...Literay criticism is always longer than what it's a critique of? What on earth is the point? Let's use Hamlet as an example, thousands of interpretations have been spun from this one play. Literally millions of pages have been written in attempt to understand what Shakespeare meant by Hamlet. Isn't it possible he just wanted some quick cash? Even Kurt Vonnegut admitted that when he needed quick cash he would write a play. Couldn't that apply to Shakespeare?
Don't get me wrong, Shakespeare is truely awesome stuff (using to word in it's correct meaning, none of this awesome meaning cool crap) and does take some time to get your head round (has anyone ever descibed love as beautifully?) but wouldn't it be better to write a novel yourself rather than criticise everyone else?
I think I just insulted myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment