FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2883984389> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2883984389 endingPage "192" @default.
• W2883984389 startingPage "188" @default.
• W2883984389 abstract "188 Comparative Drama that personal insufficiency. The great failure of all self-appointed pro­ phets in Ibsen is always, on the most private and individual level, the inability to enact their projects as living realities in friendship, marriage or in familial relationships with children, parents and siblings” (p. 60). One feels that Borkman is brought to judgment, here, before a pharisaic gathering of bourgeois families indignant that he remain “morally unre­ generate” (p. 61) rather than acknowledge the higher worth of the nuclear family. Yet, Ibsen as a sturdy defender of maturity, responsibility and even motherhood (p. 144) is so extraordinary an inversion of the old rebel and anarchist as actually to be refreshing. The best books are not those with which one is in easy agreement, but those which instigate fresh thinking on one’s own part. We may quarrel with Durbach’s claim that Ibsen replaces audacious Romanticism with cautious Romanticism, but those of us who insist that Ibsen stands behind the gestures of even his most alarming protagonists, or at the least remains morally neutral, will have to face up to many of Durbach’s animadversions against what these characters represent. Only another form of “barbaric” poetry would celebrate the amoral: but the tragic vision transcends all par­ ticular moralities, sees their relativity from the plane of speculative reason as it struggles to apprehend the human condition under the eye of eternity. BRIAN JOHNSON B eiru t U n iversity C ollege Shakespeare S u rvey 34: C h aracterization in Shakespeare. Ed. Stanley W. Wells. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Pp. ix + 204. $39.50. In “The Emergence of Character Criticism, 1774-1800,” Brian Vickers considers a group of pre-Romantic Shakespearean critics who found that Shakespeare’s characters do in fact meet a standard which Shakespeare’s earlier, neo-Classic detractors felt he did not meet. That standard was that each character be consistent and serve a clear moral purpose. Better represented, says Vickers, by Henry MacKenzie and William Richardson than by Maurice Morgann (who is better known for his Falstaff essay), this group of critics mediated neo-Classic criticism and Romantic criticism by showing that supposed inconsistencies in the characters were really revelations of deep psychological traits. If the late eighteenth-century measure of success in Shakespearean characterization was psychological consistency, late twentieth-century criticism, as reflected in the present volume, appears to emphasize incon­ sistency. Most of the critics in this volume find Shakespeare’s genius in characterization evident chiefly in the fact that what his characters do and say can n o t be fully explained, that there are many contradictions to be found which defy explanation even while our sense of the whole­ ness of these characters grows deeper with each exposure to the plays. Further, today’s character critics, as represented here, find the moral sense that underlies the plays also often inexplicable. If Shakespeare is a Reviews 189 moral dramatist, and few would question that he is, his morality is of a piece with the characters he creates. Kenneth Muir’s lead article, “Shakespeare’s Open Secret,” fittingly re-asserts the value of A. C. Bradley in assessing Shakespeare’s characters, except that Bradley too often, says Muir, “made the mistake of consid­ ering what happened off-stage or before the beginning of the action,” and was insufficiently concerned with important historical ideas and phenomena which may have shaped the plays. Muir feels that we need to consider Shakespeare’s characterization as we do characterization in Racine, Molière, Chekhov, or Ibsen. Shakespeare, “like them, creates credible characters by the actions they are made to perform, by what they say about themselves and others, by what other characters, friends and enemies, say about them, by the speech patterns they use, even by their silences.” “Conflicting impressions,” Muir concludes, “are the means by which we are convinced that the characters are real, not real people, but startlingly natural.” Robert Weimann, in an essay entitled “Society and the Individual in Shakespeare’s Conception of Character,” cogently provides a corollary to Muir by observing that Shakespeare’s characters are known simul­ taneously by “identity,” the being each assumes quite apart from the..." @default.
• W2883984389 created "2018-08-03" @default.
• W2883984389 creator A5011269907 @default.
• W2883984389 date "1983-01-01" @default.
• W2883984389 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2883984389 title "Shakespeare Survey 34: Characterization in Shakespeare ed. by Stanley W. Wells" @default.
• W2883984389 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/cdr.1983.0016" @default.
• W2883984389 hasPublicationYear "1983" @default.
• W2883984389 type Work @default.
• W2883984389 sameAs 2883984389 @default.
• W2883984389 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2883984389 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2883984389 hasAuthorship W2883984389A5011269907 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C164913051 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C43242481 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C523419034 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C124952713 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C138885662 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C142362112 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C164913051 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C17744445 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C199539241 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C43242481 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C523419034 @default.
• W2883984389 hasConceptScore W2883984389C95457728 @default.
• W2883984389 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2883984389 hasLocation W28839843891 @default.
• W2883984389 hasOpenAccess W2883984389 @default.
• W2883984389 hasPrimaryLocation W28839843891 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W1487963998 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W1976804382 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2093298062 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2353896947 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2357085305 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2373617683 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2383192487 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2883984389 hasRelatedWork W2923889828 @default.
• W2883984389 hasVolume "17" @default.
• W2883984389 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2883984389 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2883984389 magId "2883984389" @default.
• W2883984389 workType "article" @default.