What Not to Do: Assume the Author Agreed with Popular Opinion
From Paul Yachnin’s “Shakespeare and the Idea of Obedience: Gonzalo in The Tempest”:
“To suggest this, of course, is not to preclude the possibility of subversive interpretations of the play in Shakespeare’s time; however, it does mean that the normative meaning of The Tempest for Shakespeare’s audience would have been conservative” (44).
So, the average playgoer would interpret The Tempest in a conservative manner,
what does that prove? It certainly does
not prove that Shakespeare’s intention was that the audience interpret it that
way. And even if he did want them to think
that during the play, who’s to say that’s what he really meant? He wouldn’t want to be too flagrant in
encouraging the people not to obey, for then he could bring the wrath of the
monarch down upon himself. Isn’t the
point in this essay to focus on the author’s intention, and not on how the
audience understood it? If we were
analyzing The Tempest through the
school of reader response criticism how would knowing the audience’s reading of
the play in 1611 matter? Wouldn’t the
most important thing be what the play did to the modern reader? I didn’t find Yachnin’s essay to be very believable. Honestly, I felt it was more an example of
how not to use historical facts to prove something than a good example of how
author intention can strengthen one’s argument.
Saying that popular opinion would have been on one side, does not mean
that Shakespeare agreed with this side.
Check out some other’s views on Yachnin’s article.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Angela Palumbo on What Not to Do: Assume the Author Agreed with Popular Opinion: I, too, agree with you. And y
I, too, agree with you. And yes, I was trying to quote Langston Hughes. Anyway, I agree with you. I think that all Yachnin succeeded in doing is confusing and boring the reader. I am not sure whether or not we should use historical facts in our own papers because it seems difficult, not to mention futile. Just as you said, just because it is popular opinion,doesn't mean that Shakespeare held that opinion. There are just too many assumptions that take place in this kind of criticism.
Alhtough I agree with both of you that Yachnin's essay was not very helpful, I do think that we need to keep in mind that using author's intent criticism is supposed to be imperfect because it never can be completely known if the argument correct. We are not the writer, we had nowhere near the same experiences as the writer, and if we did (obviously this doesn't apply in Shakespeare's case)we still don't know what went through their minds as they lived and wrote. Also, keep in mind that no matter how objective historians attempt to be, they can never be entirely objective, so even by using historical "facts" we can never be exactly certain if our information is 100% valid. I guess what I'm trying to say is that truth and correctness are very abstract and flexible concepts. As long as the argument is supported and plausible, it is correct. Although this makes the act of completing the assignments more difficult, it allows many more possibly successful interpretations.