Come, you are a tedious fool, where do you get off accusing me of trotting out my 21st century preferences when you know 100% of nothing about me beyond the fact I called a bit of Jacobean writing bonkers and it is, just a bit of writing. Surely you, from your lofty dreaming spire should be aware that nobody knows what has been lost.
I happen to also have an MA (though perhaps mine didn't sink in because I'm not such twerp about what I learned). Sadly mine is merely in linguistics. Though that came after a BA in Early Modern English Literature. So it's possible that not only have I read and understood more Shakespeare, his sources, contemporaries and influences than you. I may even understand them, even the (small) Latin bits, better. Of course I'm only saying possible as I'm not an arrogant snob who appears to be unable to deal with an affectionate term, by a fan.
Clearly I'm using 20th/21st century language, this is because I live in the 21st century, if you'd prefer I can just as easily refer to you as a (wo)man of wax, to say you are like the toad, ugly and venomous because you come over as such but doubtless you'd say I got it off an internet Shakespeare insult generator.
As far as I'm concerned Lear is bonkers - that's the point of the play. Structurally there is room to say the author took his eye off the ball plot-wise. There is plenty of literature to back that one up. Want sources? You're an academic, go to a library.
Macbeth - I call it Macbeth because that's the name, its usually only actors call it the scottish play - is certainly more than a little off centre. Since when do whole forests go walkabout? Dead people suddenly appear at the dinner table covered in blood? It's the fact it's so over the top that gives it a good deal of its appeal.
What you are getting bent out of shape about was entertainment. Yes I am sure some of it was intended to educate as was some used as propaganda but that's neither here nor there as we cannot say what the majority of the audience took away from the performances. There were no hard and fast rules as who could attend the theatres in the 17th century and it would be wrong to assume that only the educated sons of the aristocracy were standing respectfully in silence the globe as if they were watching radiohead unplugged in the Queen Elizabeth Hall. There is precious little known about Shakespeare but nobody was going to give their theatre over to some avant garde ponce with ideas of high art or some crazy moralist when what they needed was bums on seats or feet in the pit. Those plays were written with an audience in mind. Don't believe me? Leave thy vain bibble-babble and Google it.
Just because I referred to something as bonkers it doesn't mean that I think it's bad. Perhaps your prejudice is because you have problems with people who have mental health issues, this seems unfair. I have a degree – no pun intended, but in your case I'll make an exception - of enthusiasm for my subject and it's baser parts which clearly you lack. Perhaps you should read up on the period or perhaps consider how much your feelings are dictating your ghastly prudish views, you ridiculous Banbury cheese.
reply
share