Railing at Greatness: Why Critics, Educators, and Readers are so Touchy These Days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

Maybe the guy who wrote the text Shakespeare is adapting was a Catholic. Just the other day I was reading some of Walter of Chatillon's 12th century Latin epic the Alexandreis, and in the second book of the poem King Darius sends Alexander the Great some balls to play with as more fit for his youth than warfare. Now, anyone who has read Henry V will recognize the famous tennis ball scene of Act I scene 2, and notice throughout the rest of the play that Henry is very Alexander like. As for Hamlet, there is some speculation about an Ur-Hamlet popular in Shakespeare's day, and anyway the story is an obvious adaptation of Aeschylus' Oresteia. And anyone who's read both Hamlet and The Oresteia will remember that the ghost of King Agamemnon appears to his son Orestes and appeals to him to kill the usurper, his brother, but to spare the Queen for her part. But Aeschylus was neither Catholic nor Protestant so what are we to make of his ghosts? As for Lear and his madness, Shakespeare only had about twenty different sources for that play, so who knows whose innovation that was.

---

Mortal, you make too much of sources and adaptations. That doesn't prove anything, either for or against Shakespeare's religion. The playwright takes the source and then shapes it to his wishes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Isn't it quite common for writers to base their (art) on some element of their life?

Is it? Is all art little more than a veiled form of autobiography?

---

There are no rules. Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. You have to look at the artist and the work and make a judgement. One can't say that an artist's biography is irrelevant. Sometimes it's relevant and sometimes not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

There are no rules. Sometimes yes, sometimes, no. You have to look at the artist and the work and make a judgement. One can't say that an artist's biography is irrelevant. Sometimes it's relevant and sometimes not.

---

While I'm not disagreeing with the principle that some work is autobiographical or at least contains elements from the author's real life, I think it's a tad hypocritical to say if Shakespeare was a Catholic it should change our view of his works and should matter to us, but if he was an anti-Semitic racist sexist homophobe whatever it shouldn't change our view of his work and shouldn't matter to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

While I'm not disagreeing with the principle that some work is autobiographical or at least contains elements from the author's real life, I think it's a tad hypocritical to say if Shakespeare was a Catholic it should change our view of his works and should matter to us, but if he was an anti-Semitic racist sexist homophobe whatever it shouldn't change our view of his work and shouldn't matter to us.

---

Did I say Shakespeare was a anti semetic, racist sexist homophobe? Did I say we shouldn't judge an author if he had those hateful qualities? I said you had to judge the total man in context. I do not think Mark Twain or Joseph Conrad were hateful people, and neither were racist. If some language came out that would not be acceptable today but common in their day should not be a stain against the men's reputation if the general core of his person (and yes that could be a little subjective) was not hateful.

I'm a huge Conrad fan . . . but I think he was a pretty legit racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Did I say Shakespeare was a anti semetic, racist sexist homophobe? Did I say we shouldn't judge an author if he had those hateful qualities? I said you had to judge the total man in context. I do not think Mark Twain or Joseph Conrad were hateful people, and neither were racist. If some language came out that would not be acceptable today but common in their day should not be a stain against the men's reputation if the general core of his person (and yes that could be a little subjective) was not hateful.

---

Yes, well, that may be and true for his time, but we are reading him our own time, and something needs to be accounted for, as our time is not his own, and our own moral sense is not his [Twain]. If a book tells me I am inferior, or is morally degrading to me, I don't think the autobiography can be made to be used as an excuse. I think the issue needs to be addressed within our own context as well, as that is where the text now exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Did I say Shakespeare was a anti semetic, racist sexist homophobe? Did I say we shouldn't judge an author if he had those hateful qualities? I said you had to judge the total man in context. I do not think Mark Twain or Joseph Conrad were hateful people, and neither were racist. If some language came out that would not be acceptable today but common in their day should not be a stain against the men's reputation if the general core of his person (and yes that could be a little subjective) was not hateful.

---

You don't have to judge the man in context. You have to judge his work in context. Big difference. The sad truth is most people who make racist statements are NOT closeted KKK members. It doesn't matter if they were hateful people, it matters what they actually said and wrote.

The objections to Twain's text by those who accuse it of racism extend far beyond a simplistic, "they use the n-word so it's bad." It's a bit more sophisticated then just a reaction against a single word. Maybe you should do some research on it.

The problem I have with judging a work of art by such non-aesthetic measures as morality is that it pretentiously presumes that we are making such a judgment from a position of moral superiority. This ignores the fact that by the standards of other eras our culture might be equally seen as quite morally deficient, and surely our own achievements will face the same judgments by a future generation who quite likely may be repulsed by our own moral shortcomings.

This does not mean that I don't believe that the issues sparked by a work of art (be they moral, ethical, theological, sociological, gender-related, racial, etc...) should not be discussed. Such is certainly one of the values of literature... and the arts in general. However, I bristle at turning a moral judgment into an aesthetic judgment: The Heart of Darkness is racist thus The Heart of Darkness is is bad... or worse yet, the notion of banning books that we find morally lacking or which raise questions and issues that make us uncomfortable. I personally despised a vast majority of what Plato had to say in The Republic (and wrote comments quite voluminously in the margins to that effect)... but I would not for the life of me wish to see the book banned, deem it poor literature, or wish I had never read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Yes, well, that may be and true for his time, but we are reading him our own time, and something needs to be accounted for, as our time is not his own, and our own moral sense is not his [Twain]. If a book tells me I am inferior, or is morally degrading to me, I don't think the autobiography can be made to be used as an excuse. I think the issue needs to be addressed within our own context as well, as that is where the text now exists.

---

I think that a close reading of Twain's work would find him still morally superior to much of today's world. He was a tireless champion of racial equality, pacifism, and passionately railed against the evils of child abuse and religious hypocrisy. His books are moral as the Bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

The problem I have with judging a work of art by such non-aesthetic measures as morality is that it pretentiously presumes that we are making such a judgment from a position of moral superiority. This ignores the fact that by the standards of other eras our culture might be equally seen as quite morally deficient, and surely our own achievements will face the same judgments by a future generation who quite likely may be repulsed by our own moral shortcomings.

This does not mean that I don't believe that the issues sparked by a work of art (be they moral, ethical, theological, sociological, gender-related, racial, etc...) should not be discussed. Such is certainly one of the values of literature... and the arts in general. However, I bristle at turning a moral judgment into an aesthetic judgment: The Heart of Darkness is racist thus The Heart of Darkness is is bad... or worse yet, the notion of banning books that we find morally lacking or which raise questions and issues that make us uncomfortable. I personally despised a vast majority of what Plato had to say in The Republic (and wrote comments quite voluminously in the margins to that effect)... but I would not for the life of me wish to see the book banned, deem it poor literature, or wish I had never read it.

---

I strongly agree. It seems that sometimes folk (not necessarily people in this thread) think they've reached the pinnacle of morality, therefore all art should be judged according to their morality. That is of course nonsense and in 300 years people will be no doubt laughing at our own cultural taboos and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pierre Menard

I strongly agree. It seems that sometimes folk (not necessarily people in this thread) think they've reached the pinnacle of morality, therefore all art should be judged according to their morality. That is of course nonsense and in 300 years people will be no doubt laughing at our own cultural taboos and whatnot.

---

Indeed, unless the work is so vehemently racist or misogynistic that its quality is undermined by its blatant prejudice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Indeed, unless the work is so vehemently racist or misogynistic that its quality is undermined by its blatant prejudice.

---

I think it may be possible such works exist, especially when the work focuses more on those themes than being an actual work of literature (plot, character, style, whatever, etc) however, I've never have come across a novel I found that vehemently bad.

Out of curiosity, have you or anyone else here encountered such a book?

misogynistic such as some greek myths or biblical stories? Racist as El Cid? No, never.

A continuation of the discussion introduced at the beginning of this thread can be found in "Jungles and Deserts: An Addendum to "Railing at Greatness"

http://www.online-literature.com/for...88#post1120188