The beginning of Johnson's Shakespeare preface both annoyed me and made a great deal of sense at the same time.... That detractors of Shakespeare argue that he is only revered as a writer because he wrote so long ago is ridiculous, and yet, the fact that he has lasted so long in such a fashion has to show that his work was so excellent and so true to the human condition that it remains an important part of our culture even in the modern era, and perhaps helped shape it in a fundamental way must be true.
Although I admit that Shakespeare is not a pleasure for everyone, I just don't understand the attitude that it is only considered a 'great' part of English literature simply because it is old. That idea seems patently foolish on its face. How can something of such popularity, so studied and examined, so pursued, reinterpreted and scrutinized for so long be seen in this light at all? It is hardly as though Shakespeare is the oldest play-write available to us. We still study the Greek classic tragedies for heavens sake. There are also many contemporary writers of Shakespeare's that have not created such a stir for so long.
Isn't it so that at the end of the day, the words are the thing- and the fact that they still resonate within us after all this time the only important fact in the case?
No comments:
Post a Comment