« The Ghostly Heart | Main | It's All Relative »
February 12, 2009
Alternative Methods of Criticism: A Look at Two Essays
Russ McDonald's essay "Reading The Tempest" serves as a good example of alternative methods of literary criticism much of which George Watson mentioned in his essay "Are Poems Historical Acts?". Of historical criticism of literature, Watson states: "If it does not forbid elucidation beyond the point where the poet himself might cease to follow the argument, it commonly forbids explanations that run counter to what the poet could have thought or felt." McDonald finds historical criticism as somewhat restrictive in that it fails to focus intently on Shakespeare's verse(specifically within The Tempest). McDonald delves into the repetition used within the work and gives examples of how these techniques can better help contemporary critics gain a better understanding of Shakespeare's intentions. McDonald surmises that the repetitions and texture rich phrases allow audiences to, whether knowingly or not, engage with the work in a unique way. The continual build-up of eloquent verse McDonald attributes to Shakespeare's desire to allow the audience to take part in the evanescence involved within The Tempest.
I enjoyed finding the connections between these two essays, although I am still undecided as to whether or not I agree with McDonalds bashing of previous historical criticisms.
Posted by QuinnKerno at February 12, 2009 3:30 PM
Comments
I liked McDonald's different perspective of reading the play. It was interesting how he believed that the repetition of words symbolized reproduction of events. First, Claribel married King Tinus and then Ferdinand and Miranda were to be married. Also, Antonio usurped his brother Prospero and tried to get Sebastian to do the same by killing Gonzalo. However, I think that historical criticism is very important.
Posted by: Jenna at February 12, 2009 4:54 PM
Wow, that's great that you made a connection between the two essays. I didn't really see before how they were so complementary of one another.
Posted by: Bethany Bouchard at February 17, 2009 3:28 PM
Yes, I too think that the historical criticism of literature is still significant despite McDonald's negative remarks. The middle road of literary criticism has always seemed the most favorable route. I take what I can from each camp, while doing my best to ignore each of their incessant rattleling as to who is more adept to criticize literature "properly". If I can extract anything worthwhile from their essays I do and then comparatively associate it with the next brain who writes an essay on the same subject matter.
Posted by: QuinnKerno at February 19, 2009 4:55 PM