Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Oh I totally agree (well, except about Heart of Darkness being racist; it was definitely anti-European, but I don't think "racist" is accurate). But I was referring to the part about:
That's not rhetoric, that's grammar/structure. If you're in a college course and you're being graded on grammar, that is not a good course (or you're bad at English and shouldn't be in a college-level English/Literature course).
University of California, Santa Cruz. On the Hamlet thing, I think it's the same with a lot of Shakespeare (and classics in general). I took a class on Postcolonial Literature that looked at the Tempest, and at the start I felt the same way: what could there possibly be new to say about The Tempest?
But when you start looking at it from a postcolonial angle you realize that all those people commenting on The Tempest for hundreds of years all looked at it the same way. None of them ever thought about how Caliban and Ariel represented the good/bad native being conquered by the European Prospero.
When you look at stuff from a different angle, even stuff like Shakespeare that has been analyzed to death, it's possible to find new things to say about it.
|
Nice. I get tht about the criticism lens. I just got jaded by students and professors being die hards about that was the only way to look at it. The grammar structure thing was the primary grading point since that's the bedrock aspect and UH was, at the time, transitioning into a research institute for state funding. It might not be that way now. What saved my ass in that Shakespeare class was the one on one interview where I tied all my essays together with the trust that the characters had between each other and how that pattern played out through each play.
10-13-2018, 03:15 PM
Linear Mode
