February 19, 2007

McDonald's Essay = I'm Lovin It

McDonald, ''Reading The Tempest'' -- Jerz EL312 (Literary Criticism)

"Moreover, the style and form of The Tempest engage the audience textually with the same issues of control and mastery -- the problem of power -- that are brought into sharp focus by considerations of historical contexts" (Keesey 101).

It goes to show many of us new critics that one type of a criticism can be made in agreement to a completely different type of ciriticism, stressing the same point, but finding a different route to get there. This piece really reminded me of the Yachnin piece, expressing instances of justice and power. But rather than attempting to find an explanation from the author's audience, or the author's specific time period or history, McDonald is trying to look into the patterns of the literature itself.

Another concept that is brought up by McDonald is the appreciation of the ambiguity of the play and the admiration of the form and style from Shakespeare. I recall multiple occasions to which I have heard these words: "Shakespeare is too hard to understand...I don't like it." McDonald seems to stress that it should be the exact opposite, and I think that many of us are at the level to which we try to decipher the code of Shakespeare, but still find an appreciation to his mastery.

Posted by The Gentle Giant at February 19, 2007 12:10 AM

You make some excellent points, Jason. I liked the fact that he provided strong examples of justice in Shakespeare and I based my last paper on McDonald's work. It is easy to be intimidated by Shakespeare and some of the critics themselves. I've noticed as we go along, that I am starting to agree and understand the critics alot more. Maybe it's because we are becoming better critics ourselves, aye? :)

Posted by: Erin at February 19, 2007 9:35 AM

First, I like the title of the entry. Clever.

I too enjoyed McDonald's essay. To delve that indepth into a text, looking not only at each line but each word as well...well, that's the ultimate defintion of studying the text as is. He tried to seperate all the historical nonesense (I didn't mean "nonesense" as it being unimportant. It was just a fitting word) and focus on what is imporant to the critic and the reader now- the text.

Posted by: Nessa at February 19, 2007 3:24 PM


Do you really think that a contemporary literary critic applying reader response could possibly interpret meaning from anything written by anyone in any time period other than the one in which he or she lives and proclaim that criticism to be anything more than speculation?

It is nothing more than speculation. Maybe very intelligent specualtion. Maybe even speculation we all agree upon. Ultimately, it remains specualtion.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Dave Moio at February 21, 2007 9:19 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?