Hamlet is an important play in western culture and has influence in many countries (Bloom). Some English critics and actors have done a great deal to promote Hamlet within the Shakespeare Industrial Complex (S.I.C.). The continued perpetuation of the S.I.C. from the seventeenth century to the present day keeps a lot of academics and theatre companies in business. It is up to the individual to decide if Shakespeare is really that good or if we think it is good because a lot of stakeholders in Shakespeare drama have a strong interest in saying so.
Bloom (81) presents the case that, during the eighteenth
century the Shakespeare Industrial Complex was well underway. This is because, “such
a concentration of dedicated textual critics has never been seen since, and
their efforts helped to turn Shakespeare into England’s preeminent literary
genius.” Critics such as Pope, Steele, Dennis, Warburton, and especially Johnson,
contributed. Of Hamlet in particular, “Farquhar called the play ‘long the
Darling of the English Audience, and like to continue with the same Applause.’”
Indeed, the intensive adoration of Shakespeare from the 1760s onward was so
great that R.W. Babcock called this period the “Genesis of Shakespeare Idolatry”
(85).This may indicate that Hamlet is
a great play because a lot of English critics said it is great.
Not only critics contributed to the S.I.C and Hamlet’s role within it.
Actors such as Betterton and Garrick, who played the Danish prince, were loved
by their public. Each actor benefited from Hamlet. Garrick, in particular, found the promotion of Shakespeare
in terms of a jubilee celebration in the town of Stratford, to be worth his
effort as he amassed lots of money as a Shakespeare actor. He also contributed
to the S.I.C. through supporting the careers of younger Shakespeare actors and
the preservation and the making accessible early versions of Shakespeare (Bloom
85-6). This kind of promotion of Shakespeare not only helped Garrick but also
most likely helped cement the S.I.C.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the S.I.C expanded
in new ways. Hazlitt “redefined assumptions about what makes a great tragic
hero” (Bloom 137). Coleridge shifted the focus of Shakespeare’s
characterization from sensibility to philosophy (138). The tenor of critical
focus on Hamlet’s mental state became more technical as psychological study
developed as social scientific field (139).
There are many arguments floating around as to the reasons
behind Shakespeare’s immortality. Some would argue that Shakespeare is great
because of the seemingly explosive and magical combinations of words that he
used. Or perhaps it is his representations of evil, that are irresistible at
times and revolting at others. It could be his ability to mine the human soul
for material that makes him great. However, it is sometimes overlooked that not all of the English were so enamored by Shakespeare’s work. A critic (perhaps Thomas Hanmer) attacked Hamlet for having no good reason to delay his revenge (Bloom 82). Some European critics definitely found Hamlet wanting. Voltaire dismissed Hamlet as a “gross and barbarous piece” (Bloom 83). This could be considered European playwright envy, but this Continental criticism may also have some merit. This indicates again, that perhaps Hamlet is considered good, in part, because a group of English critics said so.
It cannot be denied that Shakespeare is an extreme example
of a playwright. Neither can it be denied that there are many stakeholders in
the business of Shakespeare to the present day. There may be more than even in
the seventeenth century, when every Shakespeare academic, high school English
Literature teacher, actor in companies large and small, is accounted for across
all continents. Maybe it is Shakespeare’s inherent greatness and the
accompanying Industrial Complex in combination that will never let us forget him or his work
and will ensure our discussion of it into the future.
Works cited:
Bloom, Harold, ed. Hamlet. New York: Bloom's Literary Criticism, 2008. Print.
Image credit:
http://openclipart.org/detail/20681/shakespeare-by-maven
Works cited:
Bloom, Harold, ed. Hamlet. New York: Bloom's Literary Criticism, 2008. Print.
Image credit:
http://openclipart.org/detail/20681/shakespeare-by-maven
This provides a very good foundation for both sides of the Shakespeare argument. But, even as it is easy and maybe even more comforting, to believe that Shakespeare is still so prevalent because of the power of his words/depth of his understanding the alternative explanation must be considered.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare was found to be great by white male scholars and deified by them so in turn it has been imprinted onto the 'cannon' which still means nothing more than a list of works decided by the mysterious "others" forebearers of knowledge and culture.
How many times have you heard the phrase (or one close to it)
"You simply must read this if you are an English major."
Even as new literature is being written and we are taught how to analyze and make sense of it for ourselves and defend that, some things, like Shakespeare, will not leave us alone.
They will not leave us alone and thus we have never had the opportunity to be left alone by them.