On Missing the Point of Reading Shakespeare : Dr. Paul Hamilton comments on contemporary confusion

On Missing the Point
of Reading
Shakespeare


In a brief reader's comment posted beneath an opinion article in The Guardian's (London) Media : Mind Your Language section, "Rejecting the Cult of Bardolatry Does Not Make You a Philistine," ( by James Gingell, Friday, May 20, 2016) Dr. Paul Hamilton, a Shakespeare scholar, offers a brilliant and concise statement which cuts through much of the current confusion concerning the value of reading Shakespeare and why, by the way, the recent temptation to modernize its language misses the point of bothering to read the works in the first place.

He writes (in the second of the two following comments) a clarifying reply to my own response to his comment (1) here :

"To savage the plays is not to root out bardolatry. It is to avoid the problem all together - which is that the issue is power. To read any complex work of art as a bland and unified expression of any "ism" is idiotic. That is a problem of appropriation. It is not an aesthetic problem.

To turn "bardolatry" into a denunciation of a particular Renaissance aesthetic is not going to affect those in power. They couldn't care less whether it is Shakespeare or Milton or Wordsworth who symbolizes the superiority of one class over another. The artists anyway are almost always on the side of the disenfranchised. What you need to do is isolate the fraud of the approbation (appropriation (?)) of works of art for purposes utterly opposed to the artwork itself."

this (2) follow-up:

"My point is that the real problem is that Shakespeare is appropriated for various ends - whether that is status, nationalism, etc. The cringe-worthy speeches and ceremonies on Shakespeare's birthday; the false notion that Shakespeare's views were identical with the interests of the state; the mobilization of Shakespeare as an implicit defense of the class structure, when, in reality, he continually undermines class assumptions, etc. All of that is execrable and demands a * cultural * critique.

"The problem, though, is * not * the Renaissance aesthetic of the plays. The entire point of appreciating a work of art from a different historical period is that you will be estranged from your own assumptions - and have to encounter a view of language and life that is different. The demand that every work of art be easy to understand - as another poster observed - is simply an infantile wish to have one's own worldview always confirmed.

"As others have also pointed out, the author is clearly projecting his own tendency to use meaningless words to gain social status onto those who enjoy Shakespeare. I don't think I have, in recent years, * ever * seen such a binge on pseudo-hip argot "necro-obsequious evangelical proselytism"!

"Admittedly, the author proves his thesis - that he is incapable of understanding Shakespeare . . . because - as others have observed - he is totally unaware that his * one quote * from Shakespeare (from Richard II) is not meant to be taken at face value. The quote is profoundly ironic. He could have at least read the plot summary in Sparknotes™ to figure that one out . . . And, it also speaks to the mendacity of shomeone who savages the reputation of a writer without bothering to try to understand his work.

"And, as the * late * citation from the Shakespeare critic, Erin Sullivan, makes clear (did he really think this wouldn't be spotted?), he plagiarized a scholarly article about "bardolatry" without understanding a word of what was being said. Just look at the article and find the quotes he lifted from it . . . He has clearly never read Tolstoy on Shakespeare or Voltaire. He just blankly copied quotes from that essay, which he found online.

"All in all, this is a dreadful piece. And we could all have been spared the crude mixture of ignorance, nastiness, plagiarism, and misinformation if an editor from The Guardian - who wasn't sleeping on the job - had bothered to look at it carefully."

--------------------
(1)

(2)

--------------------

I find Paul Hamilton's critical comment here one of the most insightful comments I have ever read concerning Shakespeare's work. To preserve it and give it broader exposure, I decided to post it here in the hope that others would read it and find it as interesting as I did.

I'm going to 'do a James Gingell'. In other words, having read the first few paragraphs, I really can't be bothered to put any more time and effort into appreciating his article. He lost me at 'the country went barmy for the bard'. Did it? Can't say I noticed.

Okay, I've just read the rest out of curiosity - couldn't resist. I've read much of it before - every couple of years, I think. "We haven't had a article attacking Shakespeare for a couple of years. Cobble one together, will you? A little bit of controversy to spice things up'.

Truth is, most of the country doesn't give a thought or a damn to Shakespeare. We who love him mostly have to put in some real effort to see a live performance - even in an anniversary year he's pretty thin on the ground, and the media don't seem to have taken that much note of the anniversary. I envy Gingell's world where he constantly finds himself banging up against the bard.

>3 alaudacorax:

I'm quite proud of myself - I managed to write a whole post without quoting '... sound and fury signifying nothing ...'

Um ... oops!

>
He initially lost me at "sub-perspicuous" - a vile phrase.

Then I gave it a second try and there were our old friends Tolstoy and Shaw, purveyors of clunky instruction to the gentry.

Having actually read Leo's diatribe against King Lear, albeit many years ago when I was eager to read any old boots, I am slightly surprised anybody is prepared to take the old geezer seriously as a literary critic but there you go.

Anyway I eventually managed to navigate my way to the end, duly noting the idea that an author endorses the ideas propounded by all his characters.

That's a few more precious minutes of my life gone forever.

For continued discussion on this thread's topics, please refer to the Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare Authorship Mystery group