Shakespeare's works have been tackled from almost all angles and have been subject of thorough examination from literary theory and literary criticism perspectives. Can we talk today about post-theoretical Shakespeare? If yes, then how?
I would say "no" for two reasons. First, there is a sense in which "post-theoretical Shakespeare" implies that there is nothing left to be gained from the interpretation or appreciation of Shakespeare's work, which is clearly false (see, for example, Stuart Elden's Shakespearean Territories, Elden (uchicago.edu)). Second, there is a sense in which "post-theory" is an oxymoron, implying a nonexistent "view from nowhere" (see @BrittHarrison for examples of the shape film theory without theory can take).
I totally agree with Rafe McGregor . Talking about “ post- theory” gives the impression that intellectuality, if not indeed knowledge, is going bankrupt. This view, per se, can not be validated as new theoretical frameworks are constantly either constructed or discovered, from which Shakespeare’s scholars can benefit.
Rafe thank you so much for your insightful answer. For sure, there will be always interpretations about the texts and their performances. Probably "post-theor/ies" could be theories themselves from the moment they would follow a pattern and a method.
Rafe McGregor Have you please an idea about this book?
Shakespeare after Theory . David Scott Kastan. New York: Routledge, 1999.
I've not read it, Zied Ben Amor, but it looks very interesting, adopting a historical/contextual approach to Shakespeare's oeuvre.
Rafe McGregor That is possibly one way of dealig with Shakespeare nowadays: more contextualisation or working on performances. It is sure, Shakespeare will continue to inspire hundreds of thoousands in the world.
I think you can use any 'post-', it depends on how ou deal with the texts and contexts. This applies to all literary works, including old (and always new, I would say) Shakespeare.
Just to complete my previous answer. What exactly is 'post-theoretical'? I think one likes to put 'post' in so many fields, that is OK, but it has to be defined. May be there are lots of answers to this, I just don't know, I am quite happy with theories, but of course science and criticism will be always looking for new approaches. The important thing to me is that one does not 'forget' the texts.
The beautiful thing about theory, speaking of "post-" : it is always pre-modern. Fast as we run, we never catch up to what is about to be born in the way of thoughts. Thoughts, the quantum components of theories, spring like particles from the information wave- field. Thus thoughts are things, and created like all else from waves. A perfect example is Virginia Woolf's novel, The Waves. The characters speak, and are at once isolated and interactive. Or consider the scintillating exchange between Hotspur and Owen Glendower regarding the latter's theoretical pretensions magical powers demonstrated by great omens at his birth. Finally, all perception is subjective; in a sense perception is theory because no one can directly apprehend "reality." Theory is derived from subjective interpretation.
Goncalo Vilas Boas your point is very interesting. a "post" is not a fixed point in time or a landmark, it keeps moving and changing shape. I add to that the point of Jim Drummond : not only "post" is not a static concept, it is also subjective. Very interesting indeed.
Even "post" theory is a theory. An efficacious literary theory should ensue from the text rather than being imposed on it - assuming as I do that the text, Shakespeare's included, comes prior to its explications...
The word "theory" comes from the Greek "theoros" meaning spectator. Thus it is a perception superimposed on the text from without, by a perceiving spectator, and so I do not see how it can ensue from the text, or emerge from the text itself. I do realize that the snake is swallowing its tail here. Even though a theory may be imposed on a text, it may resonate with others and therefore be of value. Just because it is subjective does not invalidate a theory's value.
The richness of Shakespeare's work, in terms of areas of experience covered, infinitely interesting language and richness of imagination, is such that no one person, or indeed all of us together, will ever justifiably feel that we have quite "got to the bottom" of his works. Those who claim that they have found some sort of "key" (a theory or whatever) that "unlocks" Shakespeare fully clearly have - to begin with - no understanding of the complexity of his work.
Hello all,
Happy to share with you my recent article about Shakespeare's King Lear
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
I think Shakespeare defies space and time. He is a suitable for topics of analysis anytime anyplace. Only this explains why his work can be accessed by whatever theory proposed!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications