< previous page | page_4 | next page > | |
Page 4 poetry (Sawyer). It considers the (re)construction of Shakespeare’s character and the character of his dramatic figures (Ziegler and Sawyer). While Part 1 of Shakespeare and Appropriation involves cultural critique, Part 2 offers explorations in literary criticism. In this way, the book introduces readers first to issues pertinent to the study of appropriation, then offers examples of practical criticism, focusing on individual works and characters that might be studied in a class on Shakespeare or Shakespearean appropriation, or might simply be read for fun. The distinctions are not hard and fast: Shakespeare and Appropriation simply attempts to put theory and practice into dialogue. I Appropriation in theory
Discussion of appropriation as an aesthetic phenomenon raises questions of individual agency and therefore demands a theory of textual relations. While authors themselves often deny literary influence, insisting on a pragmatic approach to literary relations, just evoking the term “appropriation” forces us to consider “where we stand” theoretically in relation to the signifier “Shakespeare.” The word “appropriation” implies an exchange, either the theft of something valuable (such as property or ideas) or a gift, the allocation of resources for a worthy cause (such as the legislative appropriation of funds for a new school). Something happens when Shakespeare is appropriated, and both the subject (author) and object (Shakespeare) are changed in the process. The scholarly study of Shakespearean appropriation begins with a commitment to literary and social history. As Gary Taylor reminds us in his ‘‘Afterword” to this volume, Shakespeare has a history, one that Taylor himself traces in his magisterial study, Reinventing Shakespeare (1989). Georgianna Ziegler’s essay, in this volume, also contends that attending to nineteenth-century representations of Lady Macbeth helps us know “where we stand” by articulating our indebtedness to, as well as differences from, our Victorian ancestors and their attitudes toward gender. The history of Shakespearean appropriation contests bardolatry by demystifying the concept of authorship. Michel Foucault’s “What |
|||
< previous page | page_4 | next page > |