Popular culture: any time but the present

I recently had an interesting article on an assignment: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/...rticle4219516/

One of the questions I was asked was related to this quote (6th paragraph):

"This has always been common practice. Shakespeare never set a single play in the Elizabethan England he lived in, yet his canon doesn’t exactly lack resonance, then or now."

In context what is the definition of resonance?

It was a multiple choice question and I was stuck between meaning and passion. I ended up choosing passion because the author seems to emphasize the fact that writers these days choose to take the easy route: they write something set in the past or future rather than go through the trouble of pinpointing the present (as if they lack passion). Shakespeare on the other hand, did not lack passion despite the fact that his work was never set in the present.

I don't know if im right and wanted some opinions.

Thanks.

I think resonance in this context means: the special meaning or importance that something has for you because it relates to your own experiences - from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

I have read this article and I think it is like this. The author seems to emphasis the importance of clarity. It's not a simple clarity as he wrote: It isn’t just the clarity that comes from simplicity, from the easy Manichean tensions of your typical superhero. At best, the clarity can also be rooted in complexity, but clarity is what the audience and the writer who cannot comprehend the present wants. Shakespeare resonates with us, in other words is still meaningful, because his works are deeper. On the surface they are not different from the popular culture shows, as they are set in the past like many of them. But while today's TV series, etc. are just a shallow entertainment that is pure escapism, even if it is a bit more complex and lacks the easy Manichean tensions, Shakespeare isn't. He was able to capture human nature and human nature is always the same, no matter what times you are living in. That's why the authors who can do it are always relevant. No matter if they lived 20 years ago or 2000 years ago. Human nature is universal, problems that people have to face in a certain time and place are accidental.

At least that's how I understand it.

I would have chosen meaning. The author suggests that just because authors do not concern themselves with the present - but rather hide in the past - their works do not have meaning.

On a side note, saying Shakespeare never set anything in Elizabethan England is very narrow-sighted.

I don't get why he uses Dickens as an author who wrote about the present conditions, when a number of his novels are set in the past. Tale of Two Cities is set before Dickens was born, and most of his novels are set 10-20 years before their publication date.

His reading of Mad Man's appeal is reasonable, but I'm not sure I see the trend that he sees in the general public. There's a current vogue for historical costume pieces, but this isn't new, Dickens and Walter Scott wrote historical fiction. And I think it is rather rare for any work of fiction to take place in the immediate present. He concentrates on comedies as an example of works still looking at the present, but this is a common generic convention of comedies going back to the Jacobean period. What I would question is his assumption that this desire to look for an understanding of the present in representations of the past is driven by the sort of post-modern concern with the information age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

He concentrates on comedies as an example of works still looking at the present, but this is a common generic convention of comedies going back to the Jacobean period.

---

Much further back. Look at the four pillars of Greek drama. The tragedians wrote of the mythic and historic past while Aristophanes concerned his stories with the present. The same could be said about Roman drama: The comedies are present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

I think resonance in this context means: the special meaning or importance that something has for you because it relates to your own experiences - from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.

I have read this article and I think it is like this. The author seems to emphasis the importance of clarity. It's not a simple clarity as he wrote: It isn’t just the clarity that comes from simplicity, from the easy Manichean tensions of your typical superhero. At best, the clarity can also be rooted in complexity, but clarity is what the audience and the writer who cannot comprehend the present wants. Shakespeare resonates with us, in other words is still meaningful, because his works are deeper. On the surface they are not different from the popular culture shows, as they are set in the past like many of them. But while today's TV series, etc. are just a shallow entertainment that is pure escapism, even if it is a bit more complex and lacks the easy Manichean tensions, Shakespeare isn't. He was able to capture human nature and human nature is always the same, no matter what times you are living in. That's why the authors who can do it are always relevant. No matter if they lived 20 years ago or 2000 years ago. Human nature is universal, problems that people have to face in a certain time and place are accidental.

At least that's how I understand it.

---

I definitely see why it could be meaning.
However, what would the arguments against passion be? Right now, I see both meaning and passion as being equally plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shamy1000

I definitely see why it could be meaning.
However, what would the arguments against passion be? Right now, I see both meaning and passion as being equally plausible.

---

There is nothing about lack of passion in the text. The author only points out that today's authors are not able to comprehend the ever-changing world around them and choose better known periods of history for a setting, because it's easier. But their inability to make sense of the world doesn't necessarily mean they lack passion, it rather implies that the world around us is too complicated, or that their mental powers are not up to the challenge, or both.

I think coherency has a lot to do with stuff not being set in the present tense. Reflecting on the past or creating the future allows a degree of meaning to be imbued into the text.

As for Shakespeare, I'm sure he wouldn't have touched the contemporary with a barge pole - far too dodgy given the political climate of the time. Who would have become the villains? And would they then have gone after him and his company?

I like the twitter link.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

There is nothing about lack of passion in the text. The author only points out that today's authors are not able to comprehend the ever-changing world around them and choose better known periods of history for a setting, because it's easier. But their inability to make sense of the world doesn't necessarily mean they lack passion, it rather implies that the world around us is too complicated, or that their mental powers are not up to the challenge, or both.

---

The article also doesn't mention anything about the lack of meaning of today's works. Both definitions, 'meaning' and 'passion', have to be inferred.

"The conclusion is clear: For creators of popular fiction, eager for a popular success, the here-and-now is anathema." (Paragraph 5)

The above sentence implies that authors today want quick success. They lack the passion to create a unique work of art and choose to take the easy route. Consequently, because of this lack of passion, their work lacks meaning. I see why both meaning and passion can be true but don't see why one is better than the other.

Sorry for sounding stubborn. I just want to make sure I understand why one would be answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

As for Shakespeare, I'm sure he wouldn't have touched the contemporary with a barge pole - far too dodgy given the political climate of the time. Who would have become the villains? And would they then have gone after him and his company?

I like the twitter link.

---

Shakespeare was careful, but he did not avoid current politics. Instead of pointing out the problems in London, 1604, he pointed out the problems in Vienna, late 16th century (see Measure For Measure Instead of criticizing Henry VIII's suspected murder of his brother and marrying his brother's wife, he criticized Claudius' actions.

And yes, the Tweets from WWII is fascinating. I've been following it for a few months now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shamy1000

The article also doesn't mention anything about the lack of meaning of today's works. Both definitions, 'meaning' and 'passion', have to be inferred.

"The conclusion is clear: For creators of popular fiction, eager for a popular success, the here-and-now is anathema." (Paragraph 5)

The above sentence implies that authors today want quick success. They lack the passion to create a unique work of art and choose to take the easy route. Consequently, because of this lack of passion, their work lacks meaning. I see why both meaning and passion can be true but don't see why one is better than the other.

---

In my opinion, trying to appeal to as wide audience as possible doesn't mean authors these days lack passion. I agree that they take the easy route, but it doesn't necessarily imply lack of passion, especially since if they want to set their story in the past, they should do some research about the chosen period of time and that implies they have passion. (Imagine that you want to write a popular story that takes place in China in the 5th century, would you set to work right off the bat or rather would you start by doing some research about how China was like in the 5th century?) That they are not as brilliant as Shakespeare to make stories that transcend the limits of time and place implies that even if their works are entertaining and a bit more complex, they are ultimately meaningless.

Quote:

---

Sorry for sounding stubborn. I just want to make sure I understand why one would be answer.

---

I don't mind :) I like it that you try so hard to understand it and I understand how you came to the conclusion that it's passion and not meaning. As you can see, I had to resort to my knowledge about Shakespeare to come to the conclusion why it's meaning.