The main thing I’ve taken away from reading my previous blog posts is that I’m not very certain about a lot of the things I say. All three of them are essentially long musings on questions I don’t intend to answer. But I think that’s the strength of doing these blogs, that I don’t need to be certain or perfectly formal, but rather thoughtful and willing to try out ideas I’m not sure of. What’s tying these blogs together is, not surprisingly, something that I’ve often come to believe when reading literature critically, that the big questions to be asked of art and literature often don’t have concrete answers. The art itself conveys the complexity of considerations one has to deal with when thinking critically and answering important questions.
As far as themes within the plays, there’s not much tying my blogs together. The first one is about the reader’s interpretation of a character, the second is about a character’s intentions, and the third is about potentially seeing a pattern Shakespeare’s employing between two characters. I suppose you could say they are all character based, rather than based on language or overall plot. It’s true that I like to think of the psychology, beliefs, principles, etc. of individual characters quite often. I often find myself drawn to literature with strong and interesting characters that have a dense complexity of qualities. This is true in my life as well, in that I think I have a good sense of what sorts of things are motivating people to do what they do.
Though this is only true of two of them, my posts also remind me of how concerned I am with ethics and principles. I really enjoy discussing some of the most simple questions you can ask of characters, like whether their actions are admirable or contemptible, or whether they’re making moral or selfish choices. These are topics whose discussions have real arguable answers and responses, which appeals to me.