Re: Shakespeare
J J R (jrovira@juno.com)
Wed, 04 Nov 1998 17:13:34 -0500 (EST)
Yeah, I think it's a pretty big stretch to say Shakespeare catered
exclusively to public demands. He obviously didn't ignore them, and he
did cater to them quite often, yes, but he did so consciously and to
serve his purposes.
I think the best example would be the Shylock character. He created
Shylock to be a character that completely fulfilled the biases of his
audiences, but at the same time put in his mouth a "if you prick us, do
we not bleed?" speech, one that put the burden for the monster's
existence upon the very audience that perceived him as a monster.
Quite the contrary to his audience's expectations...
Jim
On Wed, 04 Nov 1998 01:57:04 -0500 Matt Kozusko
<mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu> writes:
>Matthew_Stevenson@baylor.edu wrote:
>
>> sonnets, odes to larks--these he thought were art...but those plays
>and such,
>> but means to a buck...matt
>
>It seems unlikely that Shakespeare would take no interest in his craft
>other than as a means of generating income, ceasing to pursue
>aesthetic
>ends beyond the point at which his lines could be seen to turn a
>profit. Between, say, _Comedy of Errors_ and _King Lear_,
>Shakespeare's
>language goes from a crisp and sensible regular iambic pentameter to
>an
>obfuscated, irregular verse rich with difficult symbols and indulged
>passages. Such changes, presumably, did not cater to public demand.
>
>
>--
>Matt Kozusko mkozusko@parallel.park.uga.edu
>
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]