In a new article, an author manages to combine Shakespeare, the presidential election, and the war in the Middle East. It’s a tall order to be sure, and it raises far more questions than it answers. Essentially, the article posits that all of the current presidential candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are using the war as a platform for their campaigns. In this article, the author argues that they have normalized violence and war by treating it the same way they would tax issues or healthcare. To contrast this, the writer cites Shakespeare as an author who acutely understood and vividly evoked the horrors of battle.

So, the Shakespearean question this article raises (we’ll set aside the political ones) is whether or not this argument is true. Does Shakespeare portray the gritty reality of war or does he sensationalize it for dramatic effect? Is it possible he does both? In some ways, his is a matter of interpretation. Take Hamlet, for example. In production, cuts are not really optional, they are a necessity. One of the most frequent characters and subplots to get the axe is Fortinbras and his impending takeover. Remove it and Hamlet is a family drama writ large. Include it, and the play is about a ruling family neglecting its country. In many ways, Shakespeare is what we want him to be, and perhaps the same is true of the three senators currently vying for the highest office in the country.

Posted Thu, 01 May 2008 05:29:09 and filed under Hamlet, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.