Graham Holderness ed., "The Shakespeare Myth" (Book Note)

 

"Shakespeare Myth" navigates through the intricate landscape of cultural interpretations and representations of Shakespeare, dissecting the multifaceted layers of his legacy. Divided into two parts, the book embarks on a journey through "Discursive Fields" and "Cultural Practices," each segment meticulously exploring various dimensions of Shakespeare's cultural significance. Underlying this exploration is the overarching framework of Cultural Materialism, championed by the series editors John Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, which emphasizes the role of material conditions in shaping cultural phenomena.

 

However, upon closer examination, the book's underlying bias towards Cultural Materialism becomes apparent. While advocating for a critical approach rooted in the material forces of production, "Shakespeare Myth" somewhat falls short in its execution. The initial chapter, "Bardolatry," narrows its focus to the Shakespeare Industry in Stratford-upon-Avon, offering a detailed account of its growth without delving into the historical genesis of bardolatry or analyzing its fundamental characteristics.

 

Throughout the book, bardolatry is portrayed as akin to quasi-religious worship, yet there is a noticeable absence of exploration into how Shakespeare ascended to the status of a transcendent genius. Rather than critically examining the production conditions underlying the myth, the book often presents bardolatry as an unquestioned reality. For instance, when discussing Shakespeare's presence in contemporary popular culture, there is a missed opportunity to scrutinize the knowledge of Shakespeare embedded within jokes and misquotes on birthday cards.

This anthology reveals a recurring theme of contentious debate, particularly evident in its exploration of Shakespeare's legacy. While the section on "Sexual Politics" stands out as a departure from this pattern, other sections delve into critiques of various targets. Ann Thompson provides a comprehensive overview of feminist criticism of Shakespeare, while Simon Shepherd's chapter on "Shakespeare and Homosexuality" meanders, reflecting the instability of Shakespeare's name and identity.

 

The contributors take aim at a range of subjects, with the Globe Reconstruction Project being one of the primary targets. While Sam Wanamaker defends the project, John Drakakis dismantles it, drawing attention to the concerns of potential victims like the roadsweeper who expressed reluctance about Shakespeare's presence in Southwark. The attacks extend to Cambridge English, F.R. Leavis, and the RSC, amalgamated under the term "The Cambridge Connection." Christopher McCullough's essay, "The Cambridge Connection," critiques Leavis's humanism and the RSC's approach to Shakespeare, accusing them of perpetuating the myth of Shakespeare's timeless and universal message.

 

The critique extends to education, with David Margolies arguing that the teaching of Shakespeare serves elitist agendas, perpetuating upper-class attitudes. David Hornbrook laments the decline of Shakespeare in educational settings, blaming cultural relativism and the rejection of middle-class literary values. Even the BBC faces scrutiny for its role in perpetuating the Shakespeare myth. The author dismisses the BBC/Time-Life Shakespeare Series as an "oppressive agency of cultural hegemony," favoring alternative broadcasts like Bogdanov's Shakespeare Lives for their democratic participation.

Despite these shortcomings, "Shakespeare Myth" offers valuable insights into the intersections of ideology, popular culture, and sexual politics surrounding Shakespeare's legacy. By interrogating the cultural practices associated with Shakespearean theatre, education, and broadcasting, the book sheds light on the enduring influence of his works across diverse socio-cultural contexts. However, it also raises questions about the limitations of Cultural Materialism in fully accounting for the complexities of Shakespeare's cultural significance.