Impressively comprehensive review of the reasons Tolstoy was wrong about Shakespeare, even while offering Tolstoy his enormous due. Great writers, as I think you remarked on earlier, can make eccentric critics, and Tolstoy, among his notable characteristics, was eccentric. All in all, these Shakespeare posts make an accessible and engaging brief review of two centuries (and more) of literary aesthetics. Well done!
Perhaps nothing showcases Tolstoy’s genius for interior representation and the limits of doing the same on the stage as when Tolstoy take us inside the mind of Levins dog Laska
Well, you've done it again! And by that, I mean that you've proven the great diversity of the Bard rather than his limitations. You're quite good at leading us to think!
First thought that came to mind reading Johnson's praise for Shakespeare's "universal" characterization: if presenting universal/archetypal nature is your objective, then why not write a philosophical treatise? Abstraction and conceptualization belong effectively in non-fiction essay, not theater, novels, or opera. Art is meant to be personal, individual, and particular, at least this is how we justify the need for art as a separate relevant discipline from technical prose. Aristotle didn't write plays or stories after all. I'm also sure Hegel would've made a terrible novelist, as much as Ayn Rand made a terrible philosopher.
If we take Jean Gebser's formulation of consciousness in The Ever-Present Origin, we will begin to accept the fact that we think differently from past phases of human civilization. We don't necessarily think "better", but differently. Julian Jaynes elaborates similar ideas in his "bi-cameral" mind theory. Colin Wilson also explores the mutation of mental abilities from phenomenological interpretations.
All of this may be anachronistic, but there is little we can do to bracket this viewpoint, due to the aforementioned theories. This is why, in a previous comment, I argued that we can only appreciate certain artists as relics, especially since one needs to basically have a PhD in a relevant field to understand them in the most basic manner. Who actually appreciates Bach who hasn't studied counterpoint and fugue? Who can read Shakespeare without a dozen footnotes per page?
I'm unashamedly a post romantic, I like realism but equally dislike purple prose (I couldn't finish 10 pages of Thomas de Quincey, just awful). Hemingway is great at only writing the essentials, and Faulkner was a master of style. Funnily, I actually understand Finnegans Wake, which many consider incomprehensible. Maybe I relate to Joyce more due to Irish ancestry?
Now, when a modern writer still needs dozens of footnotes to make sense, then it's just bad literature. Why write a symphony, or paint a painting, only to have to provide a 200 page essay to explain it (postmodernism is complete nonsense). For this reason, most people do not get Boulez in music, or Plath in poetry.
Impressively comprehensive review of the reasons Tolstoy was wrong about Shakespeare, even while offering Tolstoy his enormous due. Great writers, as I think you remarked on earlier, can make eccentric critics, and Tolstoy, among his notable characteristics, was eccentric. All in all, these Shakespeare posts make an accessible and engaging brief review of two centuries (and more) of literary aesthetics. Well done!
Perhaps nothing showcases Tolstoy’s genius for interior representation and the limits of doing the same on the stage as when Tolstoy take us inside the mind of Levins dog Laska
What a great series of essays
Hope you continue to feel better!
Ha! Yes, can you imagine what the staged version of Laska would be like?
Well, you've done it again! And by that, I mean that you've proven the great diversity of the Bard rather than his limitations. You're quite good at leading us to think!
Thanks, Pier! And your drawing puts it all in perspective.
First thought that came to mind reading Johnson's praise for Shakespeare's "universal" characterization: if presenting universal/archetypal nature is your objective, then why not write a philosophical treatise? Abstraction and conceptualization belong effectively in non-fiction essay, not theater, novels, or opera. Art is meant to be personal, individual, and particular, at least this is how we justify the need for art as a separate relevant discipline from technical prose. Aristotle didn't write plays or stories after all. I'm also sure Hegel would've made a terrible novelist, as much as Ayn Rand made a terrible philosopher.
If we take Jean Gebser's formulation of consciousness in The Ever-Present Origin, we will begin to accept the fact that we think differently from past phases of human civilization. We don't necessarily think "better", but differently. Julian Jaynes elaborates similar ideas in his "bi-cameral" mind theory. Colin Wilson also explores the mutation of mental abilities from phenomenological interpretations.
All of this may be anachronistic, but there is little we can do to bracket this viewpoint, due to the aforementioned theories. This is why, in a previous comment, I argued that we can only appreciate certain artists as relics, especially since one needs to basically have a PhD in a relevant field to understand them in the most basic manner. Who actually appreciates Bach who hasn't studied counterpoint and fugue? Who can read Shakespeare without a dozen footnotes per page?
I'm unashamedly a post romantic, I like realism but equally dislike purple prose (I couldn't finish 10 pages of Thomas de Quincey, just awful). Hemingway is great at only writing the essentials, and Faulkner was a master of style. Funnily, I actually understand Finnegans Wake, which many consider incomprehensible. Maybe I relate to Joyce more due to Irish ancestry?
Now, when a modern writer still needs dozens of footnotes to make sense, then it's just bad literature. Why write a symphony, or paint a painting, only to have to provide a 200 page essay to explain it (postmodernism is complete nonsense). For this reason, most people do not get Boulez in music, or Plath in poetry.