I don't believe you, Mark.
I don't believe you were ever the naive reader of Shakerspeare (or anything else) that you claim to have been. Rather, your reading was always informed by theoretical perspectives. Your earlier reading was informed by theoretical perspectives that you found more genial than the post-structural analysis that you abhore, but it was still theory. If we banish theory, we do not just banish Derrida; we banish Northrop Frye, Erich Auerbach, Wayne Booth and M. H. Abrams as well. That would be a terrible shame.
But I'm curious. I've read quite a bit of postmodern theory, including postmodern readings of Shakespeare, and I don't recall ever coming across a critic who described Shakespeare's texts in the manner you describe. Whom do you have in mind? And in any case, if I did come across such dogmatic nonsense, I would (and do) feel free to disagee with it as I'm sure you did.
epigone
|