Thursday 10 May 2007

How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth?

There is an approach to political understanding that has much in common with that Shakespearean criticism dominated by "the assumption that Shakespeare was pre-eminently a great 'creator of characters'". Of course political commentators occupy themselves not with "How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth?" rather, "The nature of the relationship between Brown and Blair ”, but they need to be Knighted just as much.

Knights' insight, that "the only profitable approach to Shakespeare is a consideration of his plays as dramatic poems, of his use of language to obtain a total complex emotional response" applies just as well to the New Labour Project;
Blair’s years should be understood as just such an attempt “to obtain a total complex emotional response" .

Knights writes,
“ Macbeth [i.e. the New Labour Project] is a statement of evil. I use the word "statement" (unsatisfactory as it is) in order to stress those qualities that are "non-dramatic," if drama is defined according to the canons of William Archer or Dr. Bradley. It also happens to be poetry, [harder to argue for the Project, but it shares the abstraction of values and their presentation, rather than policies and their delivery] which means that the apprehension of the whole can only be obtained from a lively attention to the parts, whether they have an immediate bearing on the main action or "illustrate character," or not. Two main themes, which can only be separated for the purpose of analysis, are blended in the play [the Project]—the themes of the reversal of values and of unnatural disorder. And closely related to each is a third theme, that of the deceitful appearance, and consequent doubt, uncertainty and confusion. All this is obscured by false assumptions about the category "drama" [or politics]. Each theme is stated in the first act [i.e. since 1997]... every word...[which] will bear the closest scrutiny, strikes one dominant chord:

Faire is foule, and foule is faire,
Hover through the fogge and filthie ayre.

It is worth remarking that "Hurley-burley" implies more than the tumult of sedition or insurrection." Both it and "when the Battaile's lost, and wonne" suggest the kind of metaphysical pitch-and-toss... played with good and evil. At the same time we hear the undertone of uncertainty... the scene [i.e. the beginning of the Project] expresses the same movement as the play/Project as a whole: the general crystallizes into the immediate particular ("Where the place?"—"Upon the Heath.") and then dissolves again into the general presentment of hideous gloom [or, in the Project’s case, general presentment of vainglorious achievement].

Just as Knights traces the development of the reversal of values, unnatural disorder, and deceitful appearance themes, these themes can be traced too through the New Labour Project. Macbeth /Blair’s "ruin is never complete. [though Shakespeare in My way of life / Is fall'n into the sere, the yellow leaf, and "To morrow, and tomorrow" has quite an edge over Blair’s echoic speech writer]. To the end he never totally loses our sympathy... In the very depths a gleam of his native love of goodness, and with it a tinge of tragic grandeur, rests upon him." [precisely what Blair was after].

But ‘to concentrate attention on the personal implications of these lines [Macbeth /Blair’s] is to obscure the fact that they have an even more important function as the keystone of the system of values that gives emotional coherence to the play/ Project .
While "total complex emotional response ", is not all about themes and a "system of values ", political commentary about character is too common while in-depth examination of themes and values, rather scarce.

(Probably this could be boiled down into a couple of sentences; but L.C. Knights explains it so well, hence the extensive quotes. Today’s Blair speech, emotionally distasteful as it was, was all about evoking Project values and responses. It’s a different kind of politics, not within shouting distance of Shakespeare's manipulations of the world, cheapened, but a derivative).

11 comments:

Nick Drew said...

Characteristically astute of you to choose this moment to re-direct us from fixation on the personality-detail of the great NuLab saga, HG

Anonymous said...

I thought he was just creepy and weird... does he think we buy it??

hatfield girl said...

M, creepy and weird, nasty other echoes too. Buy it? it's supposed to sort of soak in, I think.

hatfield girl said...

ND, Machiavelli's not a patch on WS is he? And Brown just isn't designed at all for this game; or rather, he's broken and won't work.

Nick Drew said...

HaHa! - back to the personalities, eh?

(only teasing)

I am only recently returned from the Santa Croce and homage at Old Nick's tomb. But, yes, he is (just) a fine tactician and WS is holistic, to say the least.

Brown is, I think, clinically unfit for the role and should in some political (but very real) sense be sectioned without delay

In parallel with this urgent task we must, as you say, also get to grips with "the reversal of values and ... unnatural disorder"

Newmania said...

There is an approach to political understanding that has much in common with that Shakespearean criticism dominated by "the assumption that Shakespeare was pre-eminently a great 'creator of characters'


Yes this was the standard error held up for the contempt of the modern structuralist and that was over 20 years ago. Naturally I was determined to find merit in it .
Knights' insight, that "the only profitable approach to Shakespeare is a consideration of his plays as dramatic poems”
Which is wrong and has lead to a romantic fragmentary approach itself . They are ‘plays’ not poems dramatic or otherwise and the response to them is through character . This error is often the result of much reading and little viewing and is notably useful if at all applicable with MacBeth which is exceedingly hard to render as it was intended and is used as a fragmentary romantic poem. The Shakespeare the 40s and early 50s as disseminated through Grammar schools

NO sorry HG you are stretching your metaphor beyond breaking point and I cannot agree with your choice of play unless you are making the simple point that the politics of personality has been over done and is used to obscure by the increasingly theatrical presentation . Personally I would have chosen Hamlet a Play far more explicitly concerned with theatre and politics and in which a dirty secret spreads through the polity from an initial lie a poison poured into the ear no less . This initial lie was that there ever was such a thing as “ New “ Labour . As The New Statesman said today , in government Blair always supported Brown and there was far l to separate them than appeared. We have been lulled by a play, a soap opera,that had little reality. Hamlet which is of course , distractingly for our purposes concerned with revenge , is a problem play , in that the needs of the immediate drama are not justified by what has gone before . Another is Measure for Measure . A modern audience can only be swept though the dissonances with a bit of thunder and bravado . Thus the increase in the ID card costs and further revelations on the extent of the lies on Iraq is timed to emerge this week amongst the tearful grandiloquence of the death of the salesman.

Shame I `v e given up blogging its all so tempting. Thanks HG I could happily spend hours with you discussing which Shakespearian character is most Blair although I really only know the comedies and tragedies well. The question how many children had Lady MacBeth is a good response though, how poetically evil is the drama is not.

In my not ( on this occasion ) very humble opinion.

hatfield girl said...

'.. how poetically evil is the drama is not.'

Here is a real point of difference N, but as you have given up blogging...

Evil is confronted rarely at any intellectually serious level; its portayal by poets catches it, in all its evasiveness that is its first line of defence, better than any other means.

hatfield girl said...

What is 'The Shakespeare the 40s and early 50s as disseminated through Grammar schools...'?

Italian nuns do a fine job of Lear, but then as the whole of Italian society is immersed permanently in Learian struggle, cf the intergenerational slaughter recounted nightly on the telegiornale, so they should do.

Weren't you a bit young for grammar school at that time N? Even I was.

Nick Drew said...

evil is confronted rarely at any intellectually serious level

no indeed, it's deeply unsophisticated to acknowledge its existence, don't you know.

I suppose quite a few contemporary playwrights try to present present-day evils, but otherwise we are rather short on serviceable ammunition for the fights to come

hatfield girl said...

ND, Even to be taught about and armed against evil has become a privilege. That's an aspect of it of course.

Serviceable ammunition has been hidden in the 17th and 18th centuries. It's not built by Blue Peter techniques.

Newmania said...

What is 'The Shakespeare the 40s and early 50s as disseminated through Grammar schools...'?

Shakespeare seen through the prism of the romantic late Victorian sensibility .The impact of the modern had not yet reached these English teachers who were often still in loves with Keats via Tennyson . You see this romanticism in the British films of the time . They are insensitive to the theatrical the medieval and the types of dramatic apprehension , from symbolic to realistic and sensitive to “Imagery “ that distinctive word , metaphor and minute use of language .

Hemce the treatment of MacBeth as a Pome .It has often been remarked it works better that way for us so the choice is revealing
I notice this mindedness in my father and I was reminded of it by the book England an Elegy by Roger Scruton.
I `m still commenting on other people blogs HG and hugely frsutrated today when I have lots to say.What I need is a "Living".
Lear....gone off it , but I did have a book called the dark heart of Italy which was interesting on the intergenerational slaughter
On evil I disagree. Knowledge of evil is a given as is the instinct for good ;pomes and art generally desribe it they do not discuss it . There is an active campaign to deny the existence of evil so as to deny reponsibility for action and ultimately deny the soul of man and its primacy.
This is one of the reasons that despite a lifetime of faithlessness I am profoundly unhappy with rational explanations of the universe and our place in it.


(Also this makes me deep , interesting and attractive to women , hope its working :) )