dagblog - Comments for "Loving Shakespeare's Language, Then and Now"

I studied with the 'Man' -

Anonymous — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 18:02:08 +0000

In reply to Loving Shakespeare's Language, Then and Now

I studied with the 'Man' - Stephen - in the 80s and I have to say he was a great teacher. I took one of those seminars where we did the new historicism thing, one presentation/week, but Stephen's comments usually came from another place. What stayed with me most was something he acted out, responding to Gloucester's weird non-acknowledgement of Edmund in Act 1, scene 1 of King Lear. Stephen made a gesture with his hands that carved out an unspoken space that only he could palpate - it was like Kesey's x-ray sensibility in Electric Kook-Aid Acid Test. I think the stunning convolutions and escape-the-censors-antics of Shakespeare's language propelled Stephen to unfold their historical/political context, at the same time their visceral impact was something he declined (at least in the 80s) to do more than gesture toward. In these complex political times, I wish he would expound more on what lies at the heart of the poetry, not just an old-world love of language, but an ongoing rhetorical sway on our emotions.

Great piece, Doc.

Oxy Mora — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:47:23 +0000

In reply to Loving Shakespeare's Language, Then and Now

Great piece, Doc.

Almost nobody? I disagree.

barefooted — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 01:36:49 +0000

In reply to I don't think I'm unaware of

Almost nobody? I disagree. Even here, at Dagblog, we see evidence that beauty through written word is appreciated. Not just via haiku ... and not only by "regulars". Poetry is everywhere and within everyone, and blogs like those created in-house by Mr. Smith are but one example.

Well, ocean-kat, they were

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:49:29 +0000

In reply to I've always loved Shakespeare

Well, ocean-kat, they were clearly popular in his lifetime. There are comments from his own day about how he could please both elite and popular audiences.

Some of what's harder to understand, now, is the slangy and popular stuff. Today I was teaching one of the plays that's heavy on prose comedy in barrooms, and those sections are actually much trickier to decode for most readers than the lofty poetry. It's easier to get the Roman mythological references now than the really topical references the clowns make (and almost all of Shakespeare's mythological references come out of a handful of basic schoolbooks).

The other thing is that Shakespeare's main poetic form, the blank verse line, was used so widely in English poetry (and especially on stage) that everybody had internalized that rhythm, the way that people who can't read music respond to the basic beats of pop music.

You don't really understand poetry intellectually. You get the feel, and the rhythm, and the sound, and it's like riding a bike. It isn't natural, but once you've been doing it a while it comes naturally.

Sure, Andras. And earlier up

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:42:00 +0000

In reply to Yes, Professor -- and thanks.

Sure, Andras. And earlier up this thread (although not in the original post), I admit that the move away from poetry in the culture is part of the problem.

I am not saying that Greenblatt's decisions are the whole story. But they are the part that he has control over, and I'm interested in what he won't take responsibility for.

Remember, Greenblatt has a colleague at Harvard who is - famously - an exceptional advocate for the love of poetry and for careful analysis of poetic language. If Greenblatt wants to convert undergraduates to love of Shakespeare's poetry, he has a pedagogical model to follow.

(And if Greenblatt is complaining about students who have already been converted by that colleague ....)

I don't think I'm unaware of

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 15 Sep 2015 00:35:16 +0000

In reply to And love for Shakespeare's

I don't think I'm unaware of popular poetry. And I don't remember denying that rap is poetry?

But wasn't early pop music poetry? Weren't the lyrics of jazz standards poetry? It isn't that poetry has moved from "high" culture to pop culture. People used to consume poetry as BOTH "high" culture and pop culture, but now it's just a pop culture thing. There used to be Cole Porter lyrics on the radio and poems in the newspaper. Now there are lyrics on the radio.

My grandmother, who didn't finish high school and who certainly wasn't a high-culture fan, used to recite long sections of John Greenleaf Whittier by heart.

And I'm not talking about the schools. It used to be the case that people read poetry - here defined as poetry standing alone, without any music or other art but just poetry - for pleasure on their own. And almost nobody does that now.

Nailed it on the contemporary

NCD — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 21:20:57 +0000

In reply to I should probably also admit

Nailed it on the contemporary entertainment dialogue point Andras. Visual more so now and lacking in character development from dialogue.

I imagine we were quite

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:13:23 +0000

In reply to I've always loved Shakespeare

I imagine people were quite comfortable with an oral tradition over a reading literary one, better at listening. Imagine how used to books and movies 40 years ago vs now - we tune to a different pacing, a different acceptance of slow or fast tempo. My kids can't take stuff 25 years old, just like the days not jammed with activities aren't as easy for them to swallow. It's hard for me to listen to the music I once loved - I dont have the patience for it, the transitions and core sounds don't work anymore - maybe not full enough, maybe silly sounding, or too slow to get to the point and of course it's competing against all the stuff that's come since. And then my wife thinks 2001 is such a silly intolerable piece of unbelievable crap - it used to be the film closest to God and perfection. Shakespeare's lucky - his contemporaries got rolled.

I've always loved Shakespeare

ocean-kat — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 19:33:02 +0000

In reply to Loving Shakespeare's Language, Then and Now

I've always loved Shakespeare since I discovered it at a young age. I'll read or watch a play with some regularity but not often because it takes a considerable amount of time to figure out what's actually being said. Over the years I've talked to people who never or rarely read his plays and the standard response is that it's hard to understand because people talked differently back then. Of course that's not true. There was never a time that people spouted off iambic pentameter in their daily conversations. But it is difficult to understand, from my uneducated view, due to the convolutions necessary to maintain that rhythm and the constant use of metaphors. There's something I've always wondered about Shakespeare. How popular were his plays when he was alive? It's only liked today among a segment of the educated elite because the average person doesn't understand it and doesn't want to take the time to understand it. If they were popular in 1600 why was something so complicated and difficult to understand popular?

Woolly M Shakespeare, eh? bet

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:12:35 +0000

In reply to BOOM. Headshot.

Woolly M Shakespeare, eh? they shot "Much Ado About Nothing" in Tuskany.