually associated with being down below and heaven above, and so this one direction challenges that idea. I do not know why this has been done, but maybe it is simply used to enforce that these characters are otherworldly.

Faustus’s last speech contains quite a lot of interesting ideas. The one that me and Rosie originally picked up on was where Faustus says, “Let Faustus live in hell a thousand years, a hundred thousand, and at last be saved.” This shows that Faustus accepts what he has done wrong, he sees that he has sinned, “o, if my soul must suffer for my sin,” and understands that he does deserve a punishment. However, what Faustus wants is for the punishment to come to an end and not be eternal. This is very similar to catholic purgatory, where people who have sinned receive temporary punishment from God before being allowed to be admitted to heaven.

Act 4 Scene 2

Today, we looked at act 4 scene 2. In this scene, we see that Benvolio wishes to take revenge on Faustus for giving him horns in the previous scene, “Then draw your weapons and be resolute.” Benvolio enlists the help of Martino, Frederic and some soldiers to do this. As Faustus enters the stage, Benvolio attacks Faustus, “He strikes Faustus,” and, “Benvolio strikes off Faustus’s false head.” The men then rejoice at Faustus’s apparent death, until suddenly Faustus gets up again, “Faustus rises.” Faustus then calls Mephistopheles and some other devils and they attack the men, “Take thou this other, drag him through the woods,” and “They set upon the soldiers and drive them out.”

We then discussed how this scene in the play could have been performed, looking specifically at the stage direction, “Enter Faustus with a false head.” This is to aid Faustus in pretending to have been decapitated, however it is unclear whether, when being performed, the audience would have been able to tell that Faustus is faking his death. Faustus could be wearing a fake head very similar to a human head, which would make the audience think that Faustus had died when Benvolio attacks him. This would make the resurrection of Faustus more shocking to the audience as they thought him dead, and so it reinforces the power of the devil and hell as Faustus as seemingly just come back from the dead. However, if Faustus were to come on the stage wearing an obviously fake head, and allow the audience to be in on the trick, allow them to see him putting on the fake head. This would make the scene more humorous as the audience knows something that the other actors don’t.

Act 3- scene 1 and scene 2.

We looked at these two scenes in act 3, scene 2 and scene 3, to highlight Marlowe’s use of comedy and serious content in different scenes. Both scenes contain elements of seriousness and comedy, but the humour in these scenes are very similar to each other- they are very much physical. For example, it is clear in scene two to see why the audience would have found the action comical. Faustus is first presented with a, “magic girdle,” which Mephistopheles tells Faustus to, “first wear this girdle, then appear invisible to all are here.” This allows the audience to be in on whichever mischief Faustus gets up to. They are aware that Faustus is there and invisible, so making the scene far more humorous. For had this not been shown to the audience, then any of the antics that Faustus performs would have been confusing to the audience, they would not have had a clue what was causing the moving of items around the stage, therefore making the scene more puzzling than comical. Also, allowing the audience to understand what Faustus is doing would have made the production of the play easier in a theatre, as it is not necessary to make Faustus invisible, items such as the wine would not have to appear to move by themselves. The director could have Faustus move them in front of the audience’s eyes and they’d understand that the other characters could not see Faustus.

A bit later in the scene, Faustus hits the Pope, “Faustus gives the Pope a blow to the head.” And then Mephistopheles and Faustus “beat the Friars and, fling fireworks among them.” This would be funny to the audience as there would be chaos on the stage, and again the audience understands what is going on, but the characters wouldn’t. The humour is something that the audience can physically see; this is the same in scene 3. For example, in scene 3 we physically see Dick and Robin transformed into an ape and a dog, this is funny because these are two characters that the audience has little attachment for, so are not upset by their fate. Instead they are free to enjoy the silliness of the situation, especially the way the pair exit the scene, “Exeunt the two clowns (with Dick on Robin’s back).”

The serious tone of each scene is also presented in each scene the same way. The seriousness of both scenes is less clear and easy to see as the comedy was. In scene 2, the realisation of what Faustus is doing had quite a sever effect. Yes, it is funny that he is invisibly moving the items, but essentially he is abusing the Pope, the most important mortal religious figure to Catholics. However, as the audience at the time that this play would have been performed was Protestant, this could add the amusement. Faustus is mocking and attacking Catholics. But, I think that most of the audience will still understand the seriousness of what Faustus is doing. Because he is Catholic and so he has gone one step further than just betraying God by siding with the devil, but he is using the devil and his power to physically harm such highly regarded religious figures. Physically attacking God almost. In scene 3, we can see that what occurs is quite shocking. Although Dick and Robin summoned Mephistopheles on false pretences, “for we called you but in jest,” it is awful to see how little the pair have to do to receive such a sever punishment. All they have done is summon Mephistopheles and are then turned into a dog and an ape; this shows how unforgiving the devil and his minions are. It also goes to illustrate how far apart heaven and hell are, as Faustus himself has carried out great acts of betrayal to God, and yet he is being told all the way to the end of the book that he is still able to repent and be forgiven. Yet Dick and Robin hardly do a thing to the devil and they are punished. The Devil is cruel and such a small slip can cause you to receive a punishment.

Lesson reflection.

Erm.... I probably shouldn't post this as late as I have, because I have pretty much forgotten the lesson. Well, we were looking at the opening to Dr. Fautus, and Mr.Francis evily made me read the Chorus and I had a cold. Anyway, we then moved onto Dr.Fautus's first speech and didn't get further than Alex reading it because Mr.Francis suddenly decided to go into our homework on Christian views on souls, God and such. And the class being so philosophical (or wishing to avoid formal work) began a debate about believing in God. Then twas the end of the lesson, and so I really learnt very little, however was sehr interessant.

Doctor Faustus!

Well, it took me quite a while to find a bookshop that actually had Doctor Faustus in stock, and when i finally found one it has other plays in the book as well. So, I'm hoping the version is not terribly important.

Anyway, I have not heard of this play before so am not to sure on the plot itself, nor do I have that many expectations. I have read through a synopsis of the play, so I have some idea about what I am going to read and think that the story does seem fairly interesting. Well, the only thing that really struck me when reading about the play was that it doesn't seem that dark or horrorish (I am aware that this is not a real word). However, jsut from the main plot you can tell that the whole book will be about the struggle Faustus has between good and evil. I can't actually think about this play without thinking about Cats the musical (because of the character of Mephistopheles, and yes i know this is not vey literature related or analytical).

I think that the worst thing about this play, will be the main character. I think that I may spend all of the time I am redaing it annoyed at the character's choices. Faustus, from the summary, seems to know that he is making the wrong decision and yet still go on with it becasue it seems easier in the short term. Only when his life is coming to an end does he think, wait, this is wrong and try to repent his sins. But then again, the author may have written the play in such a way that the reader feels sorrow and pity for Faustus. Oh well, I shall see, and since i have about 24 hours to read this play, I had best get on with it! :S

Finally finished Dracula!!!

Okay, well I think I did quite well reading Dracual in three days. When I first picked up the book I originally thought it wasn't that long, but i soon discovered that the pages are tres thin and the print ist sehr klein. I didn't seem to be getting anywhere on Friday with it, so i spent 9 solid hours sat at my dining room table today until i finished. And despite minor neck ache, it really was worth reading.

I mean, normally I would never have read Dracula because I was convinced that I knew the story, though looking back I was realy really wrong. For a start, despite having seen the film in lesson not long ago, I was confused about many of the characters and their roles. For example I thought that the man at the start of the film who goes to Transylvania (who I now know to be Jonathan Harker) was Renfield- and that Renfield was a survivor of the ship wrecked ship. Also I am not sure if it was the film that made it seem this way, but I was sure that Lucy died fairly quickly and that her death and life was never fully explored, however near half of the book talks of her downfall and then death. I was actually really rather suprised when she died because i thought she was the character that survived (I now know this to be Mina).

Although these things have been cleared up for me, I'm still confused about the overall locatio of the book. I'm sure I was jsut not paying full attention, but I got the impression that part of the story was set in Whitby- where the two girls (Lucy and Mina) were staying, I also understand that this is where the ship was washed up. But then didn't both girls leave Whitby? The rest of the book centres around the sanitorium, and Dracula's house, I'm sure I'm jsut being dense now, but was this in Whitby still?

Oh well, geography aside, I did enjoy this novel. I really found the characters fascinating. As I have previously said, I am not a fan of first person accounts as you are never sure what has really occured, or what the character perceives to have happened. Anyway, i thought this style really worked for the book, you are able to see how the characters are feeling at different events and so no matter what is occuring you have a really good insight. I'm trying to decide on my favourite character currently, but I can't because as soon as I think of a reason, i straight away think of an equally good point about a different character. A example is I think maybe I like Van Helsing because he speaks so wisely, fairly and quite matter-of-factly to everyone, but then I think, Seward is my favourite because he shows so much compassion for all of the other characters, he does his best to help people he has no obligation to help and is loyal all the way through the book. On another point, the appearance of Dracula himself, suprised me. He is described at the start of the book as having, "a long white moustache," from all the interpretations of Dracula that I have ever seen, he is always completely dark, clothes and hair.

Erm..... i think that's all I have to say, so i think I would give this book 8.1/10. It got such a good mark because despite how long it took me to read it, I was never bored, there is always something happening, no long boring passages of meaningless description or dialogue. However, it lost some of its marks because I really didn't think of it as a horror book. Sure it has some very dark themes, I mean a lot of people die, but it lacked any scaryness pour moi. I jsut looked up horror genre on wikipedia and it says this- "Horror fiction is a genre of fiction in any medium intended to scare, unsettle, or horrify the audience." I feel this book really failed on this front and I'm not sure why, maybe I am jsut being picky and maybe vampires have really been over done, I no longer find the idea in fiction scary. Oh well, I'm waffling so will finish mon post.