Korean Job Discussion Forums

[MollyBloom]

[PBRstreetgang21]

I do agree with you in some respect however I also think sometimes scholarship has a way of creating so much fatigue on a work or writer as to render itself useless.

The thing with scholarship and criticism is that it comes from the intellect and study after the emotion has subsided. This is important and good and should remain. However, I feel that scholarship does have a way of diminishing some emotional capital from works.

What I think is the problem right now with Shakespeare is OVER study.

Freud's remark "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" applies a lot I feel.

When I say if we where to lock aaway his works and reopen them a hundered years from now, I mean that we could regain the emotional wow and stun from the level of morality and tragedy combined with beauty of language. The realization that in many ways, Shakespeare is the Aesop and the Sophocles of the English language.

I think the more any work is subject to scholarship the less ideals we pull out of it and the more ideals we read into it. There needs to be a balance

[MollyBloom]

[PBRstreetgang21]

What I meant when I spoke(typed) of emotional capital, was that in many ways a piece of work gains traction and longevity first by the emotional conections it brings to the table. Just as you indicated that certain intellectual pursuits you've had stem from an emotional tie.

Ultimately I think the truest value is the emotional aspect. The intellectual aspect is certainly important, and should be subject to debate and scholarship, but as Ezra Pound once said, "Only emotion endures." Whats germaine and fashionable and worthy of debate in one decade becomes the post- or pre- in the next, etc etc. I think the over-anylasis of certain plays by Shakespeare tends to diminish the importance of their extra-ordinary emotional nature, which is really, the reason why they continue to exist in the way they do to this day.

I look at plays like say "Othello" or "The Tempest", they have become almost text books for the post-colonial and cultural imperialist thought; that however useful they may be in those arenas, they have lost much of their, what I feel is, original value as emotional works. Now when I see them they are no longer tales of passion or pride, but rather a conglomeration of scholastic ideas.

I think the emotional framework of much of his plays is their greatest asset. Shakespeare managed to encapsulate human emotions in words that to this day I read and am completely astounded at how he did so. As someone who writes poetry I try constantly to encapsulate a singular feeling into a line of verse but its a very trying task. Shakespeare was a true master.

Just look at a play like "The Merchant of Venice". It is a play that ultimately poses a serious issue of why it should kick around. Its anti-semitism is truly distasteful. As much as Pound's and yet for some reason we still keep in the classroom and continue to exile Pound to the loony bin. The reason I think is that, the emotions in that play, especially with regard to Shylock are captivating in every sense of the word. We have to teach it becase it is that powerful.

I do support the idea of scholarship of course, a great deal of what is valuable about Shakespeare is the amount of cultural relevence we can still find in it even 400+ yrs after the fact. The political relevence and so on within these old works is truly great. But ultimatley the reason why we are able to find those parrallels in his work, has less to do with their political and intellectual genius (which is truly great) but in the end, with their emotional genuis.

I suppose all Im arguing is that sometimes in the scholarly world, there just needs to be a step back and a look at how these are truly emotional works first and last. I do however get the feeling that I am being a bit pedantic and nit-picky.

Oh and I like your analysis of the preference for Hamlet over Lear. Ive always been curious myself as to the reason why Lear (which one could argue is his greatest or certainly one of his greatest) has a curious absence compared to some of his other works. I find it makes perfect sense. People in America are petrified of old-age. Have you ever seen "Ran" by Akira Kurosawa? Its a great take on the play. Kurosawa also did an iteresting version of MacBeth in "Throne of Blood".

[MollyBloom]

[PBRstreetgang21]

[MollyBloom]

[BreakfastInBed]

Molly and PBR, you're after my own heart. I really enjoyed reading the exchange above.

To me, primary, textual scholarship has indisputable value. Though largely invisible to the common reader, it is invaluable in giving us the best, most accurate texts possible, and beneath the seemingly mundane surface is full of its own fascinating puzzles and controversies.

Secondary, interpretive and theory-based scholarship is where I begin to vacillate. I'm for any critical/interpretive work that increases our enjoyment of literature. Not simple, fleeting enjoyment of plot and superficial emotion, but the more difficult pleasures of understanding and being moved in some way. What turns me off is the propensity of many secondary scholars to take themselves and their work a little too seriously. The high tone and self importance of some of their work reeks of feelings of inadequacy and overcompensation in attempting to justify the slight subject matter. I remember fellow students salivating at finding a "gap in the scholarship" that they could fill. This feature of literary academia nauseated me, and still does. They didn't have anything To say, they simply found something they Could say. Find a gap, inflate its importance, then try to sell your jargon riddled take on it as meaningful, or is that too cynical? Probably I'm jealous, it doesn't come as easy for me as it does for others and I would like it to.

[MollyBloom]

[the_beaver]

I had this conversation on the board with kiwi_boy years back and although I'm going to get jumped on, I'll say it again: Shakey is the most overrated writer ever.

He's good, but to compare his sonnets to Eliot's poetry and say he's better, well that just straight out shite. He can't be compared to Dickens because they write in different forms, so you can't say one is better than the other. He has some funny stuff, but I'll put Wilde farther up the funny scale every time.

Overall (pretending that we could break down writing according to different criteria and give each writer a numerical score), he probably is the greatest writer in English, but when MacDuff's son utters the immortal words: "He has killed me, mother: Run away, I pray you!", you have to cock an eyebrow and admit that there's an errant line, and concede that there are others.

When you compare the The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet and Palace of Pleasure to Romeo and Juliet you can can allow that Shakey had some good ideas and told the story in a better way, but you have to deduct a few point for originality (having said that, I'd give him a '0' for the assignment if he was my student -- dirty plagiarizer).

For volume and quality, sure, he's the best playwright. As good as he's made out to be? Naw.

[MollyBloom]

[eamo]

[BreakfastInBed]

[the_beaver]

[PBRstreetgang21]