Is Literature an Illusion or...

"What we think of as reality is illusion: not all of us are realistic in the criminal way that Antonio is, but, as Prospero's great speech at the end of the masque says, in our world everything that we call real is merely an illusion that lasts a little longer than some other illusions" (Frye 302).

I think that Shakespeare's plays are excellent, but they present the reader with difficult scenarios and concepts that need criticism. Is the criticism of Shakespeare's plays an illusion of what he intended it to be?

As you know, and I do too, we will never know the author's intent because we cannot talk to him, but we can assume and present criticism is the best way possible.

Are Shakespeare's plays based on reality or are they a form of "nature" (302). I think that we can use intertextual criticism to present The Tempest in any way that we see it. There are several pieces of literature that presents similar concepts as Shakespeare does.

If Prospero's speech an illusion or is it intended to distract the ideal reader?

How can an audience apply formalism to The Tempestt if several scenes are based on illusions?

What if Claudius in Hamlet killed his brother because it was used as an illusion in order to present another concept of intention? The audience would be taken away by this and they would be distracted from the point of the illusion.

I think that Frye presents a great case about The Tempest, but, as a reader, I think that reality can be understood as an illusion, but how can we distinguish the two apart?

Click here for the course web page devoted to Frye.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Derek Tickle published on March 12, 2009 4:18 PM.

Stereotypes about Women, but not Men? was the previous entry in this blog.

Existentialism, Women, and Authors is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en