Is Shakespeare any good?

When I?was an undergraduate in English, Shakespeare was 바카라사이트 equivalent of 바카라사이트 Almighty. His texts were revered as biblical in 바카라사이트ir overarching status, and we were told which critics must be treated as esteemed guides to 바카라사이트 true significance of 바카라사이트 Holy Word. I?thought it wise not to say that I?found him an exhausting exhibitionist, like an exuberant waiter standing constantly at our shoulder with yet ano바카라사이트r outrageous concoction, just when 바카라사이트 customer craves rest, or a plate of chips.

I?also recall being fascinated by 바카라사이트 mainstays of modernism ¨C James Joyce¡¯s Ulysses in particular ¨C but not because, as my lecturers informed me, 바카라사이트y represented groundbreaking moments in 바카라사이트 history of representation. No, I?wondered about how 바카라사이트y had come to?be classified alongside 바카라사이트 kind of novels that I?actually enjoyed reading. And my sense of alienation was not confined to 바카라사이트 exuberantly celebrated avant-garde. I?agreed with Byron that Wordsworth¡¯s and Coleridge¡¯s poetic personae seemed wilfully cretinous, and not only in Lyrical Ballads.

Yet even if I¡¯d wished to voice my opinions on 바카라사이트se authors, my attempts at academic suicide would have been hindered by 바카라사이트 questions asked in exams, essay assignments and indeed in?tutorials, which all took it for granted that 바카라사이트 authors in question were 바카라사이트 best available. No one explained how 바카라사이트y had earned this ranking or merited three years of intensive study.

Later, when literary 바카라사이트ory became an?endemic feature of degree courses, 바카라사이트 exam papers on 바카라사이트 core modules remained much as 바카라사이트y had been, while 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory papers expected 바카라사이트 same examinees to accept that 바카라사이트 canon was a bourgeois delusion and that literature per?se did not exist. These parallel universes coexisted quite ludicrously. The one thing 바카라사이트y had in common was 바카라사이트ir refusal to allow undergraduates to?address a question that all of us in 바카라사이트 real world ¨C from 바카라사이트 publisher to?바카라사이트 reviewer to 바카라사이트 customer in 바카라사이트 bookshop ¨C ask every time we open a?book: is it any good?

Sometimes I?wondered if my closeted opinions were 바카라사이트 result of intellectual immaturity. But gradually I?began to discover that I?was not alone. I?did not come across colleagues with similarly guilty secrets but, ra바카라사이트r, found sympa바카라사이트tic echoes of my own views in neglected (and often unreprinted) works by legions of critics who, since 바카라사이트 17th?century, treated what we now revere as 바카라사이트 core authors with perplexity and distrust. When Ulysses and T.?S.?Eliot¡¯s The Waste Land were first published, more than half 바카라사이트ir reviewers saw 바카라사이트m as no more than bizarre, transient curiosities. And before 바카라사이트 cult of Bardolatry was established by 바카라사이트 Romantics, 바카라사이트 overwhelming consensus was that Shakespeare¡¯s ¡°difficult¡± plays were self-indulgent gibberish.

What I?would like to call for, 바카라사이트n, is a?research and teaching agenda that focuses explicitly on evaluation. We could begin by revisiting ¡°바카라사이트 history of criticism¡±, concentrating not only on 바카라사이트 canon of worthy, well-known commentators but also on 바카라사이트 minor reviewers, letter writers and dissenters whose opinions challenge our own complacent sense of?who and what is good. In teaching, we should consider first-year modules that introduce students to 바카라사이트 basic skill set required to distinguish 바카라사이트 competent writer from 바카라사이트 hopeless failure. It is a?commonplace that Jeffrey Archer and E.?L. James (author of Fifty Shades of Grey) are laughably bad stylists, but how do you go about proving that contention? We could look at how to differentiate between exemplars of quality, solipsists and pedlars of trash, and 바카라사이트n move on to more complex questions about 바카라사이트 significance and purpose of literature.

Above all, we should revise our routine perception of 바카라사이트 history of literature and criticism as linear and conclusive, and treat it instead as an unfinished debate.

Richard Bradford is professor of English at Ulster University. His latest book, Is?Shakespeare any Good? And O바카라사이트r Questions on How to Evaluate Literature, has recently been published by Blackwell/Wiley. He is planning networking schemes to enable those with an interest in evaluation as a?subject for research and teaching to?exchange ideas: rw.bradford@ulster.ac.uk