For those of you in the course, the Google Groups site is insisting I look like a computer virus, so I’m posting something below the fold for the moment.
One of the influences in Shapiro is that of the New Historians. Taking their methodology from Clifford Geertz, they believed that dense description of particular historical events could bring the subject closer to the reader. It’s a compelling idea, and it has its roots in anthropological practices, but they go a bit beyond the ken when they begin to speak as though dense description could somehow invest the text with something approaching physical solidity. The idea of tapping into the god-like power of enunciating reality, of the logos made flesh, of performative utterance in the fiat lux sense, is a problematic that has haunted poets for centuries. Take for example Coleridge’s Kubla Khan, or a Fragment of a Vision in a Dream (of which the linked note is an integral part).
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree
The idea is that the Khan, Kubla’s power is so absolute that it rivals that of the Godhead Himself, who can utter fiat lux and by virtue of that utterance, of that speaking in things, generate reality itself. In between du/did and the final completion of the entire verb, “did . . . decree”, a “stately pleasure dome arises”. And the poet, who wishes to (as Sidney says) grow in effect a second nature is participating as fully as he can in that Divinity of Making. Thus:
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight ‘twould win me,
That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !
And all who heard should see them there . . . .
The dream of being able to recapitulate the vision of the poet in hi-def 3-D as if it were solidified directly in front of the reader/viewer. Indeed, in the preface to the poem, Coleridge recounts how,
“The Author continued for about three hours in a profound sleep, at least of the external senses, during which time he has the most vivid confidence, that he could not have composed less than from two to three hundred lines; if that indeed can be called composition in which all the images rose up before him as things, with a parallel production of the correspondent expressions, without any sensation or consciousness of effort. On awakening he appeared to himself to have a distinct recollection of the whole, and taking his pen, ink, and paper, instantly and eagerly wrote down the lines that are here preserved.”
What the poem does is to enchant us into a state of hypnogogy in which these images do arise. And the purpose of this course is going to be to talk about the methods that an author may use to produce this state of mind, in large part, and to investigate why Shakespeare mystifies us by his ability to create such altered states. Part of it has to do with the peculiar effects of music on human consciousness, to be sure, but how to create that music in a literary composition is another matter.
New Historical dense description and its tendency towards storytelling certainly do stimulate some of the most basic faculties of the human mind. The idea, though, that it’s possible to discern from dense description and narrative what’s important, what’s telling, to those of a different culture or different frame of mind is rather more complicated than New Historicism would have us believe. Fortunately, Shapiro’s recounting doesn’t bog down too much in these evocations of texture. It would be a mistake to believe that dense description serves us up an unbiased, objective perspect, or that it can transsubstantiate itself, for example, into the sights, sounds and smells of a Shakespeare play performed at the Globe. It can’t, any more than Marxist analysis can bridge the gap between the discursive and material spheres, despite the “materiality” of their discourse that Marxists like to claim.
The importance of Shapiro’s overview (since the idea isn’t Shapiro’s invention) of the topicality of Shakespeare’s work is that it gives us a sense in which the work really is rooted in the material conditions of Shakespeare’s day, including the newes, whether political or otherwise, of his time, and the physical locality in which they were performed. In other words, it considers the tropological nature of his art. And the trope is one way in which an author may borrow a sense of “reality” or “physicality”. Another is through the practice of playing. Yet another is by means of drawing attention to the physical production of the sounds that the text generates when translated into voice by the actor or (usually subvocally) the reader.
I want you all to point out at least one passage that really grabbed you from Shapiro, so far, and see whether you can tie it in with this in some way
Since I was reading the final section tonight, what springs to mind is Shapiro’s discussion of the essay and how it influenced Shakespeare’s reinvention of Hamlet — a worn and tired revenge story — into a play in which the centermost conflict takes place within the protagonist himself.
On 297-98, Shapiro writes (I paraphrase) that essays straddled the spoken and written, and that Shapespeare’s essay-influenced soliloqueys manifested a new form of intimacy between the speaker and audience. Because Hamlet has no confidante, the audience becomes his confidante. What results is a play in which the most vivid imagery may be of Hamlet’s inner conflict — his doubts and confusion.
Well, that’s true, thou Horatio appears to be Hamlet’s confidante. Shakespeare is representing the skein of a man’s pattern of thought. You can’t say that it’s pure thought, in the sense of stream of consciousness. It’s something richer. But it is correct, I think, to say that Shakespeare’s creating a new sense of interiority in character here.
That’s only tangentially related to Shaprio’s over-arching theme of the effect of contemporary events on art, but, you know, the Law of Recency and all.
It does connect up with Hamlet’s proclamation to his mother that he has that within that passes show, that goes beyond what a man could act. And at the same time, it’s undercut by the fact that Hamlet is being played before us by an actor. An actor who says that he is beyond actors.
Shapiro argues that Horatio fails as a confidante because he’s not really attuned to (nor even curious about) what truly motivates Hamlet’s angst. Hamlet points this out and, Shapiro claims, Horatio’s closing lines bear it out.
Ah, see, but it’s not. Because Hamlet is being invigilated. And Hamlet is a dramatist. And Hamlet is speaking under the regime of censorship, in riddles and puns.
Yes, and that’s true of Horatio. But Hamlet also wants someone to report the story truly. And if Horatio were too close, then . . .
But then we come to the whole business of how Hamlet’s story IS reported. Much more detail than Shakespeare’s sources.
Is Hamelt self-censoring because he believes he’s under the scrunity of his father’s ghost? Or because he fears the scrunity of mortals who may uncover his (long-wrestled-with) scheme to avenge his father?
Not because he fears the scrutiny of his father’s ghost. Because of the latter. And indeed, the King and his people go to elaborate lengths to sound Hamlet out.
He’s cross-examined by a number of people in a number of guises.
One of the senses of Hamlet, in my view, that’s been unexplored, is the way in which it provides a how-to manual of means for escaping censorship, yet saying in code, or sub rosa, what you intend to say.
Sadly, a decade stands between me and my last reading of Hamlet, so I apologize if I’m overlooking some details. Anyway, another interesting point Shapiro raised was that Hamlet embodies a sense of transition from a romantic (?) past to a future that is uncertain and perhaps unworthy. He contrasts the recounting of Hamlet’s father’s martial victory over the elder Fortinbras with the fencing match (mortal only because of scheming not because it was intended to be to the death) at the play’s conclusion.
Didn’t mean to change the subject on you. I agree — the burying of meaning in ambiguity is a strong theme in Shapiro’s analysis, and it’s evident not only in Hamlet but in the other plays discussed — Julius Caesar being perhaps the best example.
Yes, and there is a sense of completion about these plays. It’s important to consider that Shakespeare is also making an early nod toward what’s been lost. Shapiro talks about how he’s referencing Marlowe, his great rival and teacher, even as he goes beyond and in so doing critiques him. Yorick, of the graveyard scene, is probably Robert Greene.
Add the fact that Shakespeare’s son was named Hamnet, and that the original hero’s name is Amleth. This play is written from the other side, where the father has died and the son grieves him. It’s, in a sense, a parallel universe to Shakespeare’s.
Completion, yes, but with a strong aftertaste of foreboding.
Which aligns neatly with the uncertainty lingering in the air regarding Ireland, succession, religion, economy . . . .
Yeah. The business with Essex was, for Shakespeare, the end of an era of heroism.
It was for Essex, too.
And the freedom which had marked the late 80’s and most of the 90’s was disappearing. Elizabeth really starts cracking down on expression. It looks like she might be replaced by James IV of Scotland. He’s a schoolmarm.
Momentarily, Shakespeare lets himself hope for the best from James, but he’s pretty quickly disillusioned.
I’ve been inspired to re-read some history of the time. OT: upon re-reading Julius Caesar, I made some notes and have a variety of questions I’d be interesting in bouncing. First off — Shapiro claims Shakespeare avoided censors by balanacing the pro-republican dialogue (pre-assassination) with pro-monarch argument (post-assassination). I don’t see it. The only pro-monarch (or -emperor or -tyrant) “argumentation” seems to be that the plotters lose a battle and die. Neh?
I wouldn’t go as far as Shapiro goes. I’d say, though, that the report of Brutus’s divided disposition, the insurrection within himself, is one of those warnings in Shakespeare. If it makes you feel that way, don’t do it.
There’s not any pro-monarch argument, either. Antony insinuates, poetically, the crowd into rising. It’s not reason. It’s oratory.
We’re going to look at that passage really closely.
Warning to Essex, perhaps? Not pragmatic, I know, but . . . .
Frankly, given the backdrop Shapiro provides about Elizabeth’s crackdown, Caesar strikes me as potentially scandalous. I suppose he was saved by the fact that it was a well-known historical event (far more than he may have been saved by any anti-overthrow sentiment in the text).
Yes, it was a well-known historical event. More, it could be construed as a warning against conspirators, generally. Also, it was uniquely suited to the opening of The Globe.
Ah, here you are.
I’ve been looking in at AIM and the Google group periodically. Then checked here.
Should this assignment be posted at the Google group site?
Go take a look at the apostrophes, the Os in that work. Consider how they might be related in an “architextual” sense to the glObe
I thought another, related note of warning in the play came from Cicero: “But men may construe things after their fashion/clean from the purpose of the things themselves.” Given the times, if ever there was a warning about what you put in writing and hand to a courier . . . .
It should be, but it isn’t. I can’t log in there right now.
Yes, and it’s interesting coming from Cicero. But to get back to that problem, consider what happens to Cinna the Poet, just for sharing the name of one of the conspirators. And that’s actually in the Plutarch.
Hi Geoff — we were just unraveling all of Shakespeare’s secrets. We’ve just about got them all.
And the ones we don’t have, we’re making up.
Yes. Bad day to come across a lot of bloodthirsty proles driven to action by a demagogue with a silver tongue dripping vagueness. Hmm. Sounds somehow relevant.
I’m taking a short smoking break. BRB.
No prob. I’m actually chainsmoking in my Embassy Suite in Montgomery, AL. Yay smoking rooms.
I think I’m going to need reference material.
there we go. Glossary of Literary Terms, 5th Edition. Bring. It. On.
Howdy, hf. Welcome to the menagerie. We’re mostly covering Shapiro, Hamlet and Julius Caesar right now.
We’re going to do Hamlet and JC in a lot more detail than we’ve been doing here, though.
While Dan’s away, if you folks read Caesar lately, can someone explain the deal with Portia cutting her own thigh as a means of proving her loyalty to Brutus? Is there some symbolism I’m missing? Or is it something mundane, like, if she lay down with another man, he’d be repelled by it?
When Antony gets up at for the funeral oration, he uses language in an entirely different way from the clipped Roman diction of the rest of the play. There are two reasons that JC is often used as an introductory Shakespeare text. First is, it’s remarkably “clean” in the sense that it all seems to make sense, and there are fewer “compositor’s errors” than in other plays, which is another way of saying the same thing.
The second is that the language is largely unadorned. It’s declarative, plain, and directed towards praxis.
Way to pee on my parade. I was actually patting myself on the back for digesting it so easily. “How far I’ve come since high school,” thought I. Meh.
Got it. They call it New Criticism though I think. I’ll just follow along.
The contrast between the two is a mise-en-abyme of Shakespeare’s reflections on language. It’s connected with the differences between epic and romance, and it’s worked out in greater detail in Antony & Cleopatra.
No, that’s different, hf. It’s the “New Historicism.”
So, prior to the next class, I’ll have to introduce you to the contrast between syntagm and resemblance in the works of Roman Jakobsen.
Benedick, that’s supposed to echo the Rape of Lucrece, which is the act that overthrows the Tarquins and creates the Roman Republic.
Dan, what’s the significance to Antony inciting the crowd (and taking sarcastic digs at Brutus) other than simply vengeance? More specifically, what’s the significance in terms of what Shakespeare was doing semantically?
Her suicide, that is.
Thanks – gotta read Lucrece.
He’s doing something very sophisticated with the language, playing upon its accidental resemblances, and echoing the wounds with the Os of his mouth. This evokes a sympathetic reaction in the crowd.
His main reason is, he’s a partisan of Caesar.
I’m at work and will be back and forth. Reading and learning.
The last time I read Shakespeare was more like 40 years ago. High school and College days.
If it’s any consolation Dan, AIM insisted for over an hour that my login was not right. Had to do a bit of work to get on there.
The motivation I got. I’ll have to re-read the passage, perhaps out loud.
For example, “brutish beasts” (Brutus) and “bear with me”.
By repeating the voiced labial sound, “b”, Antony calls attention to the operation of the lips in the performance of the sound. That then calls attention to the O of the mouth, simulating the gaping wounds of the corpse in the coffin.
I ordered all 4 of the Arden books earlier today with expedited shipping on the JC.
Say this to yourself:
“Poor, poor dumb mouths that do ope their ruby lips to beg the voice and utterance of my tongue.”
crap. New Historicism isn’t in my Glossary. Wikipedia is my friend. Oh. We need the other books already? I’m on it tomorrow morning.
Though not central to the narrative, I was struck early on by the cobbler’s dialogue — not the bit quoted by Shapiro (about leading people through the streets to wear out their shoes” but about the use of the words “awl” and “sole” in obviously dual senses. He claims, for example, to be in the business of “mending soles,” but any audience would pick up the possible allusion to “mending souls.” I wondered right away whether some greater point were being made.
There you go. Good catch. But it’s also a reference to Elizabethan sumptuary laws and the occasional crackdowns of the Puritan government of London against the playhouses. That’s why they set up shop in “The Liberties.”
Is that the bit about not being allowed to explicitly portray religious ceremonies onstage . . . a la having all weddings “conducted” impliedly offstage in between scenes?
Not really, there are hymenal scenes in Shakespeare.
ok. I emailed the list to work. Now I’m off to fox.com to see Eliza Dushku in the premiere of Dollhouse because I’m kind of lost and I don’t feel like I can add value – I’ll bookmark this to study later.
I remember whenever Bob the lit professor used to say “close reading” he would always do this thing with his hands on the table in front of him like he was smoothing out a place mat. I thought that was kind of fascinating how consistent he was about it.
Certainly, though, the attitude towards the Lupercal is very much like Puritan attitudes towards folk customs, like maypoles.
OK – caught some reference in Shapiro explaining that because of the religious laws they never portrayed weddings in the text — when a wedding was to occur in a play, a scene would simply end with everyone joyously walking offstage to GO to the wedding. I may have misread.
Okay, hf. Enjoy. Don’t be a stranger.
Shapiro’s index leaves something to be desired.
But when lovers exchange vows, that’s the important part. The wedding was often a sort of afterthought . . . as indeed it seems to have been in Shakespeare’s case.
That is, the betrothal is more important than the wedding per se.
Except in Much Ado About Nothing!
But, shit, those Italians are a whole other ball of beans.
Ah, but even there, as it turns out.
Yes, Italy has always been interesting in English lit. A place much desired and much reproved. Better yet, a mentality.
Shall we hang it up for the day, then, Benedick?
Well, I guess I see your point. For Claudio and Hero, even though most of the action followed the engagement, the key point of honor was the wooing and the accepting. You’re even more spot-on with Benedick and Beatrice, since Beatrice agreeing to his proposal was conditioned on a matter of grave honor. I sulk corrected.
Hahahaha. I like calling it the Muchado.
Sure – about time to hit the hotel bar anyway. Let me know what you’ve sorted out as an appropriate honorarium, by the way. I really appreciate your effort and I’m enjoying the opportunity to dig into this stuff with a guiding hand . . . well, at hand.
This interests me in a different way. My wife and I attend Eastern Orthodox Church. The entire service is sung. By the priest, and the congregation as well, if they wish in their parts. It is very compelling to me and makes the words resonate more in my mind as they are sung.
I had the same experience as a teen in various choirs singing say Handel’s Messiah. It effects you, deep down.
You are saying that the way Shakespeare has put the words together evokes a similar response.
I will. I’m going to spend the next few days recruiting and see whether I can’t get the bugs out of the system.
Or Penthouse Forum.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying, geoff.
I’ll see whether I can’t work that in, too, Benedick.
That last bit of inappropriate trash was directed to geoff, who didn’t deserve it.
Shakespeare’s not exactly ticklish that way.
Over and out for the moment, then.
No prob.
Who would Shakes have hired for his band? Is what I want to know. I think you guys have established that Wild Bill and all them other writers that are worth a shit are really just frustrated songwriters, so who would be his lead guitsr player. Besides me or Lost Dog, I mean.
I am thinking David Lindley. Possibly Skunk Baxter, Ry Cooder is probably a little too subtle, Santana a little too over the top. Mike Campbell is an underrated jewel.
Who are the musicians who make every song a soundtrack that you fuckers admire?
I’ll try to track it down, but before it gets too far away. There’s one lady in particular that I’ve read that argues that this is because certain sounds and the voice in particular will resonate with people at an atomic/molecular level.
clapclapclapclapclap
~ whistle ~
clapclapclapclapclap
~ yea!!!!!!!! wooooot!!!!!
clapclapclapclapclap
I’ve always considered J.S.Bach the greatest Cristian theologian I’ve ever come across, for what that’s worth.
I have this one Maggie but it is by a man.
I love the Skunk. I like Fripp. I think Fripp would have done well with Shakespeare.
It was JoAnn Ottley in Classical Singer (March and April 2004) and I also attended her class at the convention that year … anyhoo, a quote since it’s subscription only:
Ach, lass! Carlyle was a Scot!
Pythagoras was deep into music, you know.
I’m sure there’s lots more out there. at the moment I’m pretty lazy, though.
Dan,
fyi – Robert Fripp has a couple of spoken/audience interview works on Rhapsody that are excellent. He discusses his approach to art, practice, and a number of other topics. It’s refreshingly non-political, and chock-ablock with well turned phrases and useful insights.
.
Gosh, he’s a much better speaker and guitar player than he is a writer. Turgid.
I met him once. Nice bloke. Spent time talking to my brother, who was 14 at the time.
Fripp was always one of those guys that thinks about it a little too much for me. I appreciate him the most for promoting Adrian Belew.
Now that I think about it, these guys could have prolly hung with Will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb8JKV88Z2s&feature=related
“This is not the Protein Wisdom I thought I knew.”
Exit Stage Left.
Rush always seemed a little Shakespearean to me (okay, that’s Coleridge).
In a more traditional vein, maybe Fairport Convention?
Clifford Geertz
He had a famous balcony scene as well. “Do you have a nice balcony, too?”
Heh.
Wait, wait. I know this one:
In Xanadu did Newton-John
A groovy discotheque decree;
While ALF the alien puppet ran
His sitcom, humorless to Man,
Each week on NBC.
…What do you mean, that’s not how it goes?
BTW, I just ordered the Shapiro book, ’cause anyone who’s down with Clifford Geertz is okay in my book.
OK, I’m going to pretend I understood a fraction of the original post. I think the main reason I’ve stayed away from studying literature formally is because I like reading too much. Anyway… here goes a shot at the post’s request…I made a few notes on the book so far, but my focus seems have been on other areas…
But regarding the focus on current news and the reality… the discussion on Henry V I thought was very perceptive regarding the Chorus vs. the play itself. There is the expectation that is built up, then something that undermines that expectation follows. For a historical play where the outcome is already known, how you get there and what is encountered is what makes the play interesting. Watching Henry wrestle with topics of the day (his discussion while in disguise with the soldiers on who is responsible if the battle goes south, the inter-national conflicts, etc.) will resonate with the original crowds. The connection with Andrewes’ sermon, which most of the playgoers would have never heard, tells much (I think) about the overall questions of the day. Who is responsible for success far afield? Or failure? (And I loved the comparison between the sermon and Henry’s speeches, like “this day” and “this time”…. which time is really being talked about?)
Just over halfway through the book, and this comment on Julius Caesar stood out: “the issues Shakespeare explores in Julius Caesar reflected contemporary concern with the uses of the classical past, republicanism, tyranny, holiday, popularity, censorship, political spin, and the silencing of opposing voices.†As I think you’ve pointed out before, the anachronisms aren’t there by accident…they are there to bridge the gap between the 1600 years between the then-present and the play’s events.
OK, I’m rambling now, and I don’t have a minibar to blame (and having grown up in Montgomery, I understand Benedick’s situation…I’d be way gone by now if I were him!).
I don’t know Shapiro from my elbow. But the Czech sci-fi author Stanislaw Lem wrote once about a detective who was led to believe in the reincarnation of several murder victims, based upon all the available evidence. When he presents his admittedly wild theory to his superior, he gets asked, “Was the wiring in the victim’s homes copper or aluminum?” Stumped, he says he will check. The supervisor stops him, and asks, “What the hell would the electrical wiring have to do with these murders?” The detective is then lectured about the necessity of retaining a connection to objective reality, because when the evidence points to something not just impossible but ludicrously and outlandishly NOT REAL, it should be obvious that the gathered evidence is either incomplete, incorrect, or inapplicable to the actual event.
So remember that when next you have a half-second of doubt that the wino on the corner is actually human, because he looks just like the zombies from last night’s movie. Don’t reject the half-second of doubt, reject the conclusion it leads you towards. And then cross the street. Both zombies and winos are obnoxious up close and personal.
I just got the book today. I’ll get back to you all on what struck me the most.
Roses are red, violence is news…
Ah! Adrian Belew, of the Bears!
Yeah, I know he was in some other band, but so what?
Differences between zombies and winos:
o Gunfire attracts zombies
o Alcohol doesn’t attract zombies
o The majority of winos can climb ladders
o Dead zombies are not part of the AoS Lifestyle(tm)
o Zombies don’t ask for spare change
o Winos don’t ask for brains
Oh, but zombies do ask for Change!
Ha!
Grant McCracken on changes in looking at Shakespeare.
crap. They block Google Groups. Mother of shit.
Time: Thu Feb 19 19:16:27 2009
URL: groups.google.com/groups/adult_confirm
Category: Adult/Sexually Explicit
Ticket ID: {B7562416-FEE3-11DD-893F-000000009D9D}
Who are these people?
hf, I think you need to find a new job, ’cause the place you work for sounds kind of fascist. Or a lot fascist.
I’ll just have to turn it into a non-adult group, hf. But that will mean going easy with the connections to Penthouse Forum.
Dan, I was wondering if you’ve ever read the A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Tempest issues of Gaiman’s Sandman comic, and if so what you thought of them.
No, I haven’t. Honestly, SBP, my sons are just getting me to read Watchman, so I’m pretty far behind that way. I’ll get a look on your recommendation, though. When I was a kid, I loved Classics Illustrated, and the illustrations have come a long way since that.
Who are these people?
You’ve questions, Comrade?
Please to speak freely.
Just like the Newsweek cover.
Mother of shit.
I have a new favorite expletive.
Another important thing to know about Zombies is sawed off shotguns always work great against them.
In video games, anyway.
Mother of all shit is good, too.
God bless her, and keep her.
Mother settee.
I’ll get a look on your recommendation, though.
Check out at least the first two volumes of the Sandman collection, if you can.
The first volume is okay, but the series starts off as a fairly conventional horror/fantasy comic (probably because it was Gaiman’s first gig).
In the second and subsequent volumes, though, Gaiman really comes into his own.
It’s brilliant, IMO.
Ugh. I treid to get into Riffaterre today. Fail.
I think whoever first had my copy must have felt the same. Much underlining until page 13 then none. Plus it looks brand new, really brand new.