What is so good about Shakespeare?

[ummmm........]

But the conclusion that Taming of the Shrew comes to is that your grandfather was right, which isn't really a very modern view. The benefit of the induction is that it allows you to consider the play as a farce played for Sly's benefit, from which perspective Kate's conclusions are a little more palatable, coming with a wink and a poke in the ribs . . .

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But the conclusion that Taming of the Shrew comes to is that your grandfather was right, which isn't really a very modern view. The benefit of the induction is that it allows you to consider the play as a farce played for Sly's benefit, from which perspective Kate's conclusions are a little more palatable, coming with a wink and a poke in the ribs . . .

My grandfather's view is considered out of date and wrong by most normal modern people, but by no means all. Therefore, it's the problem that's timeless, in my opinion.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not fond of the play.

But the only saving grace is Petruchio's technique of "taming" Kate to my mind. (Someone who no one else can get to behave even reasonably. I mean, she bullies her own sister for no good reason at all. And no one but Petruchio will even consider marrying her. Which is in no way to justify the institution of marriage, I hasten to add. It's just a matter of the dynamics of the plot.)

He "tames" her by over-bidding her unreasonableness, unpredictability and contrariness.

Which is neat. And then Shakespeare spoils it all with the ending! And that mealy-mouthed final speech of hers. Incredibly weak!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Give me any instance of language-use that you regard highly as an instance of language-use, and say a little bit about what you like in it.

""KNOW, oh prince, that between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars—Nemedia, Ophir, Brythunia, Hyperborea, Zamora with its dark-haired women and towers of spider-haunted mystery, Zingara with its chivalry, Koth that bordered on the pastoral lands of Shem, Stygia with its shadow-guarded tombs, Hyrkania whose riders wore steel and silk and gold. But the proudest kingdom of the world was Aquilonia, reigning supreme in the dreaming west. Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, black-haired, sullen- eyed,sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet."

What I like about this is how much it can bring to mind in a handful of words. The description of Conan is only 35 words, yet it brings a clearer conception of a character then I have seen in literally a thousand times that length. And in this paragraph it holds promise and teases you with powerful images of a half a dozen other things. It's one of the most effective uses of language I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[ummmm........]

I don't know. Plays are about people, so they'll always be relatable is some way. But to me it's a pretty antiquated debate presented in Taming of the Shrew.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, for example, timeless / eternal / everlasting as concepts are as integral to Christian cosmology as epiphanies. It's one of the many religious 'analogies' used when discussing literature; not surprising, as literary studies in the West originate in biblical criticism.

Don't forget the religious undertones of "Genius" especially before it got it's up to date eugenics based undertones. That one crops up a lot with Shakespeare.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't know. Plays are about people, so they'll always be relatable is some way. But to me it's a pretty antiquated debate presented in Taming of the Shrew.

FWIW, it didn't seem to be too well received in Shakespeare's day either.

 

[REDY]

What I would admire about Shakespeare is probably lost in translation. I have read lot of his works in Czech and I wasnt impressed.

 

[Mise]

The reason why Pangur Ban and Gori the Grey have argued for so long is that they're both right. Gori is right that there is value in Shakespeare's works; the language is, genuinely, beautiful; the stories are, genuinely, well structured; the characters are, genuinely, compelling. It takes effort to read or watch a Shakespeare play, but there is value in doing so.

But this doesn't make Pangur's point about Shakespeare's role in modern culture any less valid: "appreciating Shakespeare" is indeed one facet of what it means to be "cultured". It is used as an indicator of the level to which you have ascended culturally. If you appreciate Shakespeare, have read his plays, can recite his words, and so on, then this is a marker of your culturedness. It is snobbish and elitist, and Pangur is right that it is also inaccessible to vast swathes of people. It is simply not true that, just because you can buy a ticket to a theatre production of Shakespeare anywhere in the country, there are no barriers to entry. There are countless barriers to entry! For one, how many poor children from Tower Hamlets or Moss Side are going to head down to a theatre to watch Shakespeare talk in a language that is frankly unintelligible? The language requires significant investment to understand; yes, just like baseball, but why would someone choose baseball as a hobby over football, which they already know? That sort of investment would surely be better spent on a more useful educational pursuit; there are only so many hours in the day to learn stuff, and the opportunity cost for poor children (or adults) is much more significant than for rich people. The very fact that Shakespeare is considered "high culture" is a barrier to entry: people are put off by the snobbish attitudes of the elite towards it.

Football is open and accessible. Shakespeare is not. How you fit that into your critical theory is up to you, but to deny that Shakespeare is inaccessible for vast swathes of the population is somewhere between naive and wilfully ignorant.



As an aside, I find it difficult to watch a Shakespeare play. I can't, as Gori suggests, just "watch" it. I lose track very quickly, and after 10 minutes or so I have no idea what's going on. It really does go in one ear and out the other; it requires more processing power to understand than my brain is capable of, so I take hardly any of it in. I watched Brannagh's Hamlet last summer, and throughout I had to constantly pause, rewind, and read the SparkNotes just to figure out what was going on. It took me two evenings. I'm glad I did, because what I found was quite beautiful, but it was not easy for me. English is my first language, I'm well educated, and I read fairly widely. Shakespeare is not easy to understand.


EDIT: It's a little bit like modern art. Anyone in London can pop down to the Tate Modern and look at the modern art. The Tate Modern is in Southwark, which is 1 in 4 black. Yet when you go there, it's not little black kids from the estates walking around, checking out the Jackson Pollocks. Modern art is perfectly accessible to anyone who invests significant time and effort into learning the language of modern art, and in learning "how" to view it. Which means it's inaccessible.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thanks, ParkCungHee, for your example. Would you mind if I ask you some follow-up questions, as I go forward? But even just this gives me something to work with. By the way, would someone other than PCH, whatever you might think of Conan in general, confirm that the passage he provided us is an impressive piece of writing?

Thanks, Mise. My and Pangur Ban's discussion has not gone on long. We're just getting started! Finding our way toward shared terminology and premises. And remember that from the start, I noted his argument has a grain of truth in it. I now think two grains, and your post is pointing to one of them. But his last comment and yours are pointing toward how I'll eventually make my case. By the way, would you be willing to watch another Shakespeare play, but under specified conditions, as part of this discussion?

 

[Mise]

I'd be happy to and was planning to anyway -- recent discussions on here have inspired me.

EDIT: Also, to be clear, I don't think that Pangur is criticising Shakespeare's work per se. Merely he is offering his own critique of the culture -- indeed, the "cult" -- of Shakespeare.

 

[Gori the Grey]

ParkCungHee, will you indulge me if I ask you a preliminary question? This is not yet the Shakespearen parallel to the passage you've provided that I mean to offer. This passage is only very tangentially related to yours (and in fact I'm deliberately opening with a passage that I suspect might play into Pangur's hand). But for all that, can you tell me how clear a conception you get of the guy described here?

The courtier’s, soldier’s, scholar’s eye, tongue, sword,
Th’expectation and rose of the fair state,
The glass of fashion and the mould of form,
Th’observed of all observers.

Including, you should feel free to say (as Pangur and Mise suggest you might), "that is inaccessible to me." And by the way, no hunting around on the internet, no Spark notes. In fact, if I could, I'd have you read it through just once and report what you take in, but I guess I can't stop you from reading it through as many times as you have the Conan quote.

But again, do you get a clear conception of this guy? And if so, what is that conception?

(By the way, PCH, if the Conan passage is what you like, then Marlowe rather than Shakespeare is your guy. You should read his two Tamburlaine plays. It dramatizes precisely the story of someone trampling on kingdoms with his sandaled feet!)

Thanks for volunteering, Mise. Here's your assignment. Watch Branaugh's Much Ado. You are not allowed to stop it or rewind it to "get" anything better than you do at the speed of performance. You can jot a note to yourself about passages that "seem to require more processing power than your brain is capable of." Just a distinctive phrase or two that will help you find those passages in a text of Shakespeare after the fact; nothing so much that it further distracts you from following the plot. It's actually these passages in which I'm most interested. You don't have to try to make an exhaustive catalog. In fact, again, I wouldn't want you to, because then your attention will be distracted from the play as a whole. But if you happen to note two or three of the major ones, that would be great.

Deal?

EDIT (to keep up with your edit):

EDIT: Also, to be clear, I don't think that Pangur is criticising Shakespeare's work per se. Merely he is offering his own critique of the culture -- indeed, the "cult" -- of Shakespeare.

But the OP question is "is S's hype deserved"? And Pangur's adducing the cult of Shakespeare was, as I understood it, intended to deny that S's hype is deserved. I want to make the case that it is deserved.


What's all this fuss, by the way, about ToS, the message of which couldn't be more feminist and more threatening to patriarchy: if you knock the spunk out of one outspoken, independent-minded woman, two more will rise in her place.

 

[Borachio]

What's all this fuss, by the way, about ToS, the message of which couldn't be more feminist and more threatening to patriarchy: if you knock the spunk out of one outspoken, independent-minded woman, two more will rise in her place.

What? I don't remember two more rising in her place, at all.

Katharina, I charge thee, tell these headstrong women
What duty they do owe their lords and husbands.
.......
Come, Kate, we'll to bed.
We three are married, but you two are sped.

 

[Mise]

But the OP question is "is S's hype deserved"? And Pangur's adducing the cult of Shakespeare was, as I understood it, intended to deny that S's hype is deserved. I want to make the case that it is deserved.

He's saying that the motivation for holding Shakespeare in such high regard isn't artistic merit, but cultural snobbery. I think it's valid to say that S's hype isn't deserved because the hype results from cultural snobbery rather than artistic merit. It might, separately, deserve the same level of hype solely on artistic merit; but its current level of hype isn't based on artistic merit, but on less authentic, less deserving grounds.

Of course he might also be arguing that it doesn't deserve the hype on artistic grounds either, or that [current level of hype] = [artistic hype] + [cultural hype], and therefore deserves less hype than current (i.e. we should remove [cultural hype] from the equation). But I don't think he needs to commit to either of those things in order to make his case.

 

[Gori the Grey]

@Borachio:

Had Bianca previously been a "headstrong woman" who needed to be told her duty to her husband? (Ditto the widow.)

By the way, Mr. io, you're not allowed to be doubly self-deprecating: minor character and anti-hero (or triply: drunkard, if you're not in fact a drunkard). That somehow confounds self-deprecation, which needs to be a cleaner, single, modest self-demotion. So I'm going to rechristen you. I'm toying with Escalus or Feste.

Now @Mise

He's saying that the motivation for holding Shakespeare in such high regard isn't artistic merit, but cultural snobbery. I think it's valid to say that S's hype isn't deserved because the hype results from cultural snobbery rather than artistic merit. It might, separately, deserve the same level of hype solely on artistic merit; but its current level of hype isn't based on artistic merit, but on less authentic, less deserving grounds.

Of course he might also be arguing that it doesn't deserve the hype on artistic grounds either, or that [current level of hype] = [artistic hype] + [cultural hype], and therefore deserves less hype than current (i.e. we should remove [cultural hype] from the equation). But I don't think he needs to commit to either of those things in order to make his case.

That is the question I assume we're debating, does he deserve his present level of hype, based on artistic merit? If we hold him in high regard due to cultural snobbery, then it isn't because of artistic merit.

And are you on for the Much Ado viewing?

 

[warpus]

the "cult" -- of Shakespeare.

What I was referring to earlier when I said that members of the school board here in Ontario all have boners for Shakespeare?

 

[Gori the Grey]

What I was referring to earlier when I said that members of the school board here in Ontario all have boners for Shakespeare?

I don't think so, warpus. One could have what you call a boner for Shakespeare simply because one regards him as a great literary craftsman.

Pangur Ban's claim (at least partly endorsed by Mise) that there is a cult of Shakespeare is a more complex and far-reaching claim about Shakespeare's status in, and about how he operates in, Anglophone society.

Here's how I understand Pangur's claim. Does the following represent a fair summary and characterization of the arguments you’ve been advancing, Pangur?

First, your answer to Terx’s OP question: Shakespeare’s high status in our culture is not warranted. Instead:

1) Shakespeare’s language is difficult for modern readers and viewers to understand.

2) With work, it is true, one can make sense of the passages.

3) When you have put in that effort, what you have done is worked your way to the “hidden meaning” of passage or scene or play in question.

4) Some people, especially high-school teachers and college professors, have invested the work to figure out the hidden meanings of several or all of Shakespeare’s plays.

5) They put students through the exercise of trying to determine this hidden meaning. They incentivize this exercise in part by claiming that Shakespeare is great (and therefore will repay the efforts).

6) This is like the operation of a mystery cult, where a more advanced priesthood gradually admits less advanced initiates into a set of religious mysteries.

7) But since they are paid to do this, teachers and professors have a vested interest in claiming Shakespeare’s plays are great and should not be trusted.

8) In fact, their own commitment to Shakespeare is not primarily (and perhaps not at all) a result of their thinking he is great; rather they’re just trying to protect the investment of time and energy that they have made in coming to understand Shakespeare’s hidden meanings, and the cultural status they have attained as a result.

9) Finally, because the language is difficult, and therefore has the effect of actually obscuring Shakespeare’s hidden meaning, a modernized English version, or a translation into Albanian for Albanian readers, is actually preferable to reading Shakespeare’s own words, preferable in that it gets one more immediately to his meanings.

If this is inaccurate, Pangur, please feel free to correct. If it’s basically accurate, I’ll have tiny follow-up questions on points 1 and 6. I hope you'll stay engaged with this discussion. It's because I know you have a strong case that I want to see if I can make the other side stronger.

 

[Borachio]

@Borachio:

Had Bianca previously been a "headstrong woman" who needed to be told her duty to her husband? (Ditto the widow.)

Well, no. But I don't remember them supplanting Kate either. Still, you plainly know much more about literature, and specifically Shakespeare. My interest has been purely amateur.

By the way, Mr. io, you're not allowed to be doubly self-deprecating: minor character and anti-hero (or triply: drunkard, if you're not in fact a drunkard). That somehow confounds self-deprecation, which needs to be a cleaner, single, modest self-demotion. So I'm going to rechristen you. I'm toying with Escalus or Feste.

You have it wrong. I'm not an anti-hero myself, but a "supporter" of an anti-hero.

Escalus doesn't fit, since I'm no authority or resolver of conflict.

Feste doesn't fit, since I can't sing. And have no real insights about anything.

As for self-deprecation, I don't see it that way. I just know what I am, myself, and my honesty exceeds my worth by a long way.

Drunkard I have been (they tell me), if I'm not actually one now. (Borachio wasn't in fact my first choice for a username, but Mote, which is not only shorter but refers to a significantly cleverer character. However, that was already taken on CFC. And Borachio fits me better, as I've grown into it.)

 

[warpus]

5) They put students through the exercise of trying to determine this hidden meaning. They incentivize this exercise in part by claiming that Shakespeare is great (and therefore will repay the efforts).

I got the sense that this was happening back in highschool. It seemed as though the teachers responsible believed that their students needed to get through this Shakespeare stuff in order to progress in their understanding of the English language or something, similar to how a Calculus teacher might really want his/her students to understand the behind the scenes of integrals, before moving on to more advanced topics.

There was a sense of genuine appreciation and near worship of the work by the teachers, and it seemed like they really really REALLY wanted us to understand all this stuff and get all the meaning out of it and share in the joy of understanding it all with them... Sort of how.. let's say you see a hilarious obscure movie on TV and are trying to tell your friends about it the next day.. but they're just not getting it, because "you just had to be there". But you really wish they could laugh with you and appreciate what you watched as if they were there. That's how my teachers were acting.

That's sort of what they did with every single book we read, but with this particular author they doubled down, for whatever reason. Big time.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I wasn't claiming Bianca and widow supplant Katherine; just that they rise (as headstrong women) just as she's tamed.

1) Escalus doesn't fit, since I'm no authority or resolver of conflict.

2) Feste doesn't fit, since I can't sing. And have no real insights about anything.

1) au contraire. I've often seen your comments diffuse conflicts on OT.

2) Your maybe-this-but-maybe-that posting mode is like his chevril glove thing.

But Mote it is, my tender juvenal. Or, yes, you can redeem the name Borachio, I guess, since it is now difficult for me to think of you by any other name.

@warpus. The way you describe your high school teachers strikes me as capturing exactly what I think is at issue in my debate with Pangur Ban. If they really, really love Shakespeare because of how much joy reading his works has brought them, and they just want to share that joy with you and the other students, that's a different matter than how Pangur Ban casts it: that it's all driven by external considerations of cultural snobbery.

(They doubled down on S because he's double good, I should suspect.)