Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2000 :: April ::
Re: Anti-Shakespeareans
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0866  Thursday, 20 April 2000.

[1]     From:   Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000 12:32:31 -0400
        Subj:   SHK 11.0862 Anti-Shakespeareans

[2]     From:   Chris Clark <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 20 Apr 2000 00:48:07 +0100
        Subj:   Anti-Shakespeareans

[3]     From:   Ed Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000 21:50:45 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0862 Anti-Shakespeareans


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Terence Hawkes <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000 12:32:31 -0400
Subject: Anti-Shakespeareans
Comment:        SHK 11.0862 Anti-Shakespeareans

Abdulla al-Dabbagh raises an interesting matter. It is curious how, on
the subject, say, of King Lear, not especially gifted undergraduates
suddenly turn out to be more discerning than Tolstoy,  Dr Johnson,
Charles Lamb or Thackeray, to say nothing of the tin-eared botcher who
cut some of the finest lines from each version of the play-that is,
Shakespeare himself.  Could it, I wonder, have anything to do with what
we critical theorists deftly term 'history'?

T. Hawkes

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Chris Clark <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 20 Apr 2000 00:48:07 +0100
Subject:        Anti-Shakespeareans

In response to Abdulla's question about antipathy towards Shakespeare, I
don't think it's necessarily fair to call this unconscious/inverted
flattery. There are two points to note. The first is that some people
may actually (gasp) think that Shakespeare is either not very good or
even (double gasp) dull. However, for me, one of the major reasons why
there is this anti-Shakespeare feeling is because he has been turned
into a canonical fetish object. Sinfield points out the ideological
appropriation of Shakespeare for conservative (and often even English
nationalist) purposes. Let's not talk about how "effective" Shakespeare
is - let's look at the works and the context and let's look at how the
individual reaction to the works is rooted in its context. I am
personally responding to this post as an anti-establishment, English
radical. So maybe that shapes my response in some way. I think I've made
my point. Over to you.

Chris Clark
King's College London

 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Ed Kranz <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 19 Apr 2000 21:50:45 -0400
Subject: 11.0862 Anti-Shakespeareans
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0862 Anti-Shakespeareans

Abdullah- Check out the following:

When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder
that such trivial people should muse and thunder
in such lovely language.

Lear, the old buffer, you wonder his daughters
didn't treat him rougher,
the old chough, the old chuffer.

And Hamlet, how boring, how boring to live with,
so mean and self-conscious, blowing and snoring
his wonderful speeches, full of other folk's whoring!

And Macbeth and his Lady, who should have been
choring,
such suburban ambition, so messily goring
old Duncan with daggers!

It's by D H Lawrence- I'm not sure he qualifies as a major writer.

Ed Kranz
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.