Archive for August, 2006

Byron on Shakespeare: ‘Uninventive’

Comment
Share |

Quoth Lord Byron in an 1814 letter to James Hogg:

Shakespeare’s name, you may depend on it, stands absurdly too high and will go down. He had no invention as to stories, none whatever. He took all his plots from old novels, and threw their stories into a dramatic shape, at as little expense of thought as you or I could turn his plays back again into prose tales. That he threw over whatever he did write some flashes of genius, nobody can deny: but this was all. Suppose any one to have the dramatic handling for the first time of such ready-made stories as Lear, Macbeth, &c. and he would be a sad fellow, indeed, if he did not make something very grand of them. [...] You think, no doubt, that A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse! is Shakespeare’s. Not a syllable of it. You will find it all in the old nameless dramatist. [...] [N]ot one of his is or ever has been acted as he wrote it; and what the pit applauded three hundred years past, is five times out of ten not Shakespeare’s, but Cibber’s.

Dig the tone; you can almost hear Byron (called “mad, bad, and dangerous to know” by Lady Caroline Lamb) holding forth.

For what it’s worth, I think Byron’s criticism about ‘unoriginal snippets’ and ‘rehashing of old plots’ is neither here nor there; you can pretty much say that of any artist. This passage comes just after Byron calls Paradise Lost the “very finest poetry that has ever been produced in this world”—needless to say, the ‘story’ of Paradise Lost is hardly original.

However—notwithstanding Harold Bloom’s fawning about Shakespeare having ‘invented the modern human’ (quelle idée!)—there is some merit to the claim that Shakespeare’s plots can be simplistic compared to other ‘great literature’. The man was writing for the box-office after all.

But the masterful explorations of human psyche and sheer quality of expression more than compensate for that. Would you rather have a ‘more clever’ story in Macbeth, or would you rather have Lady Macbeth wailing “here’s the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!” Not to mention Macbeth’s hysterical histrionics:

Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased,
Pluck from the memory a rooted sorrow,
Raze out the written troubles of the brain
And with some sweet oblivious antidote
Cleanse the stuff’d bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart?
[...]
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
[...]
I gin to be aweary of the sun,
And wish the estate o’ the world were now undone.
Ring the alarum-bell! Blow, wind! come, wrack!
At least we’ll die with harness on our back.


The New Yorker on Starr Report: ‘The Narrator is Mad’

Comment
Share |

In a great interview with New Yorker editor David Remnick from 1999—wherein he says,

I don’t think it’s a diminishing number that wants something like the New Yorker. I think it’s expanding number for the same reason that audiences for the opera, jazz and books are expanding. I mean, walk into the best independent bookstore on a Saturday afternoon in Berkeley or San Francisco, or Borders or Barnes and Noble! Look at the crowd there!

Remnick also remarks, “Adam Gopnik wrote about the Starr Report as if he were, God forgive me, deconstructing Pamela or Clarissa.”

What did Gopnik write? Here’s a copy of the full ‘literary critique’. Some parts are delightfully amusing. Excerpts:

[I]n the spirit of “Tom Jones,” the first great novel, “The Report” is a text that ultimately, though against its will, makes a favorite moral point of the English novel: in a narrative of the ins and outs of bourgeois love, a scapegrace hero is almost more appealing than a moralizing narrator.
[...]
Like Poe far more than like Melville, this text—whose tone recalls “The Tell-Tale Heart” (the throbbing organ that keeps the narrator uneasily awake) and “The Cask of Amontillado” (all those windowless rooms!)—uses an obsessional voice to tell what is, in all other ways, a relentlessly ordinary story of adultery. A supposedly dispassionate account of a man’s sins becomes so overwrought that the reader gradually realizes that the point of the story is not that the hero is wicked but that the narrator is mad.
[...]
The book’s epilogue becomes increasingly frantic. The narrator’s voice intrudes, postmodernly, insisting that the hero is guilty because of his unwillingness to cooperate in the creation of the text. In a strange way, the narrator begins to compete with the disappointed lover. He, we realize—another postmodern touch—has taken her voice: “This office extended six separate invitations to the President to testify.” Why won’t you respond to my requests? Why won’t you return my phone calls? You do everything you can to avoid me. And, finally: I will not be ignored. The plaint of the rejected disciplinarian (Clinton “spurned six invitations to testify”). Hell, our chagrined hero learns, hath no fury like a woman scorned (“You want me out of your life… I guess the signs have been made clear for awhile—not wanting to see me and rarely calling”), except that of an independent counsel spurned.


Sow the Wind, Reap the Whirlwind

Comment
Share |


“Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes.”
— Voltaire

ann-telnaes.gif

Billmon:

It cost the IDF almost 30 KIA and 40-50 wounded to take those two villages, and now they’ve given them back. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

Juan Cole:

It was such a stupid war. It was thick-as-two-blocks-of-wood strategy on all sides. It was moronic for the Israelis to plan it out last year. It was idiotic for Hizbullah to cross over into Israel, kill soldiers, and take two captive. It was brain dead for the Israeli officer corps and politicians to think they could get anything positive out of bombing Lebanon back to the stone age and making a million people homeless. It was dim-witted for Hasan Nasrallah to threaten Israelis with releasing poison gases from Haifa chemical plants on them. It was obtuse for the Israelis to confront a dug-in guerrilla movement with green conventional troops marching in straight lines. It was dull of Hizbullah to fire thousands of katyushas into open fields where they mainly damaged wild grass. The few times when the rockets managed to kill someone, it was often an Arab Israeli civilian. Stupid.

George Will:

Foreign policy “realists” considered Middle East stability the goal. The realists’ critics, who regard realism as reprehensibly unambitious, considered stability the problem. That problem has been solved.

Fred Kaplan:

How many souls over the decades have sallied forth into the desert, beaming with bright eyes and blueprints for a “new Middle East,” only to bog down in the dunes, blistered by sunstroke and bitten by scorpions?

john-deering.gif

Sidney Blumenthal: ‘Israel’s debacle, courtesy of Bush’.



View Archives »

About

You are currently browsing the Firas Durri weblog archives for the month August, 2006.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.

Categories