I need to know what your views are on Petruchio and Katherina.
Do you think that Katherina is tamed by Petruchio?
I need to know as soon as poss.
Thanks
Printable View
I need to know what your views are on Petruchio and Katherina.
Do you think that Katherina is tamed by Petruchio?
I need to know as soon as poss.
Thanks
Belated -- Katherine will out-talk, out-fight, out-last, out-energize Petruchio. He is no match for this gal. Kate knows how to play the part, and will willingly do so because she loves the guy. But she will not put up with any slouch of a man, and he's not exactly a sample of cavalier manhood. He doesn't know what a web he's gotten himself into -- no more drinking, carousing, swearing, and other riotous freedom. As Cleopatra takes Antony into new territory, so will Kate to Petruchio.
I don't agree with you. In all of shakespeare's plays, order is restored at the end, and therefore Katerina had to be "tamed" for this order to be restored. Also, what exactly makes you think that Kate had not been tamed? She obviously doesn't believe in being shrew like anymore, and if she still is the "shrew" of the beginning of the play, then she is a hypocrite for making that final speech.
No I don't think she had been tamed. Not at all. She had, however, decided that (at least for the time being) there was more to gain from being civil, and thus decided to be civil. I'm with byquist here: She may have been a shrew, but not a stupid one... She simply backed off because she wanted to.Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorade
/Claes
I think Kate retains her spirit, her strength and her "fiery" nature (and I think Petruchio wanted these things); what she's lost is her out-of-control hostility. To suggest that she wants to take on a domineering role is to suggest that she is not a good partner for Petruchio - because I think he wanted a woman equal to him - when she was raging pointlessly, she was not capable of being his equal (except in being obnoxious - and who wishes to be excellent at that?) People who suggest that Kate wishes to "rule" misread her: where do you see any evidence that Kate's rage is based on submission to male authority? No such thing - she was just raging because she was angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by byquist
Kate allows Petruchio to please her, thereby pleasing herself. Instead of trying to swim against the current she decides to swim with it, thereby not drowning. As we see midway through the play, Petruchio decides to try and starve her until she cracks down; she realizes that in order not to die from this sort of thing, she better allow him to try and please her, instead of fighting. Though I would argue that Shakespeare changes the characters throughout the play from hating each other to loving each other, thereby allowing for the idea that everything Petruchio will be doing to Kate will be to please her, rather than for his own personal benefit. We see that really she isn't "Tamed" in my opinion, she is more "changed" or "matured" though I would say Petruchio most assuredly is tamed, giving the fact that at the beginning all he can think about is money, money, money, and is even willing to marry a "shrew" to claim her dowry. By the end however, he sees himself engaged in a loving relationship with a girl he loves, showing us a drastic change, and a taming of his greedy spirit.
I believe Kate was tamed. She was called a shrew for acting as an equal to the men for being herself and expressing opinions. Pertruchio knew what he was dealing with before marriage and because he didn't love her he dealt with her objectively as a business proposition like a horse that needed breaking in. What he felt was pride in succeeding not love.It also proved himself better then the men in the world who married demure innocent girls for love to find out afterwards that they were just being played, like Bianca and Lucentio. I found her last speech to be utterly heart breaking
I'm sorry - at the risk of coming off totally offensive, I have to say that this response clearly reveals one of the major mistakes I see being committed in discussion of this play. I teach this play to AP English high school students and their responses generally go along these lines, and I have to mark on virtually every paper "Do you have some textual proof to support these statements?" Where does Shakespeare make it clear that Kate's behavior is an attempt to be "equal" with men? Are you trying to tell me that expressing contempt and anger for everything around one makes a woman "equal" to a male? Huh? And what "opinions" exactly was Kate expressing that showed any sort of value? Again: I think we are so sensitive to issues of male and female "power" that we immediately recoil from Petruchio's treatment of Kate without examining Kate's behavior more objectively. In other words, we excuse atrocious behavior on Kate's part because we really don't like what she has to go through via Petruchio to become a better person. Why do people relentlessly defend Kate's horrible behavior? None of us would spend 5 minutes with such a person as Kate - why defend that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fen
Next: if Petruchio didn't love Kate and only wanted her money, he could've just locked her in a room and collected a series of mistresses. Really, the fastest way to get a woman to submit during this time period would've been to resort to physical violence - you know, the thing Petruchio NEVER resorts to?
Kate's final speech (which alludes to the New Testament) points out the duties of both men and women to each other - what's so "heartbreaking" about that?
I have just re-read the play and I withdraw what I said about her just expressing her opinions etc.
Would you like to discuss the play some more? What did you catch in your reading this time? I'm a big fan of re-reading literature (esp Shakespeare) and I'm curious what your second read gave you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fen
I am sorry that I haven't replied till now I haven't been on the site for awhile
About Kate being a shrew, the first act when you are first introduced to Kate I used to think that the suitors were complaining about her first two speeches. which to me weren't shrewish which is how I made my inequality of females judgement but on re-reading I realised my mistake which just goes to show I should think more carefully before making comment ;)
I do not believe that Kate has been tamed. I just believe that she has decided it is far easier to go with the flow than try to keep disobeying Pertruchio. He tries forces her into a position in which she must obey or she will not eat or sleep so she eventually decides to go with everything that he says. Pertruchio may think that he has tamed Kate but in her mind she is just going with him in order to have a fairly simple and easy life.
I think Petruchio has successfully whipped her with cruel and unusual methods.
Depends how you choose to play it. For example, does Isabella agree to marry the Duke in Measure for Measure? When looking at the meaning of plays, you have to fill in some gaps, which means that you might come up with totally different views. For example, some people think Hamlet is a Puritan and others think he has the Oedipus complex. The last one is less legit but it could work.
The Induction is key to how we view Shrew. Without the Induction, the play seems unironic and thus we might conclude that it is misogynistic. However the Induction makes the play within a play ironic. Christopher Sly is basically an exaggerated version of Petruchio- in fact, in one production they double-role Sly and Petruchio.
Got proof? In the world of literary analysis, we generally back up assertions with evidence from the text...Quote:
Originally Posted by dasilvaa10