a word from our sponsors
See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help
(since you seem to be the same type of stone wall that made up
the Vatican church of Galelio's time, I wouldn't want to upset you)
please hear me one more time. If anyone viewing Van gogh's portrait's,
(the bandaged ear, the piercing eyes, the freakishly brightening colors),
and "Wheat Field with Crows' or others, some art critic who had been in
a cave for the last 100 years, wouldn't you think he or she could make
some assessment of the painter's state of mind? Likewise Picasso,
Guernica reflecting his political angst, his fractured women perhaps
reflecting his own self hatred? I mean, what are you proposing here?
That we just view the work as if it is in some vaccumn, as if no one
created it? That view is strange, Bruce. Oh, but I do think I
get it. It's only 'real' scholarship when the answers are
alreadly in the book, when it's been already safely laid out...
(Van Gogh this, Picasso that, see, we know it, it's in the book)
when you only need to see that the word of truth is the
word of truth, accepted, canonical. Hmmm. Current Shakespearean
scholarship is deadly dull. The piddly little pile of nothing
the Folger has ordained as 'truth' about him is stretched as
thin as a horse hair. That is why someone like Robert Hughes is
bold, and should be commended for trying open the boundaries and
breathe some life into the critical discussion, at least. Even,
Bruce, if history proved you right and him wrong, he still would
be worthy of respect for his courage in forging into new territory.
At least there is vitality to his approach, vitality which is sorely
lacking in Shakespearean scholarship seen elsewhere.From above you posted...
>>> Are you saying Sam
Clemens scholars don't comb through Huck Finn and Puddin'Head
Wilson for clues and insights augmenting what they know
already about the man? <<<(This part)>> There. You are so close, one might actually think you could
see it. Re-read what you wrote, above. Try to focus in
particular on that phrase, "augmenting what they know already
about the man..."Don't insult me with sanctimoniousness. I know very well
what you propose, and I reject it. You accept 'what they
already know' and then 'augment' it. Courageous. The sum total
of human knowledge has never been significantly broadened using
that formula. Knowledge requires persistance and boldness. It
requires a questioning mind, a logical mind, a mind that
doesn't just take things on surface view, (like the name on
a play) it requires reading and research and exploration into
unknown territory. The formula you propose has at its best
maintained the status quo of knowledge - at its worst stultified,
darkened, buried, waylaid and calcified human knowledge. I don't
call for inacuracy, I call for careful examination of a difficult
subject, but all you offer are curt dismissals, with little more to back
them up than the imprimater of the Folger church. I was born Catholic,
been there, seen that, doesn't prove a thing to me.
Posted by Bill Routhier on April 15, 1997 at 22:24:41
In Reply to ""What We Already Know" Vs. "Invention"" posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 15, 1997 at 15:03:17
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help