My First Undergraduate Shakespeare Essay: The Mystery is a Result of the Richness

Hieronimo's post below and Simplicius' (Simplicii?) reply got me thinking about my own early efforts to engage with Shakespeare as an undergraduate. For the first time in many, many years, I checked my wayback machine (i.e., the folder on my hard drive marked "College") and found the following, written for a survey class during the first semester of my freshman year. I hope my co-bloggers will offer up some samples of their own early work? I doubt that they will be able to top mine. The title of the essay really tells you everything you need to know: "The Morality of Falstaff." Here are the first few paragraphs. I promise, in all seriousness: I have not altered a word of it. Falstaff has always been a favorite character of Shakespeare enthusiaists. His ambiguous motives and sparkling wit have inspired many a heated debate over coffee in smoky cafes. They will also inspire me to write a brilliant essay. Sir John Falstaff seems to embody immorality. He is a glutton, a lecher, a thief... any shred of goodness that might be in him is smothered under layers of bad qualities. His huge girth is a fitting appearance for such a man - one does not even have hear him speak to realize that his morals may be questionable. There is something lying behind Falstaff's, and indeed any literary character's immorality; the morals of the author. Shakespeare had something in mind when he created Falstaff. He needed a element of immorality to meld with the elements of Henry IV's royalty and Hotspur's rash honor (I hope) in the well-balanced character of Hal. He picked out some of the worst morals he could think of and combined them in one huge man. In order to pick out poor morals, an author must have a concept of what good morals are; bad ethics are a reversal of good ones. Shakespeare, in Falstaff, took a set of ethics he thought to be correct, and reversed them. The implication of this is that underneath Falstaff's badness lies Shakespeare's concept of goodness. Does this mean that Falstaff is a moral man? No. It does, however add to the richness of the character. This richness is the attribute that the Norton editors claim make Falstaff immortal. Although they may use the word "mystery" to explain his longevity; the mystery is a result of the richness. Shakespeare enthusiasts in smoky cafes?? Fat people are evil?? What was I, high? Probably. I sucked! I would give this a C- if I was feeling generous! To think that I remember that class only for the unending sourness of the graduate student instructor. No wonder he was in such a bad mood. In any case, this just reinforces what H and S have been saying. When we complain about the disintegrating skills of incoming students, we are romanticizing our own past skills, forgetting the huge crowds of disinterested students of which we were often members, and essentially dismissing young writers (I would have dismissed my young self immediately) who probably should not be dismissed. I hereby pledge to refrain from posting snarky comments about student writing. Until next semester. See all y'all at the smoky cafe for a heated debate over coffee.