Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oh, look - Oxfordians!

Someone has obviously pointed out my review of Shapiro's Contested Will to the deniers. *points and laughs*


( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 1st, 2011 06:37 am (UTC)

I want to say something about Twain & Freud's p.o.v. but I'm on my phone and don't have the patience to Swype it. It's to do with sublimation in art though, and whether this is a purely modern thing, or an aspect of human nature common to artistic endeavour of any time. I find it hard to accept a complete disconnect between an artist's work and his/her internal world.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the theories you mentioned, so could well be talking through my hat. My ears just pricked up at the mention of Freud, since I'm a former student of psychoanalysis.
Apr. 1st, 2011 08:25 am (UTC)
I wouldn't argue for a total disconnect either; but I would caution against expecting to be able to do that for a writer who live in the sixteenth century. Indeed, Twain and Freud (and many of the anti-Stratfordians) seem to go further and actually feel entitled to know what elements in Shakespeare's private life inspired his writing. It's historically not possible.
Apr. 1st, 2011 12:05 pm (UTC)
There is the amusing bit in Interpretation of Dreams where Freud footnotes his contention that Hamlet is inspired by loss of father and son with his note that he doesn't think the play was written by the Stratford man. So Oxford is sublimating someone else's anxieties and desires?

I've always assumed that most playwrights of the period were working to a large extent with existing materials and often reworking rather than creating everything afresh.
Apr. 1st, 2011 12:20 pm (UTC)
No, and I'm a bit uneasy about that sort of stuff anyway, because it seems a rather intrusive way of handling someone's work, even if that person has been dead for hundreds of years. Psychoanalytic reading of the characters in a work is fine, but not the author, not unless they're on the couch by choice, so to speak. (In my opinion.)

Your previous post on this has piqued my interest. Is the book you reviewed a good place to start?

Apr. 1st, 2011 12:24 pm (UTC)
It's the only book addressing the subject I have read, and I enjoyed it, but I am not well read either in literature studies or in psychology so there may well be better material out there.

I'd offer to lend you my copy but can't find it - have a horrible feeling I may have left it on the train. (In which case it probably ended up in Genk, not too far from you, but not a lot of use either...)
Apr. 1st, 2011 09:39 pm (UTC)
Well, someone somewhere is having a very good read, no doubt! Thanks for the offer anyway. :) I'll add the book to my to-read list, it sounds like something of interest to both of us.
Apr. 1st, 2011 08:20 am (UTC)
Ooh excellent! I hope some more deniers come forth to argue with you -- it's so pleasing to see you demolish their comments.
Apr. 1st, 2011 09:04 am (UTC)
Bonkers, quite bonkers.
Apr. 1st, 2011 04:43 pm (UTC)
I don't understand why it matters so much to them that Shakespeare's work wasn't written by a glovemaker's son. I get the whole thing about when an argument is about less it gets disproportionately heated, but still.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by yoksel