Literature: September 2007 Archive Page

Not one play, not one poem, not one letter in Mr. Shakspere's own hand has ever been found. He divided his time between London and Stratford, a situation conducive to correspondence. Early scholars naturally expected that at least some of his correspondence would have survived. Yet the only writings said to be in his own hand are six shaky, inconsistent signatures on legal documents, including three found on his will. If, in fact, these signatures are his, they reveal that Mr. Shakspere experienced difficulty signing his name. Some document experts doubt that even these signatures are his and suggest they were done by law clerks. One letter addressed to Mr. Shakspere survives. It requested a loan, and it was unopened and undelivered. His detailed will, in which he famously left his wife "my second best bed with the furniture," contains no clearly Shakespearean turn of phrase and mentions no books, plays, poems, or literary effects of any kind. Nor does it mention any musical instruments, despite extensive evidence of the author's musical expertise. He did leave token bequests to three fellow actors (an interlineation, indicating it was an afterthought), but nothing to any writers. The actors' names connect him to the theater, but nothing implies a writing career. Why no mention of Stratford's Richard Field, who printed the poems that first made Shakespeare famous? If Mr. Shakspere was widely known as William "Shakespeare," why spell his name otherwise in his will? Dying men are usually very aware of, and concerned about, what they are famous for. Why not this man?

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters.

Universal recognized of the truth it is, like of single man in the possession of a good fortune, must be internal desires of a wife. In spite of little they know it that the sensations or the opinions that such man nay is in his first one which he incorporates a vicinity, this truth are so elbow fixed to the minds of the surrounding families, who consider it have taste of the legitimate characteristic of some or another one of the daughters of the heir

It is confirmed truth, the one individual man in the possession of a luck, disturbance within its desires of a woman. However small conserved goods, within it to the way an inside to a way to these a man, who to the surplus in the morning in such a way to the way an inside, so that from the feelings the containers dig also or, to the opinions it, which are surplus its first you, possible coming into neighbourhood, this truth in the understanding of the surrounding families as this well-being place that, it cube, which specifies certified characteristic you a way of approx.. in a formed way in a way or as others its daughter meetings also inward

It is a universally identified truth, that a simple man in possession of a good fortune, must be interior want of a wife. However little known the feelings or the sights of such a man can be on his first writing a proximity, they these truth so good is fixed in the spirits of the surrounding families, which one considers with him with him the legitimate property of hard or others their daughters.

Those which agree to the fortunate person of the wife of the single human? Furthermore finishing, the thing of the uniform of phenomenon of thing phenomenon of the thing like _ thing, do those of our our possession ones do the fact that the thing namely average it is called? Perhaps, in regard to consideration thick Seki it is justice of this truth daughter in regard to Seki, it is? The headquarters of thing of decorative style series 1 of truth gazing/hoping of those our things of universalness the fact that it is there should be convinced, it is other than neighborhood? Knowledge, how small human? Opposite side and quality or, or how or is that enormous thing start? The place of opinion, being abnormal, courtesy we should feel Seki which is healthy fixing? Therefore as for thing are phenomenon of thing and thing of possession ones liked those of thing how? What of evidence of 1st thing?

Universal recognized of the truth it is, that one a single man in possession of good fortune, must be to the inner part of desires of a moglie. However little known the sensibility or the points of the point of view of such man it can in the first place be on the relative which it records in the vicinities, this truth therefore is enslaved slowly in the minds of the surrounding families, than the legitimate property approximately or other of their daughters is considered.

Book review editors often have difficulty convincing their bosses that the news about books is in the books themselves, not in mega-buck contracts, bestseller chitchat, and profiles of famous authors. Truly conscientious reviewers are not exactly a beloved breed: authors sensitive to criticism detest them, publishers would love to coopt them, and academics rarely respect those who write for a wider public, not for other scholars. Yet book reviewing is where talented young critics often get their start. It encourages them to be generalists, keeping in touch with contemporary writing. It forces them to write quickly and clearly and to put flesh on their arguments, eschewing the abstract jargon of many professionals. And it contributes to a cultural conversation otherwise dominated by hot TV shows, blockbuster movies, and media-manufactured celebrities.

[...]

Though it is built on reading and writing, the Internet is seen as the enemy of literature, digging the grave of the printed book. But just as the computer lent new fluency to the act of writing, the Internet has revolutionized literary research, allowing instant access to vast bodies of information that would have required arduous labor only yesterday. It has amplified the reach of print publications by becoming a prime carrier of the printed word, creating a simultaneous worldwide audience for publications great and small, local and national. But the economic crisis afflicting newspapers and magazines, which has battered literary journalism, shows how the Internet is eating away at it own foundations, the printed sources of so much of its real content. The blog will not make up the difference, at least in its unedited form as a spontaneous effusion, a personal diary in shorthand. As Adam Kirsch has written: "Bitesized commentary, which is all the blog form allows, is next to useless when it comes to talking about books. Literary criticism is only worth having if it at least strives to be literary in its own right, with a scope, complexity, and authority that no blogger I know even wants to achieve." (Critical Mass)