Othello

[Shay-Sholan]

I have just started reading Shakespeare's one of the most famous tragedies, Othello. Admittedly, I always read "classics" with hesitation due to my inclination towards modern literature. Experiments of techniques by Joyce, Marques, Kafka, Camus and other modern or post-modern writers sereve the task of capturing my interest. But the flatness of Shakespear or even Jane Austen, makes my reading of "classics" a difficult task. However, I have now decided to go through with the major works of classic literary figures. I,therefore, ask you friends to help me reading Othello. So have you anything to share with me?

[Isagel]

What do you mean by "flatness"? I do not ask as a critique, but out of curiousity.

But, to be honest, if you want to give it an honest chance I would not recommend you to start with reading Shakespeare´s plays. Plays are not meant to be read like literature and I do not think it does a play justice. I love most of the works by Shakespeare, but just reading them does not "do much" for me. My advice would be to go to the theater first, and read afterwards. But I am sure that there will be a lot of people that disagree with me. (and you might have already seen Othello? )

I would suggest Shakespeare´s poetry or some of the preachings by Donne.
just had to recommend Donne.

Good luck and hope you find something that interests you.

[Shay-Sholan]

Let me explain what I mean by "flatness" of classical literature. A comparision between a classic and a modern writer might help us in this regard. Let's select Jane Austen from the classic writers and James Joyce from the modernists. Pride and Prejudice is Austen's most popular novel and Ulysses is that of Joyce's. I hope that you have read both these novels. Let's analyse them.
The plot of P&P is very simple and events are arranged in a logical order. On the other hand, there is no plot in Ulysses as it lacks a logical order of the events. The characters of P&P are very simple ones and they manifest themselves very vividly when the plot moves. The characters of Ulysses (there are two major character only) don't follow the events (if someone finds any events in this novel) neither events follow the characters. There is a mysterious relationship (conflict) between the characters and events. In P&P actions accomplished by the characters are of greater importance and on the contrary, Ulysses is a masterly depiction of complex thought system; there is very little action.

The question arises why these differences exist between these two novelists. I believe the complexities and orderlessness of the modern life has lead the modern novel (literature) to very complex and sophisticated techniques. The life depicted in P&P or in any other traditional novel is very simple and on the other hand, the life depicted in Ulysses or in any other modern novel is very complex (but more simpler than the life itself) and orderless. This orderlessness, complexity or rather uncertainty of modern life has lead the modern novelists to adopt more complex techniques.

It's a very professional debate and I do not know to what extent I have made my point intelligible. You can disagree from my point of view and I look forward for any critical comments.

[byquist]

Another possibility would be to rent the Olivier, Othello movie. There's also the Orson Wells one but I was really disapointed with that one. There's also Branigan's (spelling??) which I found disappointing and inaccurate on a major point. But if you want to see something funny and intelligent about Hamlet, see Branigan-directed "Mid-Winter's Night Tale" -- funny and sensitive.

[Perdito]

On the other hand, there is no plot in Ulysses as it lacks a logical order of the events.

But there is a plot in Ulysses! And the notion of "logical order" is a red-herring: what you mean is that the narrative lacks or seems to lack temporal sequencing.

I am worried that the corrolary of what you are saying is that "modern" literature is likeable precisely becuase the apparent illogicality of a work, hence its apparent resistance to logical analysis, has always already defeated a reader's efforts to understand it, hence that I don't have to bother and can just let the text wash over me like some existential shower. But you don't mean that do you?

[Rata]

I tend to agree with some of the comments here. I feel you´re centering your judgement of "classic" and "modern" literature based solely on the way the plot is constructed, and of the construction of the characters.
One of the most important things to understand is that every literary period has some sort of characteristic and before the so-called modern period profound psychological development of characters was practically non-existant, in fact authors such as Joyce, Woolf, etc. do tend to have mucho more enfasis on the psychological part of the character than any other, which is why it SEEMS there is no plot in their books. To our way of thinking, books or storylines which don´t delve so much into the character´s development of psyche might seem boring and, as you say, "flat" but that doesn´t make them any less interesting or lacking in any sort of literary way. It´s much like why we find the Iliad boring, we simply don´t live by that culture anymore so many things escape us...that doesn´t mean it´s beyond any of us to understand someone like Shakespeare.
The interesting thing about Shakespeare is actually, accodring to many critics, including Harold Bloom, the depth of his characters. Hamlet is practically an antecedent of the Ulisses in the sense that his monologues are almost stream-of-consciousness...it´s possible you´re only taking Shakespeare as it´s usually taken: some guy who wrote a whole bunch of plays, many very tragic ones. He´s so much more than that! I would suggest you read Othello, pay close attention to what is being said and NOT if the writing is old english or if the use of the word "thou" is confusing, and possibly read up a bit on the play. It usually helps to have certain things cleared up, such as the fact that Iago is one of the most complex characters that Shakespeare ever came up with, etc...Shakespeare is not just hard to understand (especially if you can´t see the play and can only read it) but it´s usually misunderstood by most people (at least where I come from, they still teach you that Romeo and Juliet is a beautiful love story...).
Anyway, this ran kinda long but my point is that you should read Shakespeare, and any other "classic" writer you come across and seems mildly interesting to you, you might just find that books before the "modern" period is a lot more "complex" than what you think.

[The Unnamable]

In some ways, we certainly get to know Leopold Bloom in more depth than almost any other character in Literature. He’s probably the first character we ‘see’ sitting on the toilet:

“He read on, seated calm above his own rising smell.”

However, for me this doesn’t make him more psychologically convincing than, say, Emma and certainly not Hamlet.

Shay, you say, “The life depicted in P&P or in any other traditional novel is very simple.” What do you mean? Perhaps you are reading such works with that assumption? Were human beings less complex when Austen was writing? What about Dostoevsky or even as far back as Sophocles? If anything, they strike me as more so.

One of the regular criticisms of Austen is that she wrote about the trivialities of life and ignored contemporary historical events. That is precisely why she is so wonderful. I remember many times sitting in a staff room during such events as the fall of the Berlin Wall or the massacres in Srebrenica and listening to conversations consisting of “That’s a nice top you’re wearing. Where’d you get it…?” and so on.

One of the most significant things Austen writes about is love, which she views in an utterly unromantic and grown-up way.