Primrose Road

The other night, a friend and I were discussing the intersections between academic work and "fandom." In what situations, we wondered, might these intersections be considered useful?

I suspect there's a sharp divide in Shakespeare studies between academia and fandom, even though many academics would consider themselves Shakespeare "fans." It seems that the "fan" view (i.e. "Shakespeare's somethin' special") has contributed to the popular perception of Shakespeare as the HolyPsychologicalRealistBard who's difficult to read and whose work contains an amazing payoff that can only be accessed by reading between the lines. Perhaps Shakespeare fans might easily extend their fandom to (1) theater in general, and (2) sixteenth- and seventeenth century history, where the real "payoffs" lie.

The "fan" view also seems to contribute to the misconception that the 'authorship' debate is significant and that the "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare's plays" view is worth arguing for. Frustratingly, academics cannot engage in the debate because research in history and literature fields has suggested that Shakespeare wasn't the lone creator of the plays to which printers assigned his name; revisions were made during his life and after his death. Because copyright belonged to printers, not authors, Shakespeare would have had little if any control over what happened to his plays once they were out of his hands. We are challenged to defend the 'Shakespeare wrote his own plays' view, a view that many of us do not actually hold.

At the same time, we also know that it is historically problematic to assign another singular creative author to Shakespeare's plays, because the concept of 'singular creative author' did not arise (at least with regards to the theater) until at least a century after Shakespeare's death.

Shakespeare is referenced in his time as one of many playwrights. I believe that his special position in British and American culture arose as a function of two factors:

1. Shakespeare, while not the most prolific playwright of his time, was the most printed playwright of his time.

2. Shakespeare's tragedies are slightly unique (forgive the diction) in that they incorporate an element of psychological realism, something that excited the imaginations of late nineteenth- and twentieth century readers.

Still, all of human experience is indeed contained within the play Hamlet. I vote for replacing the Bible with Hamlet. What do you think?