Thank you for the interesting, in-depth post, for mentioning "The Portrait of a Mirror" which I've just joyfully re-read, with new appreciation of all the details (and new lament over one of the heroes, whom I consider the most lonely, I guess), for link to "7 plots"-I'm sure I've read it before, but maybe I didn't given my amazement; in short, for the great essay.
Stimulating and steadfast as ever! The canon wars get tedious because they become rankings of taste, which become subjective passions masked in objective authority.
I will have to defend Shakespeare's appeal, though not what Bloom seems to be saying in near-religious fervor that I (on the terms you name) also reject. The plays of Shakespeare do present a grand "set of works which imbue cultural literacy," evident (I think) in their staying power for new "rich musical texture[s]" across time, cultures, and cultural contexts. Anyone who derides them as something narrowed to only English or Western greatness will have to overlook their masterful adaptations by Kurosawa, for one. As to perceptions of elitist value that your welders might feel, those aren't fully true to the plays themselves—enjoyed heartily in their day for their bawdy humor and sharp characters by people with far less education than any American in 2024. Could we blame the academic canon-izers for creating this dim perception of a Shakespeare only fit for scholars? Sure, the way we could blame school curricula for making fiction into homework. But the ranking of canon necessitates an in-group-out-group dynamic which usually reduce the texts being ranked to something beneath their actual value.
And on the subject of scholarship versus mass culture: Shakespeare wasn't and isn't high-brow at all times. Most Americans in the last 30 years will know Hamlet via The Lion King, for instance. And Twelfth Night via She's the Man, the Amanda Bynes movie from the aughts. Again, his plays have a staying power not seen in many other texts.
Oh absolutely we can blame the academics for any sour taste associated with Shakespeare. And I agree with your idea that Shakespeare's works represent a means of cultural literacy, even if I myself would not use the word "grand" when describing them.
True, the plotlines of Shakespeare are encountered in pop entertainment, but why are Shakespeare's original sources not credited? My parents' collected Shakespeare included prefatory essays which discussed the (mostly Italian) sources "the bard" got his plots from. "10 Things I Hate About You" is called an adaptation of "The Taming of The Shrew" but not of whatever Spanish literary source (the name escapes me) was the original? Seems that our Shakespeare is getting a little too much of the credit.
One thing I find obnoxious, though, is the way modern adaptations of Shakespeare seem to favor pounding his plays into the shape of whatever contemporary problem the online mob is thinking about right now. Omaha used to have a yearly free-Shakespeare-in-the-park type of festival in which the plays were made to speak to contemporary gender / sexuality concerns. It always felt like they were going too far, as if they didn't trust me to apply Shakespeare's ideas and themes to my own situation and I had to have it done for me. But is there a point where a work of art can be interpreted too broadly? A bronze statue can be melted down and poured into any mold; but is it then the same original stature anymore?
Fair point on Shakespeare's source materials: perhaps in discussion of his place in the canon, examining his influences would be more honest scholarship. He didn't emerge from a literary or cultural vacuum. That said -- I do think he had a certain genius (a term I know you dislike) at the word-to-word level, seen also in his poetry. The fact that he lifted preexisting tales for his own adaptations, which he then made his own and indelibly skilled in their language and effect, doesn't negate that skill.
I'm also with you on tone-deaf adaptations of Shakespeare which are too present-ist; like scholars, today's theatre-makers are happy to misrepresent or rare-ify the plays to their own narrow tastes. Are the original contexts medieval England or Renaissance Italy not attractive to audiences? The continued cultural cachet of period-piece films and television suggests otherwise. However -- over-broad or too-narrow interpretations of the plays aren't Shakespeare's fault. He adapted archetypal characters into icons we still recognize and want to reuse, which was his job as a playwright. That we're happy to misuse them is our fault. To use your metaphor - the original bronze statue might not exist any longer, but it was likely a high-quality statue if we wanted to reuse its bronze after a few centuries.
1) It's all one story. Arguing over ultimate credit for any given tale is futile. All story has been here from the beginning, just regurgitated in new and interesting (and uninteresting) ways.
2) That said, it is absurd to argue Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare. No one for a couple hundred years after his death doubted. It only became a problem when he became canon. Then we needed someone with a more glamorous or noble backstory to become Shakespeare. It's pure classism.
3) Shakespeare was undoubtedly a genius but not all his works are equally fine. And he's SHAKESPEARE because of timing. He was the best thing at just the moment England was taking over the world. Shakespeare's popularity in American kept him being Shakespeare while Puritan England was forgetting all about him. They just readopted him. No one else can ever become Shakespeare because no one else can be the biggest thing at the moment the English language is taking over the world. It's already happened.
This is so good (and not just the parts about Portrait) that I’m willing to forgive the misspelling of my name.
Whoa I'm fixing that right now!
Thank you for the interesting, in-depth post, for mentioning "The Portrait of a Mirror" which I've just joyfully re-read, with new appreciation of all the details (and new lament over one of the heroes, whom I consider the most lonely, I guess), for link to "7 plots"-I'm sure I've read it before, but maybe I didn't given my amazement; in short, for the great essay.
Stimulating and steadfast as ever! The canon wars get tedious because they become rankings of taste, which become subjective passions masked in objective authority.
I will have to defend Shakespeare's appeal, though not what Bloom seems to be saying in near-religious fervor that I (on the terms you name) also reject. The plays of Shakespeare do present a grand "set of works which imbue cultural literacy," evident (I think) in their staying power for new "rich musical texture[s]" across time, cultures, and cultural contexts. Anyone who derides them as something narrowed to only English or Western greatness will have to overlook their masterful adaptations by Kurosawa, for one. As to perceptions of elitist value that your welders might feel, those aren't fully true to the plays themselves—enjoyed heartily in their day for their bawdy humor and sharp characters by people with far less education than any American in 2024. Could we blame the academic canon-izers for creating this dim perception of a Shakespeare only fit for scholars? Sure, the way we could blame school curricula for making fiction into homework. But the ranking of canon necessitates an in-group-out-group dynamic which usually reduce the texts being ranked to something beneath their actual value.
And on the subject of scholarship versus mass culture: Shakespeare wasn't and isn't high-brow at all times. Most Americans in the last 30 years will know Hamlet via The Lion King, for instance. And Twelfth Night via She's the Man, the Amanda Bynes movie from the aughts. Again, his plays have a staying power not seen in many other texts.
Oh absolutely we can blame the academics for any sour taste associated with Shakespeare. And I agree with your idea that Shakespeare's works represent a means of cultural literacy, even if I myself would not use the word "grand" when describing them.
True, the plotlines of Shakespeare are encountered in pop entertainment, but why are Shakespeare's original sources not credited? My parents' collected Shakespeare included prefatory essays which discussed the (mostly Italian) sources "the bard" got his plots from. "10 Things I Hate About You" is called an adaptation of "The Taming of The Shrew" but not of whatever Spanish literary source (the name escapes me) was the original? Seems that our Shakespeare is getting a little too much of the credit.
One thing I find obnoxious, though, is the way modern adaptations of Shakespeare seem to favor pounding his plays into the shape of whatever contemporary problem the online mob is thinking about right now. Omaha used to have a yearly free-Shakespeare-in-the-park type of festival in which the plays were made to speak to contemporary gender / sexuality concerns. It always felt like they were going too far, as if they didn't trust me to apply Shakespeare's ideas and themes to my own situation and I had to have it done for me. But is there a point where a work of art can be interpreted too broadly? A bronze statue can be melted down and poured into any mold; but is it then the same original stature anymore?
Fair point on Shakespeare's source materials: perhaps in discussion of his place in the canon, examining his influences would be more honest scholarship. He didn't emerge from a literary or cultural vacuum. That said -- I do think he had a certain genius (a term I know you dislike) at the word-to-word level, seen also in his poetry. The fact that he lifted preexisting tales for his own adaptations, which he then made his own and indelibly skilled in their language and effect, doesn't negate that skill.
I'm also with you on tone-deaf adaptations of Shakespeare which are too present-ist; like scholars, today's theatre-makers are happy to misrepresent or rare-ify the plays to their own narrow tastes. Are the original contexts medieval England or Renaissance Italy not attractive to audiences? The continued cultural cachet of period-piece films and television suggests otherwise. However -- over-broad or too-narrow interpretations of the plays aren't Shakespeare's fault. He adapted archetypal characters into icons we still recognize and want to reuse, which was his job as a playwright. That we're happy to misuse them is our fault. To use your metaphor - the original bronze statue might not exist any longer, but it was likely a high-quality statue if we wanted to reuse its bronze after a few centuries.
I can endorse that.
.
1) It's all one story. Arguing over ultimate credit for any given tale is futile. All story has been here from the beginning, just regurgitated in new and interesting (and uninteresting) ways.
2) That said, it is absurd to argue Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare. No one for a couple hundred years after his death doubted. It only became a problem when he became canon. Then we needed someone with a more glamorous or noble backstory to become Shakespeare. It's pure classism.
3) Shakespeare was undoubtedly a genius but not all his works are equally fine. And he's SHAKESPEARE because of timing. He was the best thing at just the moment England was taking over the world. Shakespeare's popularity in American kept him being Shakespeare while Puritan England was forgetting all about him. They just readopted him. No one else can ever become Shakespeare because no one else can be the biggest thing at the moment the English language is taking over the world. It's already happened.