She in the past days a wonderful biography of William Shakespeare written by Anthony Burgess. It has been published in Peninsular Spain for twenty years and since then I believe it has never been reworked and is therefore somewhat less than peerless. To see the new Shakespearean tide that causes the result Hamnet (both the novel and its film adaptation) are useful for any editor when writing anime.
To convince him, I wrote Terry Eagleton’s words from there: “A brilliant, insightful and very entertaining biography”. What more could you ask for. The mid-term transition since the original publication (1970) cannot serve as an object: very little has advanced in knowledge since its beginnings Shakespeare’s life, which traces a number of dark areas. On the other hand, few people know as much about Shakespeare and his time as Burgess.
In the introduction to his book, he says: “On this occasion, I wrote an article where I said that if we had to choose between two discussions, an unknown work of Shakespeare or a laundry list of the same William, we always choose dirty laundry. One of the reasons for going to the laundry The story of Shakespeare is that we find such a nebulous figure in our lives, jokes that also meet his new biography. 1598, warm refreshment during the first theatrical performance hosted by King James I – but the hints are never concrete’.
The trust that I left you in reading these words. Do you prefer the new Shakespeare play on the dirty laundry list? Menu exaggeration! However, on balance, is it a lot? Do these words, because of their provocative wording, contain at least a few words of truth?
I’m afraid so, looking at them. At these heights, there is no doubt that the prophecies of Roland Barthes and his scholars about the “death of the author” were completely wrong. Read everything in the light of the author, in his biography. And if the available data is not enough, there seems to be no problem inventing it.
If you find a shadow pirouette like this: you can consider a real fiction (Hamnet) that has a fiction (Hamlet) as its only real basis
No other thing, hizo Maggie O’Farrell when based on their own statements He was outraged when he read a biography of Shakespeare: “It is impossible to know whether Shakespeare suffered the death of his son.. “But these people were happy!”, I say. “The way King Lear spoke of his mother’s robes, which he gave to the man who loved him,” he remarked. I wrote it Hamnet.
Unless it is a bad translation, I am unable to record the passage Ray Lear to which O’Farrell refers, but I give him the same. Before the prudence of the mentioned biographer, he explains the whole mechanism of fiction, with which changing intuition by conviction, he posits that Shakespeare adored his son and wept dejectedly after his death. She does it with a light that gives her the same job as Shakespeare, more specifically Settlement.
It is not about how the biographical data illuminates the work and contributes to its understanding and interpretation. If it works better than the other way around: the work is indexed based on reflections on the author’s life, feelings, and intentionswith which (avoiding what is meant by the moral imagination) he supposes to maintain a direct correspondence.
If you have such a shadow pirouette, which can only be formulated paradoxically: it makes fiction seem real (Hamnet), which contains fiction (Settlement) as the only true basis. It is not that the fiction was based on reality: it is the same reality that is based on fiction. Pues vaya.
Leave a Reply