“…Ibid.,73. Although Jeffrey Kahan believes that Lear, Gloucester, and the Duke of Albany stand in the feudal order and on the other hand Goneril, Regan, Edmund, and Cornwall are the individualists who have the characteristic outlook of the bourgeoisie, 11 Edmund is, characteristically, clear-sighted about land as a source of social and economic status. 12 His emphasis falls on "fortunes," in the sense of inherited wealth (1.2.46), and, repeatedly, "revenue" (1.2.51, 53, 67). Personal wealth, not some quaint notion of the duties of vassalage, informs Edmundʼs understanding of the meaning and value of land: hence, his famous lines in Act 1, Scene 2: "Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land," 13 and "Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit."…”
Comparative studies reveal the universal nature of human thought. Not only can themes appear as the common trait within two works, but also similitude may disguise itself in characters. In this article, the researcher juxtoposes two brothers form Shakespeareʼs play, King Lear, with two brothers from Sam Shepardʼs True West while drawing on the Derridean concept of "authenticity." As a matter of fact, Derridaʼs concept of "difference" is applied practically; that is, each brother and his counterpart in the other play not only share some similarities but reveal shades of difference as well. Edgar and Edmund are considered in opposition to each other, but Austin and Lee, though seemingly diametric, have streaks of common points, which are reversed at the end of the play. The findings confirm that canonical literary themes can still be considered universal, as a classic play from the seventeenth century by a British writer approximates a dramatic piece from the postmodern era by an American dramaturge. This is of paramount significance since in the Derridean philosophy of literature the universality of literature is questioned. Refuting the "grand narratives" or posing "ideology" in order to indirectly obliterate the difference between literary and literal language, the other postmodern thoughts also adopt the same position.Surveying world literature leads one to the idea that themes are stable but their representations differ; this could be generalized to characters since man innately tends to good and repels evil. This fact is even admitted by the philosophers who question the stability of existence. Although arguing against "the transcendental," hence "the unitary" and "universal," believing that the "literary text [is] radically situated-written and read and re-read at particular times and places-and as possessing a singularity (each time)," 1 Jacques Derrida says, "'ideas' … belong to everyone; *they are+ universal in their essence." 2 Further, his "trace," which is embedded in postmodern notions such as "intertextuality," in one respect flies in the face of the critical idiom, "ideology," which presumes that a system determines the authorʼs unconscious, so each work is, regionally speaking, wrought in particular. In fact, what do the ideas of "trace" or "intertextuality" indicate but the fact that words and thoughts are shared? They are, in other words, borrowed and lent
“…Ibid.,73. Although Jeffrey Kahan believes that Lear, Gloucester, and the Duke of Albany stand in the feudal order and on the other hand Goneril, Regan, Edmund, and Cornwall are the individualists who have the characteristic outlook of the bourgeoisie, 11 Edmund is, characteristically, clear-sighted about land as a source of social and economic status. 12 His emphasis falls on "fortunes," in the sense of inherited wealth (1.2.46), and, repeatedly, "revenue" (1.2.51, 53, 67). Personal wealth, not some quaint notion of the duties of vassalage, informs Edmundʼs understanding of the meaning and value of land: hence, his famous lines in Act 1, Scene 2: "Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land," 13 and "Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit."…”
Comparative studies reveal the universal nature of human thought. Not only can themes appear as the common trait within two works, but also similitude may disguise itself in characters. In this article, the researcher juxtoposes two brothers form Shakespeareʼs play, King Lear, with two brothers from Sam Shepardʼs True West while drawing on the Derridean concept of "authenticity." As a matter of fact, Derridaʼs concept of "difference" is applied practically; that is, each brother and his counterpart in the other play not only share some similarities but reveal shades of difference as well. Edgar and Edmund are considered in opposition to each other, but Austin and Lee, though seemingly diametric, have streaks of common points, which are reversed at the end of the play. The findings confirm that canonical literary themes can still be considered universal, as a classic play from the seventeenth century by a British writer approximates a dramatic piece from the postmodern era by an American dramaturge. This is of paramount significance since in the Derridean philosophy of literature the universality of literature is questioned. Refuting the "grand narratives" or posing "ideology" in order to indirectly obliterate the difference between literary and literal language, the other postmodern thoughts also adopt the same position.Surveying world literature leads one to the idea that themes are stable but their representations differ; this could be generalized to characters since man innately tends to good and repels evil. This fact is even admitted by the philosophers who question the stability of existence. Although arguing against "the transcendental," hence "the unitary" and "universal," believing that the "literary text [is] radically situated-written and read and re-read at particular times and places-and as possessing a singularity (each time)," 1 Jacques Derrida says, "'ideas' … belong to everyone; *they are+ universal in their essence." 2 Further, his "trace," which is embedded in postmodern notions such as "intertextuality," in one respect flies in the face of the critical idiom, "ideology," which presumes that a system determines the authorʼs unconscious, so each work is, regionally speaking, wrought in particular. In fact, what do the ideas of "trace" or "intertextuality" indicate but the fact that words and thoughts are shared? They are, in other words, borrowed and lent
“…Mappings of modern‐day meanings of “race” onto readings of early modern literature and culture were initially met with critical scrutiny, and scholars of race in Shakespeare often had to defend their use of such methodological practices . In their volume, Post‐Colonial Shakespeares , for example, Ania Loomba and Martin Orkin address this scrutiny and justify critical readings of early modern texts that employ modern‐day meanings of “race” and “colonialism.” Responding to Emily Bartels' assertion that post‐colonial critics are often inclined to “start with struggle and work backward” and “read identity through conflict, cross‐cultural encounters through conquest, race through racism” (47), Loomba and Orkin acknowledge that critics “must not flatten the past” by reading it through our own “assumptions and imperatives” but are quick to point out that “neither is it desirable nor even possible entirely to unhook the past from the present” (5–6). In other words, Loomba and Orkin suggest, there is a clear value in drawing on the energies of the present to understand the past, especially when it comes to the subject of race: We read the past to understand our own lives, and equally, our own commitments direct us to the ‘truth’ about the past.…”
Section: What's Past Is Prologuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationship between societies separated in time is as complex as the one between societies that are spatially and culturally apart—in both cases ‘difference’ is a category that should be neither erased nor valorized. (6)Uncovering that “truth” about the past and about the present is the impetus for many scholars in Loomba and Orkin's collection and for many scholars of race and Shakespeare thereafter.…”
Critical race studies in Shakespeare have generated a vital body of scholarship that affords us deeper insight both to racial formations in early modern England and to the way contemporary understandings of racial difference infuse Shakespeare with a culturally relevant currency. However, critical race studies remain relatively marginalized within the broader field of Shakespeare studies. This essay reviews and underscores the scholarship that has kindled an important conversation about race in Shakespeare in an attempt to bring it to the fore, and it draws attention to the promise behind ethnic studies-with particular attention to Latino and Latina identity-within the field of Shakespeare studies. Scholarship that emphasizes the role of race, language, cultural identity, assimilation, and immigration in early modern literature and culture is making an impact on ethnic studies in Shakespeare, but ample room remains for us to diversify our field. This essay ultimately calls for Shakespeare and early modern scholars to encourage future research and pedagogical practices where the diversification of Shakespeare studies, and the Shakespeare academy, can materialize.
“…While several of Huang and Ross’s contributors mirror the critics identified above in singling out directors and films for analysis – including Anthony Chan’s 1988 film One Husband Too Many / Yi qi liang fu (a loose adaptation of Romeo and Juliet , filmed in Hong Kong) and Kurosawa’s Ran (a 1985 film whose narrative borrows extensively from King Lear ) – others engage, in more synoptic or patently theorised ways, with a wider spectrum of films, directors and cultural traditions. And, seeming to benefit from earlier, postcolonial studies into global appropriations of the Bard on stage and screen (such as Ania Loomba and Martin Orkin’s Post‐Colonial Shakespeares [1998]), Huang, Burnett, Silverstone, Trivedi and Lee explore how diverse films and filmmakers transpose and reinstall the Bard’s plays within wholly new settings and temporalities. In such films as Sangrador (dir.…”
This essay traces the history of the idea of world cinema, cataloguing its key meanings within film studies before going on to provide an overview of its uses within the critical discipline of Shakespeare on film. The innocuousness of the term ‘world cinema’ belies the plethora of potential meanings which it has accrued; such is the term’s fluidity, in fact, that it has courted allegations of being, at best, indistinct or simplistic, and, at worst, specious and neo‐colonial. Arguing against assumptions that the term is too indistinct to be of value, or that it is, in a post‐national age, obsolete, various critics have shown that world cinema is a concept whose very malleability renders it indispensable in contemplating how the films of various international directors can be seen, to lesser or greater degrees, to relate to Shakespeare, to the industrial, political and cultural specificities of nation or region (and the cinematic traditions therein) and to global networks of demographic exchange, cinematic intertextuality and monetary and/or aesthetic collaboration. Surveying the key ideas currently provoking debate within film studies and Shakespeare on screen criticism, this article endeavours to reveal how theoretical templates of world cinema have been deployed to consider how a globally circulating Shakespeareanism interacts with the representational practices of diverse localities. The article’s conclusion tentatively suggests some new paths yet to be explored within the field.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
