Sounds like an interesting book, Henry -- incidentally, this was really why I brought up the passage 'They say miracles are past' in the discussion of All's Well That Ends Well'.
To the list, I'd add John Bayley's book on Shakespearean Tragedy, and William Empson's Essays on Shakespeare.
Just used "Hamlet and the Vision of Darkness" in my Masters dissertation at King's College. Ask him what he thinks about Shakespeare's possible access to Florio's Montaigne translations. Also tell him what a good book it is.
Why does Lear show such poor judgement and ill temperament right away in 1.i -- giving up (sort of) his rule, dividing his kingdom, and turning on his favorite so reflexively? Seems like something must have happened before. At least we see that Gloucester is fooled by Edmund into turning on Edgar. Lear's arc toward madness and then tragic clarity seems both more volatile and radical. Oh, and is there any other characters quite like Regan and Goneril in Shakespeare? They seem sui generis.
Successful drama relies on conflict. Shakespeare knew that the best conflicts have characters with not just conflicting goals but conflicting philosophies and world views. Usually Shakespeare doesn’t come down definitively on one side - that would undercut the drama. But this practical necessity of drama will frustrate the ability to derive definitive rational lessons. I like the thesis of the book but to some extent baked in by the nature of good drama.
This is a very valuable recommendation. Reading the part about reason that you quote up front, I thought of Tom stoppard in the hard problem also being suspicious of reason and his main character, Hilary, saying something similar about it being something of a heuristic for her lover/antagonist, Spike, as in the quote by Rhodri Lewis that WS "does not imply that the mental phenomenon represented by the word “reason” (something like “the power of intelligence through which human beings process the world”) does not exist, but that reason as generally understood is a heuristic—a fiction that the human mind has settled upon in the attempt to explain itself to itself."
A seemingly strong entry to the bountiful Shakespeare canon. I will check it out. Though I must note...no mention of Harold Bloom's Invention of the Human?
Sounds like an interesting book, Henry -- incidentally, this was really why I brought up the passage 'They say miracles are past' in the discussion of All's Well That Ends Well'.
To the list, I'd add John Bayley's book on Shakespearean Tragedy, and William Empson's Essays on Shakespeare.
All the best for now,
Michael
Oh I don’t know the bayley but I do love his work generally I’ll have to look it up
Just used "Hamlet and the Vision of Darkness" in my Masters dissertation at King's College. Ask him what he thinks about Shakespeare's possible access to Florio's Montaigne translations. Also tell him what a good book it is.
Why does Lear show such poor judgement and ill temperament right away in 1.i -- giving up (sort of) his rule, dividing his kingdom, and turning on his favorite so reflexively? Seems like something must have happened before. At least we see that Gloucester is fooled by Edmund into turning on Edgar. Lear's arc toward madness and then tragic clarity seems both more volatile and radical. Oh, and is there any other characters quite like Regan and Goneril in Shakespeare? They seem sui generis.
"ARE" there any other characters quite like Regan and Goneril? Apologies for the typo
Successful drama relies on conflict. Shakespeare knew that the best conflicts have characters with not just conflicting goals but conflicting philosophies and world views. Usually Shakespeare doesn’t come down definitively on one side - that would undercut the drama. But this practical necessity of drama will frustrate the ability to derive definitive rational lessons. I like the thesis of the book but to some extent baked in by the nature of good drama.
Try the book… it’s very good!
Just bought it!
This is a very valuable recommendation. Reading the part about reason that you quote up front, I thought of Tom stoppard in the hard problem also being suspicious of reason and his main character, Hilary, saying something similar about it being something of a heuristic for her lover/antagonist, Spike, as in the quote by Rhodri Lewis that WS "does not imply that the mental phenomenon represented by the word “reason” (something like “the power of intelligence through which human beings process the world”) does not exist, but that reason as generally understood is a heuristic—a fiction that the human mind has settled upon in the attempt to explain itself to itself."
One of the few Stoppard I don’t know…
A digital script is here if that interest you: it's a play that I think will receive better treatment as time passes https://knowledgeworkings.wpcomstaging.com/thought-and-calculation-a-tom-stoppard-course/#digital-scripts
thanks!
The age old question, did Shakespeare actually write all his own work, or was it co-written with other writers?
I assume he’s conventional on the matter
A seemingly strong entry to the bountiful Shakespeare canon. I will check it out. Though I must note...no mention of Harold Bloom's Invention of the Human?
It’s a good book, much maligned and unfairly so, good for beginners, but not as important as any others I think
Is Shakespeare better read or watched in performance ?
Read!!
Both!