Shakespeare

[Mark Kohut]

In Berlin's--Isaiah's not irving's--- terms, Shakespeare is a fox

and pynchon is a hedgehog?



----- Original Message -----
From: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>
To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Cc: 
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Shakespeare

Obviously, in any substantial works of a genius artist we can find all
these elements present, but fundamentally, while I can't say if WG
works in oppositions or not, would need to take a closer study,
Shakespeare does and so does Pynchon. But there is an important
difference in the constant opposition that these two use to make their
art, while the latter sets his conflicts in a reality beyond the
existential (the gnostic struggle of forces beyond human control), the
former sets his in an existential reality (the rest as Edmund reminds
us in Lear, is the excellent foppery of the world). Freud, who also
works in conflicts, sets his in a reality beneath the real. Rushdie,
who does not work in conflicts, nor in the tradition of tragedy,
imposes the grouping and re-grouping of ever fluid fusions and
conjoining on Shakespeare.  A strong misreading in Bloom's terms, is
Rushdie's.

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Mark Kohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rushdie has said this about Shakespeare's writing, I've just discovered;
>  “a swarm of variable oppositions, grouping and regrouping in ever fluid ‘fusions, translations, conjoinings’”.
>
> True of TRP or WG? Howso?
>