Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2008 :: February ::
Shakespeare's Style
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 19.0108  Monday, 18 February 2008

From:		Jason Rhode <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Monday, 18 Feb 2008 18:16:21 -0600
Subject:	Shakespeare's Style

For two years now, I've been trying to dissect Shakespeare's style. Now, 
there are certain personal mannerisms of his-pun fetish, fondness of 
animal imagery-that are useful to us in determining which works are his. 
I'm interested in those, but what I'm *really* trying to discover is 
what makes his style, his construction, so forth, both distinctive *and* 
effective. I'm only interested in a distinct feature if it's also an 
efficacious feature. I want to know why his words work so well. We can 
debate exactly what "well" means, but for my purposes, "well" means 
"capable of communicating the author's ideas in a striking and clear 
fashion." You may have a definition of "well" superior to mine-use that 
one, if that's the case.

I don't think it's one of those "mystery of genius" things either. It's 
a craftsmanship issue, a technical one. Let me point out that I'm not a 
scholar, but I have read many of the books that deal with this 
subject-Spurgeon, Armstrong, Miriam Joseph, Spaulding, The Shakespeare 
Key-and have yet to find quite what I'm looking for. They deal with 
imagery or patterns of rhetoric or identifying marks of his, but don't 
seem to state the nitty-gritty of what I'm looking for. Most general 
guides to the Bard dodge the question altogether.

"Uses visual adjective-noun pairings" or "prefers the subjunctive" or 
"applies gerunds in during tragic scenes" would be more helpful than "he 
likes birds and Ovid."

On the other end is Shaxicon, which I haven't used myself. Shaxicon 
would be great for my purposes, but it's (for me at least) *too* 
close-up. I've read stylometric analyses online in hopes they'd have 
something I could understand, and all I've gotten is that the Bard 
didn't like "which" as much as "who." Which is valuable knowledge-it 
recognizes that Shakespeare had a tendency to give life to inanimate 
objects-but it still doesn't help to answer my question. If there's some 
wider view of Shaxicon-one for a non-math layperson-let me know.

In other words, when I'm asked about what makes Shakespeare great, and I 
say "the language," and they say "what about the language?", I'd like to 
go beyond saying "Hendiadys." Not that rhetorical terms don't have their 
place, but if simply knowing how to split "furious sound" into "sound 
and fury" made a Shakespeare, then there wouldn't be so many bad writers 
out there.

To offer another example of what I'm looking for, imagine Martians who 
had memorized English dictionaries and grammar books came down and 
wanted us to explain exactly what it was about Shakespeare's language 
that makes him so remarkable, what would we tell them? Would we give 
them the vague generalities that critics have often resorted 
to-generosity of conception, insight into humanity, dualistic view of 
world-or would we be able to be exact in how the Master does what he 
does? If you were writing to this Martian, how would you explain to 
her-him (Martians are dual-gendered in my example; "Twelfth Night" 
eventually becomes a runaway hit on the Red Planet) the nature of 
Shakespeare's text, and what makes it different, from the other writing 
of the planet Earth?

If nobody has (or knows where to look for) a comprehensive answer, then 
at the very least I'd be curious to hear what you think are the best 
techniques of his wordcraft.

I realize this question isn't terribly exact. Maybe what I'm looking for 
goes by another name that I don't know yet; maybe there's a book that 
I'm just not aware of. Perhaps it's as simple as deconstructing a few 
sentences.  And maybe I'm being unfair to imagery and rhetoric-maybe 
those *are* the main pillars of Shakespeare's verbal power and the rest 
is incidental. The slightest nudge point in the right direction would be 
appreciated.

And if nobody knows, well, could you comment on what you think this most 
characteristic mannerisms are? My own list is probably woefully 
incomplete.  I know Our Will keeps his invention in a noted weed; I'm 
just curious about the stitches and tailoring.

Best,
Jason Rhode

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.