To pick 10 blogs, I just scrolled through the list and wherever the arrow ended up, I clicked. I'm not exactly certain of the best way to proceed from here, but I will record a few comments from the blogs that I read and see if I can't come up with something of my own to add to the end of it all:
Honey: I found the discussion about Dante's understanding of the 'depth' of human experience interesting especially when viewed in the structure of The Divine Comedy. In the epic, we see Dante the pilgrim pass through the layers of human degradation quite literally. From here, I am left wondering: is it possible to recognize this same physical motion, this same phenomenology, in Shakespeare? One last thing: I really enjoyed the bit about 'what is the human condition?' Not only does it ask what is the human condition, but it asks what is the human condition.
Zach: "Shakespeare is the happy hunting ground of someone who has lost his balance." J. Joyce
I can't help but to think of this every time I hear Joyce and Shakespeare mentioned together. Back to the discussion at hand, I'm glad you brought up Shakespeare and realism. I discussed Shakespeare and realism in one of my blogs, but I found myself a little more skeptical than Turner. Perhaps I will have to look into the works you bring up for myself in hopes of developing a better view of Shakespeare's role in the development and implementation of realism.
Eli: I'm glad you are feeling better. And as feeble of an attempt as this might be, I must admit that it seems ridiculous how a strange gentleman writing 400 years ago could have written words that we still find applicable to our condition today! Something like this was the reason I originally took a liking to literature.
Harvey: For some reason, the simplicity of a picture and a short passage seems to say more than a couple paragraphs ever could. And while I am here, I have been wondering whether 'puckish' is derived from this play or it went the other way around and it is where Shakespeare got the idea. *Consulting OED* Semi-convoluted answer: Shakespeare did not seem to coin the term Puck, the noun form of the adj. 'puckish,' it seems to have been an archetypal character around the time and shortly before Shakespeare started writing. It would seem that like Bottom, Puck would have functioned as a sort of tag-name with which the audience would have immediately identified.
Katie: Let's write about love. As you said, I think Shakespeare is irrevocably linked with the idea of love, especially in the mind of the modern American reader. If I must proffer a guess, I would say this has something to do with the fact that this is one of the most common texts used throughout high school English courses. I would actually like to see some kind of statistic that showed how many Americans know of any other works by Shakespeare besides R&J. It's a sad comment on the lives of Americans.
Tristan: Being someone who spent three semesters in the Cell Biology and Neuroscience department before switching to English Lit, I completely understand having to justify the reading of fiction, and sometimes even reading at all. Not that there are not empiricists in the English Departments around the country, but I think most people forget that language is an art form. I know it took me a long time to realize that, and I know most people don't believe it. I wish more people could be like you and be willing to walk both sides of the line, and see how the line isn't so concrete.
Scott: The relation between an Author and his (or her) work has always fascinated me. Less so in the case that you bring up, but I am always curious about how individual psychology can cross textual borders, and how the text to influence the writer himself. This is something which Harold Bloom calls the personal 'agon' of the writer, I believe. (Perhaps that's not correct, but I'm just working from memory here.) The ability, or perhaps 'possibility' is a better word, of a writer to truly distance himself from his work or the extent to which this is possible is a question which may never be answered, but I would be interesting in reading some thoughts of psychologists and literary critics on the subject. It might end up throwing a wrench into the inner workings of the Formalist's whole theory, huh?
Cassidy: The power of music in story telling has the potential to create a great project. I liked the sound of it anyways. I can't help but to think about the play without music being played throughout. Especially as the play takes place in a near dream-state, it seems strange that music wouldn't constantly flow throughout the piece, highlighting the characters and the actions. Without proffering any answers, especially because I have none to give, I would like to know how Vico would view music in his scheme of things of which Dr. Sexson is so fond.
Sam O: You asked me to name someone who has been more influential in the realm of literature than Shakespeare? Alas, I cannot; and I believe that most great mind of the literary scene would agree with me. Or perhaps it best be said that I agree with them. With such a great influence, I cannot help but wonder to what extent can we trace the reach of Shakespeare's unparalleled arms and fingers into the modern day. Frederick Turned obviously does it in his book about Shakespeare and Twenty-first century economics, but I suspect that there are most surprising influences than even that.
Emily: Shakespeare has managed to reach a rage of audience that spans about 400 years, and the traditions continues to lengthen. 400 years, in nearly the exact same language and form, and we still get it. I can't help but to say "Wow." That is something of which most authors can only dream.
No comments:
Post a Comment