Product Description

This book is a unique collection of essays by founding figures in this movement to remake Shakespeare studies. Each essay challenges the Shakespeare myth and the assumptions underlying traditional modes of criticism.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #177614 in Books
• Published on: 2002-05-23
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 280 pages

From the Back Cover
When critical theory met literary studies in the 1970s and 80s, some of the most radical and exciting theoretical work took as its subject the long mythologized, quasi-sacred figure of Shakespeare. Alternative Shakespeares is a unique collection of essays by founding figures in this movement to remake Shakespeare studies.
Drawing upon revolutionary work in the semiotics of drama, post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, feminism and Marxism, each essay challenges the Shakespeare myth and the assumptions underlying traditional modes of criticism. Exploring such fundamental issues as text, meaning and subjectivity, the volume argues that there can be no unified subject 'Shakespeare' and that we must rather define and contest a series of alternative 'Shakespeares' according to our own perspectives.
A new afterword by Robert Weimann outlines the extraordinary impact of this volume upon academic Shakespeare studies. However, the Shakespeare myth continues to thrive not only in Stratford but in our schools, making these essays as relevant and as powerful as they were upon publication. With an author list that reads like a 'who's who' of modern Shakespeare studies, Alternative Shakespeares simply must be read.

About the Author
The Editor, John Drakakis, is Professor of English Studies at the University of Stirling. Contributing authors include Francis Barker, Catherine Belsey, Jonathan Dollimore, John Drakakis, Keir Elam, Malcolm Evans, Terence Hawkes, Peter Hulme, James Kavanagh, Christopher Norris, Jacqueline Rose, Alessandro Serpieri, Alan Sinfield.

Customer Reviews

Impenetrable
It all depends what you're into. Personally I am one of those students of literature who've had it up to here with so-called literary theory.

Still, I thought this and its follow-up volume would provide me with an insight into the mind of the "enemy", so that the next time I was asked why I loathe literary theory I could point my finger in a precise direction and look like I knew what I was talking about.

Problem is, I didn't make it past the introduction. Words like "impenetrable" and "dull" and "hastily put-downable" sprung to mind, and I put it down hastily. Chances are you will do so too if you like liveliness of writing and/or care about the following concepts: "author", "intention", "personal identity/accountability" etc.

If, on the other hand, theoretical approaches to literature (marxist, freudian, feminist etc.) fascinate you in a way they fail to fascinate me, chances are this would be a good buy: the critics featured are all eminently important figures in the field of Shakespearean studies, and thus probably the best people to be reading.

In response to the commenter who asks me, "Why is intention so important, and feminism so unimportant? Is the only matter of importance in literary enquiry what indulges our selfish fascination?"

I never said feminism was unimportant, or that others weren't allowed to be fascinated by it - I did state that should feminism et al. be your cup of tea, which it might well be, this is probably the best book of Shakespeare criticism you can buy.

The larger problem I was referring to is that since the advent of literary theory, notions of the author as a once living, feeling being seem to have become risible, which I find sad and rather unjust. It doesn't help that most theory I have encountered is so far fetched I've read science fiction more plausible, not to mention inscrutably written.

If I can read Shakespeare more or less with no need for a dictionary why should I require one to decipher Shakespeare criticism?