I hope this has convinced your students? Or do they have a new hot takes? These are compelling reasons and it’s always interesting to consider the history of literary canons and what is in vogue. Thanks for a good read!
Thanks, Kathleen. These are English majors in this class, so they are mostly on board with Shakespeare, and they actually did end up with some interesting takes after they had some time to think about it. Now they get to watch David Tennant's Hamlet.
Such an interesting history! And I look forward to the discussion on how Shakespeare ends up being claimed by the Romantics. Not sure our Mr. Coleridge will convince me on that one - I'm inclined to claim him for realism and for Austen, lol.
But I will look forward to that post, and will try to stay open minded. 😊🌼
Coleridge is a compelling critic, and I think that he gets some things, especially about Hamlet, that Johnson misses. But I’m mostly inclined to agree with you 🤓
He is the author who made you modern. With this, and Principia and The King James Bible, you were set to understand the language. There are many problems with Shakespeare - racism any one? - but also great strengths. But he was choose out of the writers not made. Modernism, in the "early Modernism" sense, needed him.
The reason that Shake-Speare is so relevant and magnificent is because of the enigma of Marlowe’s “death” and John Dee’s participation in the clandestine creation of this literary giant that used a brilliant but knavish thespian as a mask. The entire mystery is revealed in The Tempest which serves as a key to unlock the hidden doorway to all that follows in the folio. Here is the basics: Prospero=Dee, Ariel=Marlowe, Caliban=Shakespeare and Miranda=the plays. All wise critics know the truth but are bound to secrecy.
I still disagree with those who see brilliance in Shakespeare's work. I've criticized the Bard in my own newsletter publications, however, anyone familiar with Tolstoy's essay will not have to read my own, as I agree entirely with this great Russian novelist. Basically, I find Shakespeare pretentious and 'unbelievable'. All of Tolstoy's objections to Shakespeare's poor handling of plot, character, setting, and dialogue are valid. I can only appreciate Shakespeare (and all literature between 1500 - 1800) as artistic relics...to be studied for history's sake but not enjoyed or 'felt'.
I find Dostoyevsky profound, same with Tolstoy, same with Emily Bronte. I think we cannot truly appreciate something so archaic from the 'early-modern' period. Maybe it also has to do with the fact that I naturally dislike theater because it lacks the power of atmospheric narrative, as well as the dramatic power of its superior theatrical companion: Opera (and even then, only Wagnerian music-drama comes close to my ideal of great 'theater').
That's an interesting take. I certainly think that older texts require more immersion to be "felt," but I certainly feel them, or at least many of them. That said, they're obviously not for everyone.
That's a good point. With some effort, I can feel the 'spirit' permeating The Iliad, or Gilgamesh, or ancient Norse Myth, but much of European literature from the last few centuries feels a little bit 'aristocratic bourgeois' for my tastes. Maybe I'm more like Nietzsche, I prefer heroic and virile manliness rather than the effeminate pomp of 'high society'. Any wonder why I love Wagner and Bartok, but cannot tolerate 5 minutes of Debussy or Brahms.
I hope this has convinced your students? Or do they have a new hot takes? These are compelling reasons and it’s always interesting to consider the history of literary canons and what is in vogue. Thanks for a good read!
Thanks, Kathleen. These are English majors in this class, so they are mostly on board with Shakespeare, and they actually did end up with some interesting takes after they had some time to think about it. Now they get to watch David Tennant's Hamlet.
That’s a great one.
As usual, very adept at focusing on central, essential points and explaining them with utter clarity. Your students are lucky to have you.
Thanks, Jay! I may be inclined to quote you to my students after I return this batch of papers.
LMAO. Don't neglect to add, "And don't forget it!"
Such an interesting history! And I look forward to the discussion on how Shakespeare ends up being claimed by the Romantics. Not sure our Mr. Coleridge will convince me on that one - I'm inclined to claim him for realism and for Austen, lol.
But I will look forward to that post, and will try to stay open minded. 😊🌼
Coleridge is a compelling critic, and I think that he gets some things, especially about Hamlet, that Johnson misses. But I’m mostly inclined to agree with you 🤓
He is the author who made you modern. With this, and Principia and The King James Bible, you were set to understand the language. There are many problems with Shakespeare - racism any one? - but also great strengths. But he was choose out of the writers not made. Modernism, in the "early Modernism" sense, needed him.
As usual, insightful, broad and focused, as well as educational and entertaining. Thanks for keeping us English majors learning.
Thank you!
why not?
The reason that Shake-Speare is so relevant and magnificent is because of the enigma of Marlowe’s “death” and John Dee’s participation in the clandestine creation of this literary giant that used a brilliant but knavish thespian as a mask. The entire mystery is revealed in The Tempest which serves as a key to unlock the hidden doorway to all that follows in the folio. Here is the basics: Prospero=Dee, Ariel=Marlowe, Caliban=Shakespeare and Miranda=the plays. All wise critics know the truth but are bound to secrecy.
I still disagree with those who see brilliance in Shakespeare's work. I've criticized the Bard in my own newsletter publications, however, anyone familiar with Tolstoy's essay will not have to read my own, as I agree entirely with this great Russian novelist. Basically, I find Shakespeare pretentious and 'unbelievable'. All of Tolstoy's objections to Shakespeare's poor handling of plot, character, setting, and dialogue are valid. I can only appreciate Shakespeare (and all literature between 1500 - 1800) as artistic relics...to be studied for history's sake but not enjoyed or 'felt'.
I find Dostoyevsky profound, same with Tolstoy, same with Emily Bronte. I think we cannot truly appreciate something so archaic from the 'early-modern' period. Maybe it also has to do with the fact that I naturally dislike theater because it lacks the power of atmospheric narrative, as well as the dramatic power of its superior theatrical companion: Opera (and even then, only Wagnerian music-drama comes close to my ideal of great 'theater').
That's an interesting take. I certainly think that older texts require more immersion to be "felt," but I certainly feel them, or at least many of them. That said, they're obviously not for everyone.
That's a good point. With some effort, I can feel the 'spirit' permeating The Iliad, or Gilgamesh, or ancient Norse Myth, but much of European literature from the last few centuries feels a little bit 'aristocratic bourgeois' for my tastes. Maybe I'm more like Nietzsche, I prefer heroic and virile manliness rather than the effeminate pomp of 'high society'. Any wonder why I love Wagner and Bartok, but cannot tolerate 5 minutes of Debussy or Brahms.
wow, really enjoyed that (after just having watched a Shakespeare play at the Globe)