(no subject)
I fell badly on my forearm last night, and now it hurts me like feminist criticism hurts Northrop Frye. Ha, okay, I like much of what Frye says, and he's as personable as AC Bradley, but still. What the hell is this business; "The lower heaven or sky is not this heaven, but it's the clearest visible symbol of it. The stars, made, as was then believed, out of a purer substance than this world, keep reminding us in their circling of the planning and intelligence that went into the Creator's original construction." Yes, it sounds nice, but the non-specified plural is not quite right; not even context clears it up. We may not have a consistent mythos, Frye, but let's not confuse exactly which inconsistent myth we're working with here.
Or, I mean, it could be that I draw entirely different conclusions about King Lear, from the essay quoted above, and I am fond of pillorying those who I disagree with. Note to Frye: when you make it clear that Edmund is bad, and constantly refer to him in a slightly-bizarre chess metaphor, please don't set up the "Edmund was beloved" line, and then totally fail to reconcile these two viewpoints. He thinks that he's absolutely right, hence the tragedy of it all, but he does not make decisions based entirely on caprice. Edmund is not a despot, and cannot be convincing played as one EVER; this much is clear from the beginning, for otherwise, the parallels between the Lear plot and the Gloucester plot are totally basic, and deadly dull. Edmund is the new political animal, several hundred years too early. In the Hamlet of DOOM, he totally has tons of political signs tacked on his front lawn.
Wow, that was hugely boring for everyone who isn't me. I think I'm going to go read about deconstructionism, and fabricate a reality where I am not enormously dispirited.
Or, I mean, it could be that I draw entirely different conclusions about King Lear, from the essay quoted above, and I am fond of pillorying those who I disagree with. Note to Frye: when you make it clear that Edmund is bad, and constantly refer to him in a slightly-bizarre chess metaphor, please don't set up the "Edmund was beloved" line, and then totally fail to reconcile these two viewpoints. He thinks that he's absolutely right, hence the tragedy of it all, but he does not make decisions based entirely on caprice. Edmund is not a despot, and cannot be convincing played as one EVER; this much is clear from the beginning, for otherwise, the parallels between the Lear plot and the Gloucester plot are totally basic, and deadly dull. Edmund is the new political animal, several hundred years too early. In the Hamlet of DOOM, he totally has tons of political signs tacked on his front lawn.
Wow, that was hugely boring for everyone who isn't me. I think I'm going to go read about deconstructionism, and fabricate a reality where I am not enormously dispirited.