Allegory and Bakhtin

           Allegorical texts have dominated the content of this course.  Whether through the creation of deception or the dissimulative self in monarchic writing, the subversions a domineering society in non-aristocratic writing, or the various layers of meaning coming out of Faustus, allegory was a major component of effective writing in the Elizabethan period.  This idea of multiple levels of narration brought me to Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory on the dialogicand heteroglossia.

            By second-year I was quite familiar with Bakhtin’s work and have had it in my theoretical, mind bank for a few years now.  Therefore, when I read a text, the notions of stratification of language and authorial intent are always on my mind.  I am always seeking out ways in which the authorial voice projects itself on the text, where there is an inconsistency in voice.  While it can be quite heavy material to grasp, and I may have wished I hadn’t had to get through it at some points, I am glad I do have this knowledge, insofar as I am able to critically engage with texts and always challenge aspects that may be deemed questionable. 

            I have been thinking about this throughout the course and how easy it has been for us to point out the anxieties present in monarchic writing, or decipher the metaphors in subversive poetry.  Sometimes I wonder though, or questions arise in class, about how the people of the Elizabethan period reacted to these texts?  Did they see the anxieties surfacing?  Did they understand that James was arguing for his divine kingship purely out of self-interest?  If they wanted to rebel, or find truth, would they be able to interpret the messages that were hidden amongst the writings Shakespeare, More, etc.?

I can only imagine how different Elizabethan England might have been, if Bakhtin was readily available for people to read and learn from…

The Joker as the Shakespearean Fool

            Now that I have started I don’t know if I’ll be able to stop.  After writing my reflection on the Joker and Aristotelian tragedy I started thinking about him as a modern deployment of the Shakespearean fool… her me out.

            The Shakespearean fool is a recurring character type in Shakespeare’s plays, often depicted as a peasant or “groundling,” existing outside the social sphere and called upon to comment on the state of the monarchy.  Fools actually existed in the court at the time, so this wasn’t some random Shakespearean invention.  These fools, as Shakespeare deploys them, were brought in the court to comment on the monarchy in a funny, honest, critical, but inoffensive way – a stressful, high-risk task.

            Shakespeare understood the potential this character type offered to his work.  The voice of the fool could be used as an outlet for the expression of Shakespeare’s opinions on social and political issues dealt with in his writing.  Having these socio-political critiques coming from a figure whose job it was to make these claims, Shakespeare distances himself from the implications and intent of the text, ultimately avoiding convictions of heresy.

So how does this apply to the Joker?

First, let’s go back to Joker’s monologue in my last reflection.  Dressed as a nurse and definitely considered an outsider, Joker openly comments on the irrationality of the authorities’ narrow-minded and linear way of thinking.  He tells Harvey that they are all “schemers,” that they have plans and think they can control everything, when the reality is in fact the opposite.  An outsider, honestly critiquing the state of the authoritative system… sound familiar?

My second example comes from Alan Moore’s graphic novel, The Killing Joke.  The Joker dominates the plot of this story, as he contemplates the root of his insanity and attempts to convince Batman and Commissioner Gordon that all it takes is “one bad day” in the madness of the world for someone to go off the deep end. 

Joker comments on memory, reasoning, and madness.

Joker: "One bad day"

At one point in the text, the Joker sings a song for Gordon that resembles the fool’s rhymes in King Lear quite closely.  Critiquing the world and the justice system that Gordon has so much faith in, Joker sings:

 “When the world is full of care and every headline screams despair, when all is rape, starvation, war and life is vile… I go loo-oo-oony… when the human race wears an anxious face, when the bomb hangs overhead, when your kid turns blue, it won’t worry you…when you’re loo-oo-oony” (24-25).

            The Joker reveals to Gordon that the world’s current state of affairs is mad and that in order to function in this kind of society, its citizens have to go mad as well.  Once again, it becomes the Joker’s responsibility to honestly and critically, with a hint of humour, analyze the workings of society.

Shakespearean influence in pop culture at its finest!   

"Battle of Wills"

The Saunders Portrait (Shakespeare, 1603)

I’m troubled. 

Today in class we watched Battle of Wills, a documentary about a man, Llyod Sullivan, and a painting, the Saunders portrait.  The film documents Mr. Sullivan’s encounters with a number of experts, as he investigates whether this inherited piece of art is actually a true portrait of Shakespeare.  The documentary ended without a final verdict, except that it is the most accurate, or viable, portrait that has been found so far.  This is not what worries me.

As the lights came back on at the end of the film and the TA turned to ask if anyone had questions, a remarkable number of people seemed to share a similar line of thought – “so what?” “What if it is a true portrait of Shakespeare, then what?”  There was deep frustration over the film’s lack of purpose.  This is why I am troubled.  In a third-year English course, full of students looking to obtain a major or minor in the field, the topic of cultural value was at stake and it was quickly being buried under a mountain of criticism, claims of meaninglessness.  Are not all these students looking to graduate with a degree of some sort in literary culture?  Yet, digging for the truth about cultural artifacts is being deemed pointless, simply for the capital value, a waste of money, etc.  It has been frustrating enough spending the last three years defending my degree to “outsiders,” but now I have to fight for the importance of literary culture amongst people with the same end goal? Something just didn’t feel right.

What if it is Shakespeare? Who cares? I do.  It’s culture.  If this actually is Shakespeare, we can finally put a face to one of the most prolific and iconic writers of the English language!  It’s culture.  It’s what shapes different groups of people all around the globe and should be of particular interest for English students who been surrounded by his influences for years.  If tomorrow someone claimed they had an actual portrait of Jesus would these people be saying the same thing?  Probably not.  Why? Because it would mean the world finally had a true likeness of a religious icon who has been shaping peoples lives throughout history.  I’m not trying to say that Shakespeare and Jesus are on the same level… although, to each their own… I simply wish to question how so many people can simply discount this historical moment, or movement.

I understand that I’ve started this commonplace book on a negatively charged rant, but this needed to be said.  As a student of English I am passionate about what I study and it throws me off a little when I find others who don’t feel the same.  I understand how in some of these more history-based courses we may be learning about things that are seemingly outdated, but it is important to remember how these events, people, paintings, shape our lives.