The motivation behind all of our actions has been a topic of debate for centuries. Reasons for war, intolerance, deception, crime and yet, most importantly, love, have always been questioned and analyzed. How can we equate Hitler's motivation for slaughtering millions of people to Mother Teresa's benevolence? When could we understand the intentions of a scheming politician, yet not know why we fall to the grips of our love's demands? And even if we were to uncover the mysteries of our actions, would the consequences not be the same? Are we, as a human race, destined to question our past? We will never truly know so many of the incentives behind our deeds, whether they be altruistic or corrupt. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World delves into the idea that naiveté, with its characters succumbing to the omnipotent government, which circulates ignorance like candy. In my performance of William Shakespeare's sonnet 89, the difference between a character knowing the reason behind their counterpart's actions and not knowing is set to show, like Brave New World, how ignorance is bliss. The following will justify Shakespeare's method of writing ambiguous prose to reiterate the point that what someone doesn't know/doesn't realize can't hurt them. This is not a novel idea, as the French philosopher Voltaire spoke openly about his penchant for the nescient. All of this is to prove one central, simple idea: ignorance is bliss.
             1In my performance, I hoped to convey the differences in possible interpretations; the first interpretation is that the person is asking why the other left them and simply wants to know so that they can make an effort to get them back and make them happy, because they love them so much. The second is that the person knows why they left them and yet still wants to know how they could change the situation, while knowing that either way the consequence will be the same. In the first interpretation the person gets over th...