![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1999: Kermode's essay in LRB: "Good and Bad Shakespeare"
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 12/29/99
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2307 Wednesday, 29 December 1999. From: Judith Matthews Craig <je-mc@apex2000.net> Date: Sunday, 26 Dec 1999 21:05:00 -0600 Subject: Kermode's essay in LRB: "Good and Bad Shakespeare" When I finally got a chance to read Frank Kermode's essay on "Good and Bad Shakespeare" in the 9 December LRB, I found myself in entire agreement with his conclusion: "the argument that Shakespeare wrote badly is, I think, a defense against that danger [the whole purpose dissolves into neo-historicism, gender criticism and so forth, on the one hand, and, on the other, heritage waffle] . . . . (p. 8). Close attention to language is at the heart of Kermode's argument and abandonment of this precept would result in "the disappearance not only of Shakespeare as anything but a document like any other historical document, but of all poetry-indeed of everything that we used, in an old-fashioned way, to call literature" (p. 8). That this ringing conclusion could result in a "tyrannous" (p. 8) Shakespeare is to be developed in the forthcoming book. I'm glad that someone is ringing the changes on a old theme in a new book, but I'm still curious to know how Isabella's reproach to Angelo in Measure for Measure, ""O it is excellent/To have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous/To use is like a giant' "(p. 8) is relevant. Reading Shakespeare can be difficult, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. A tyrant wields power for his own advantage and aggrandizement. Shakespeare never does-he uses his poetic power to further complex and valuable insights that benefit, not subvert, the reader. I think his aim was not the obfuscating but the furthering of knowledge and the love for the common reader, not his malaise. Judy Craig
|
|
|||||