[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 98 KB, 402x402, 1396471771334.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730316 No.4730316[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Essential/interesting works of shakespeare criticism?

>> No.4730320

The movie "Anonymous"?

>> No.4730325

>criticizing the bard
Edgy

>> No.4730567

>>4730325
Criticism isn't always negative. I think the OP just means it as in "critical analysis."

>> No.4730626

>>4730325

criticism- "the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work."

Also, I'm looking for interesting studies of plays and their characters, themes, the history surrounding them, etc... Works like Mark Van Doren's Shakespeare.

>> No.4730641

>>4730316

I would like to make some considerations about the underestimated class of workers known as literary critics.

I really think that good literary critics are some of the best professors a writer can have during his life. These man and women spend great part of their lives, hours and hours of their days, focusing on certain aspects on the work of a particular author (or authors), and generally they do it for no other reason than simply by pure love and respect for the writers they analyze. Generally these critics do not acquire fame or glory, and are only known and respect by a few scholars and readers. It’s very rare for a literary critic to achieve fame, and when that happens it’s mostly because it is an asshole with edgy opinions and obnoxious personality, being that people buy he’s or her books not because of its content, but because of the stupid personality of the author (Harold Bloom is an example).

Since Shakespeare is my favorite writer I have read a lot of criticism on him, and my personal list of best critical books about Shakespeare is this one (in no particular order):

>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>Shakespeare’s Uses of The Arts of Language, by Sister Mirian Joseph;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans

Many of these books are not particularly famous, but I can guarantee that my development as a reader (and above all, as a writer) was tremendously enhanced due to the works of these man and women. I thank them from all my heart for they works, for all the time and effort they have dedicated to analyze aspects of Shakespeare’s writing that would seem, to the majority of population, of no interest. By reading these books one develops an enormous sense of awe and wonder for Shakespeare. He was truly a colossal genius of language.

>> No.4730650

>>4730641

There is also the wonderful book of Mark Van Doren:

Shakespeare, by Mark Van Doren.

This is the best guide for the complete plays.

>> No.4730689

>>4730641
Thank you, this is very comprehensive.

>> No.4730732

bump

>> No.4730813

bump2

>> No.4730880

bump3

>> No.4730887
File: 321 KB, 160x160, 234234.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4730887

>>4730732
>>4730813
>>4730880

>> No.4730946

>>4730887
Fucking Sweets. Pugnacious bastard.

>> No.4731107

>>4730641

>hating on Bloom just because he's popular

>> No.4731122
File: 20 KB, 450x370, 1386638627534.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4731122

>>4730946

>> No.4731127

Shakespeare wasn't real and Romeo and Juliet sucks

>> No.4731134

>>4731127
Shakespeare sucks and Romeo and Juliet wasn't real*

>> No.4731137

>>4731107

No, I hate him because he is bad. He is more worried with trying to prove that Shakespeare was a deep philosopher and thinker (which he wasn't - he just was extremely good in stating the common-sense wisdom of the folk and the ancients in sublime language) and that he "invented the human" (one of the stupidest ideas ever to be created in the critical cannon) then with analyzing the true source of Shakespeare greatness: his style (or better: his many styles), his language. You hardly see Bloom talking about the language of Shakespeare, about his poetic techniques. Bloom is just a bunch of opinions and statements bombasted for pages and pages with no single prove.

That's why I don't like Bloom. He is not only arrogant, but loses completely the most important feature of Shakespeare in his critical books and articles: the Bard's language and style. Bloom is useless as a source for a writer who is trying to learn how to create great poetry by studding the old masters of the past.

>> No.4731144

>>4731134
Or maybe
Romeo wasn't Shakespeare and Juliets irreality sucks

>> No.4731155

>>4731137
how do people not realize that bloom fell off at a very definite point in the 80s and that before then he was actually a good critic?

seriously his early stuff is idiosyncratic, but smart, and full of actual readings of things instead of "blah blah emerson blah but shakespeare is greater blah but this writer is the best in this thing"

>> No.4731175

>>4731155
Well, now you got me. I have read only tree of his books: "Genius", "Shakespeare: the Invention of the Human" and "The Western Canon". No, I was wrong: I read four of his books. I have also read the little book "How to Read and Why" and actually enjoy it. But I must confess I am not familiar with his older work.

But about his book on Shakespeare: to see the sensitivity and talent that Bloom lacks one needs only to compare his book with the "Shakespeare" of Mark Van Doren, that it's infinitely better.

>> No.4731326

Bump

>> No.4731370

>>4731155
This. His book on the Romantics (Visionary Company) is quite good, though Abrams is better, and his commentary in Eerdman's edition of Blake is also good. I think that Blake drove him mad, though, and The Anxiety of Influence is a document of his struggle with Northrop Frye, who was ten times the critic that Bloom was at his best.

>> No.4731390

'Why Shakespeare is God' by Harold Bloom

>> No.4731430

bumpity

>> No.4731448

No more?

>> No.4731730

last bump of the night

>> No.4731768

first bump of the morning

>> No.4731895

bump

>> No.4732627

>>4730641

Not OP but thanks.

How would you rate the Wadsworth Collection?

>> No.4732675
File: 37 KB, 333x500, otto ludwig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4732675

interesting: otto ludwig's notes
it's interesting because he made mostly practical observations for himself as a dramatist, and didnt write it for an academic audience. the compilation was published posthumously.

>> No.4732685

>>4732675

Is there an english translation?

>> No.4732705

>>4732685
i dont have an overview but google says yes.

original is available on archive.org

>> No.4733632

bump

>> No.4734252

bump2

>> No.4734356

ansdaisbo

>> No.4734371

>>4730641
Can't vouch for the others but Spurgeon is dope OP. The most learned prof I had recommended her book.

>> No.4734380

>>4731175
i was quite impressed with his book on william blake