
Shakespeare’s Genius Is Nonsense (2014) - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/48/chaos/shakespeares-genius-is-nonsense-rp
======
paulsutter
George Orwell was a great fan of Shakespeare, and he wrote an essay[1] in
response to Tolstoy's strong dislike of Shakespeare[2]. These quotes are from
Orwell, the fan:

\- "Tolstoy is right in saying that Lear is not a very good play, as a play.
It is too drawn-out and has too many characters and sub-plots."

\- "Shakespeare has a habit of thrusting uncalled-for general reflections into
the mouths of his characters. This is a serious fault in a dramatist"

\- "Of course, it is not because of the quality of his thought that
Shakespeare has survived, and he might not even be remembered as a dramatist
if he had not also been a poet."

Tolstoy:

\- "I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I
expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one after
the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and Juliet,"
"Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I felt an
irresistible repulsion and tedium"

[1]
[http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf](http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/lear/english/e_ltf)
("Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool, by George Orwell)

[2]
[http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm)
("Tolstoy on Shakespeare", by Leo Tolstoy)

~~~
foxhedgehog
This is one of my favorite essays, it also has a great aside about how the
appetite for power is more dangerous than the capacity for violence, which has
always stuck with me as a particularly astute observation.

The essay is also particularly good because it recognizes that Shakespeare
pre-identified faults in Tolstoy's philosophy, in King Lear.

I've also long thought that a lot of the subtlety of language touched on in
this essay would have likely escaped Tolstoy in translation.

~~~
hitekker
Very astute indeed, this is my first time hearing about it.

Copy pasted below:

> The distinction that really matters is not between violence and non-
> violence, but between having and not having the appetite for power. There
> are people who are convinced of the wickedness both of armies and of police
> forces, but who are nevertheless much more intolerant and inquisitorial in
> outlook than the normal person who believes that it is necessary to use
> violence in certain circumstances. They will not say to somebody else, ‘Do
> this, that and the other or you will go to prison’, but they will, if they
> can, get inside his brain and dictate his thoughts for him in the minutest
> particulars. Creeds like pacifism and anarchism, which seem on the surface
> to imply a complete renunciation of power, rather encourage this habit of
> mind. For if you have embraced a creed which appears to be free from the
> ordinary dirtiness of politics — a creed from which you yourself cannot
> expect to draw any material advantage — surely that proves that you are in
> the right? And the more you are in the right, the more natural that everyone
> else should be bullied into thinking likewise.

My two cents is that the vast majority of people likely have the similar
capacities for violence, their expression only changes in different contexts
and for different reasons. Orwelles articulates that in the political context,
the most likely reason for violence is to attain power, so those who care less
for power have less reason and therefore less-seeming capacity for violence.

I quite like how he establishes that the reason for violence comes before the
capacity of violence when considering if someone will be violent/express
violence.

That man had a window into the political soul.

------
vivekd
I always thought Shakespehre was over-rated both as a dramatist and as a poet.
I happily read this article thinking someone else was finally going to make
the case for Shakespeare's mediocrity. But alas, I had been tricked, it was
about something much less interesting.

The article presents some speculative research by scientist Stephen Booth
about Shakespeare's effect on the bran under brain scans. It makes strange
claims about brain scans showing that the brain focuses and pays attention
when listening to Shakespeare. It then reaches the dubious conclusion that
this is because of some patterns that Shakespeare, in his genius, put in the
verses. Of course, these patterns are semantic rather than syntactical and
thus not easily quantifiable and measurable in an objective fashion.

Naturally Booth doesn't even consider the possibility that the brain activity
may be attributable to other factors. Like the fact that it could just be the
brain reacting to archaic styles of English and realizing that it has to focus
and pay closer attention to discern the meaning. . . Or that it may be the
verses trigger memories of studying it in high school English classes where
focus and close attention was required . . .

No it can't be any of these things, obviously it's because Shakespeare is a
genius and put some "genius patterns" in his verses. After all everyone thinks
it's true so it must be true.

Speaking of which, why is jealousy a green eyed monster anyways? What do green
eyed monsters or even green eyes have to do with jealously anyways? what a
terrible analogy!

Also, who says "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day, thou art more lovely
and more temperate." Summers days aren't temperate, they're hot!! What is
wrong with this guy? Why does everyone think this nonsense is so great, don't
they realize that there are other poets and playwrights who wrote in iambic
pentameter?

In conclusion, Stephen Booth's research is nonsense, much like Shakespeare.

~~~
alimw
I never much appreciated Shakespeare at school. Maybe I was just too young;
I'm glad I took another look in later life.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
There's a lot of depth in it that doesn't get touched in schools - like how
references to "nothing" are sometimes references to female sex-organs, as in
Much A-do About Nothing.

At school we _read_ the plays; unless you're familiar with the story and
action I can't think of a more surefire way to be put off.

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
No kidding we get told to read these works for class without really having the
tools to appreciate them.

Another example of this is reading _The Catcher in the Rye_ while in high
school. The problem with this book for a teen is that theyre as a whole not
far enough removed from the angst of Holdon's character to see the bigger
picture. To a teen Holdon is this exaggeration of their worst characteristics
and, this is extra relevant for the AP and honors students who tend to read
Salinger, a literally manifest of their most annoying and disruptive
classmates. Getting over this is a lot to ask a teenager.

However removed from a teenage perspective it's much easier to see why the
book is well regarded. It depicts a kid broken by the loss of his sister and
broken by the abuse handed down to him from his caretakers. Being unlike
Holden just makes it so much easier to empathize with him.

~~~
watwut
There might be something on that. I found The Catcher in the Rye enjoyable and
fun to read when I was at high school. However, I really disliked whenever
people said that the character was supposed to talk for me or that I was
supposed to identify with him. I was not like that at all, most my schoolmates
were not like that at all. Non of them actually, we were selective school. He
would not get in. Only minority of kids is like him and I considered the
implication unfair.

It was well written story of someone who is not like me at all that gave me a
bit of inside into his head. That was cool. Essays and teachers and what not
assuming or framing it as a book that is supposed to talk for me were not
cool.

------
orf
This article is a bit clickbaity. Shakespeare's genius is most certainly not
nonsense, his corpus of work as a playwright is unparalleled in its size and
quality.

Sure, some of his characters may be a bit flakey and some of his stories 'too
drawn out', but the man's genius lies only partly there. His ability to pluck
words out of thin air to create his narrative (the man invented 1700 new
words!) and give them directly to the people influenced the English language
in a way that very few, or indeed any, individual people have done before. He
is a wordsmith in a very literal sense.

While his comedy night not translate well to other countries or cultures, and
some is lost in time, a lot of it is incredibly astute and still very very
funny today. He also had a huge influence on the now-classic farce, something
that has moved from the stage to the screen still carrying his marks.

My mother has seen every single play performed live, so I was taken to quite a
few when I was younger and developed a taste for him. The man was a genius.

~~~
rspeer
Definitely clickbaity, as the title is intentionally misleading. (Read it as
"The literary device named 'nonsense' is something that Shakespeare was genius
at".) This is definitely a case where HN should change the title.

However, one nonsense claim to watch out for is the claim that Shakespeare
invented 1700 new words. Shakespeare is the _first recorded use_ of many
words, but that doesn't mean he invented them, it means we care a lot about
Shakespeare and preserved his writing better than others'.

~~~
phab
The whole point of the article is that ambiguity in interpretation is to be
celebrated, which is precisely what we see in the title. The title is an
accurate reflection of the content of the essay in this regard.

    
    
      That people are so hung up on interpretation, on meaning, is no more than habit.
      Better to revel in uncertainty.

~~~
krapp
The purpose of HN's policy in regard to article titles is that ambiguity in
the interpretation of titles creates noise which needs to be removed from the
signal of comment quality. Many users simply reply to their initial
interpretation of a title, and boring/non-clever titles act as a filter
against people unwilling to make even the minimal effort of reading the
article first by removing that low-hanging fruit. Ambiguity in interpretation
may be a wonderful thing in literature, but on the internet and sites like
this it can be cancerous.

I half-wish HN would replace titles with random hashes, at least for a limited
time or for low-karma accounts, in order to _force_ people to have to RTFA to
comment. Although then, most comments would just be complaints about that.

~~~
mbubb
Krapp - as in "Krapps Last tape"?

~~~
krapp
No - just first initial, last name and a bit of self-deprecation.

Although now I'm upset that I never knew about this until today.

------
coldtea
A take a little offense with the "clickbaity" accusation thrown willy nilly.

The title translates to something like "Shakespeare's Genius lies in
exploiting non-sensical language and sentiment for dramatic effect".

It is a kind of pun, using the same kind of structure as the professor's point
out Shakespeare was prone to use to drive their point.

Is it clickbait? That might have played a factor. But decades before the
internet was even a thing, when you couldn't see the title of a piece unless
you have already bought the magazine/newspaper, journalists still likes to use
such puns and clever wording in their stories.

Not just on cover stories ("Headless body in a topless bar") but in stories
and regular columns buried deep deep inside the magazine/newspaper. The same
also holds true for many people writing in their blogs. They like a good pun /
clever title.

So maybe we should leave the knee-jerk accusation of "clickbait" where it
really belongs? "This guy lost 100lbs with a small trick. Doctors hate him!",
"You wont believe what Kim said to Kanye!", etc.

------
js8
It's an interesting article, although I don't know much about Shakespeare. But
it kinda confirms my theory that a good art is like a good puzzle - it
requires some (decent) mental effort on the part of the audience to
"interpret". And humans have rewards for interpreting data, that's why we like
art.

Like in a good puzzle, it cannot be too open-ended, because then too many
interpretations are possible and there is not enough motivation on the part of
casual audience to make something out. On the other hand, it cannot be too
straightforward, because then there is only one, obvious interpretation, and
that makes the reward for the audience very small.

Good puzzles have a balance between those things to maximize the reward/effort
ratio involved in solving them. The same is true for art, there has to be
enough ambiguity for audience to fill in themselves (leading to satisfaction),
but also enough stuff to keep the audience interested.

------
mcguire
Good article. Booth's _Precious Nonsense: The Gettysburg Address, Ben Jonson
's Epitaphs on His Children, and Twelfth Night_ sounds intriguing, too.

" _Why do we value literature so? Many would say for the experience it brings
us. But what is it about that experience that makes us treasure certain
writings above others? Stephen Booth suggests that the greatest appeal of our
most valued works may be that they are, in one way or another, nonsensical. He
uses three disparate textsthe Gettysburg Address, Ben Jonson 's epitaphs on
his children, and Shakespeare's Twelfth Nightto demonstrate how poetics
triumphs over logic in the invigorating mental activity that enriches our
experience of reading. Booth presents his case in a book that is crisply
playful while at the same time thoroughly analytical. He demonstrates the
lapses in logic and the irrational connections in examples of very different
types of literature, showing how they come close to incoherence yet maintain
for the reader a reliable order and purpose. Ultimately, Booth argues,
literature gives us the capacity to cope effortlessly with, and even to
transcend, the complicated and demanding mental experiences it generates for
us._

" _This book is in part a witty critique of the trendsold and newof literary
criticism, written by an accomplished and gifted scholar. But it is also a
testimony to the power of the process of reading itself. Precious Nonsense is
certain to bring pleasure to anyone interested in language and its beguiling
possibilities._ "

~~~
foxhedgehog
Booth was my thesis advisor and Seth is a friend. Precious Nonsense is great,
would highly recommend and am happy to discuss further in a thread here.

~~~
mbubb
I love the irony of writing an article on how one's main study in life is
'nonsense'. I think Shakespeare would probably enjoy such a take and agree...

------
zwischenzug
I was hoping to read about his supposed genius vocabulary, which I did a study
of here:

[https://zwischenzugs.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/shakespeare_un...](https://zwischenzugs.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/shakespeare_unexceptional_vocabulary/)

my first ever blog post :)

I also resent the clickbaity title of the article here.

~~~
olavk
It is not clickbaity, it is a clever play on words.

------
simplegeek
A little off topic.

I'm not a native English speaker and am very inclined to start reading
Shakespeare soon. Any advice on how to get started? Do I just read his plays
first? Any other commentary I should read? Who are the authors whose work in
Shakespeare must be read by people like me?

~~~
matt4077
To be honest the best intro may be watching the Romeo and Juliet movie–yes,
the one with Leonardo di Caprio.

The text is unchanged, but the setting is contemporary gangs in Florida (or
California?). The on-screen action, as well as hearing the text spoken with
all the right rhythm and emotion makes it much easier to get the meaning.

As for reading, I believe the Arden Edition are the best-regarded annotations.
I somehow ended up playing Macbeth in College and spent hours with the text,
but it takes a lot of effort to start enjoying all the nuances, and having to
perform may have made it easier to stay motivated.

(also non-native English speaker)

~~~
olavk
The movie is called Romeo+Juliet :) And agree it is a great version. I'm
pretty sure it is supposed to take place in a fictionalized LA - "Verona
Beach" is a clever play on "Venice beach" since it allows the characters to
just say "Verona" like in the play.

------
JoeAltmaier
"Shakespeare - he's that guy that just strung a bunch of cliché's together,
right?"

Its hard today to appreciate how much he's affected language and thought. We
can hardly speak without paying tribute to his works.

------
dang
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431653](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8431653).

------
mowenz
Whether Orwell or Tolstoy is right about Shakespeare's genius, it's impossible
to reliably quantify, or even qualify, genius outside of contributions to the
hard sciences.

Orwell himself actually talked about this in _Politics and the English
Language_. He discussed the debate about that lasted unnecessarily long about
the nautical screw, showing how even a relatively easily provable concept can
be difficult to prove.

------
finolex1
Looks like even science magazines have fallen prey to clickbait titles a la
buzzfeed. Which is quite sad considering that it's actually a quality article.

~~~
matt4077
Surly an essay about the beauty of puns and ambiguity in poetry can still be
allowed a modicum of cleverness in its title?

"Clickbait", especially "a la buzzfeed" also usually refers to the original
definition: "10 great jokes that Shakespear hid in poetry–No 12 will blow your
mind". And considering they have A/B tested their headlines and you consider
the article worth reading, isn't the outcome arguably good, anyway?

~~~
Aron
I'd still prefer to know what I am in for, rather than be mislead to get
there. And don't call me surly.

------
theprop
I'm not convinced that Shakespeare's genius is nonsense. The nonsense poets
like Ionesco while really good are not comparable to Shakespeare precisely
because there is sense in Shakespeare, even in Shakespeare's "nonsense".

