“The material form and location in which we encounter the written word are active contributors to the meaning of what is read” (Kastan 2.) Perhaps this statement is self-evident, but I think it feels counter intuitive to many modern people who have come to understand literature in terms of “The Great Books.” Especially, with someone like Shakespeare this seems to be true. Shakespeare’s works seem to exist on their own; it is almost as though they are outside of the actual act of creation. They just are. How could there be a copy of Hamlet in which his most famous soliloquy is altered: “To be, or not to be, I there’s the point” (Kastan 26). What the heck is that?!
My point is basically that this article sort of brought me down to earth a little bit. Of course it is impossible that any text could be exactly what was in the author’s mind. And certainly texts are going to have variations, specifically in the 1600’s. I also think Kastan is completely right in saying that a written text and the actual production of a play are two different things. Much of a play’s production does depend on the actors’ improvisations and non-verbal communications. Therefore, it is impossible for any written copy to claim it is “exactly as it was preformed on such and such a date.”
At the same time I do not know if I am in complete agreement with Kastan. Maybe I just don’t quite understand his argument, but I really don’t think that the way my copy of Hamlet is produced is really going to alter my feelings for the play. Sure, if it were 1650 and I had never heard of Shakespeare it would make a difference if it was printed on expensive paper. But at this point, when I’ve read Hamlet about five times, and am already well acquainted with “the bard” is it really going to matter if I’m reading a dog-eared paperback, or a leather bound edition with gold seal? I seriously doubt it; at least not once I get into the play. Partially this is my recognition of Shakespeare’s reputation, but I think that it would be true to some degree even if I’d somehow never heard of him. Quality of a work is more important than its presentation. But perhaps, as I said, I am missing part of Kastan’s argument?
Also, I found it pretty amazing that Shakespeare never profited from his printed plays, never attempted to publish them, and didn’t seem to care that other people were publishing them! How is that for irony?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I could not agree with you more about it not making much of a difference the medium on which my copy of a particular text is printed. I will always love "Catcher in the Rye" whether it is written scraps of napkins, or on some beautifully leather bound, gold plated book. So long as the text is the same, the idea and feeling I get every time I read is going to be the same. I have read a beautiful looking first edition of George Orwell's "1984" and hated this just as much as when I read my high school's old, tattered copy. A book is a book is a book and the medium on which a text is transmitted has no bearing on how I am going to feel about it.
ReplyDelete