Auf ein Miniaturbild klicken, um zu Google Books zu gelangen.
Lädt ... Shakespeare's Bawdy (1948)von Eric Partridge
Keine Lädt ...
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an um herauszufinden, ob du dieses Buch mögen würdest. Keine aktuelle Diskussion zu diesem Buch. A great resource! Shakespeare wrote for the people, and they were a rowdy bunch. His plays are filled with dirty kones, obscene remarks and more - you jsut have to understand the context. That's where this remarkable book comes in. Partridge explains the references, so the modern reader can understand and enjoy the raunchy humor. Zeige 3 von 3 keine Rezensionen | Rezension hinzufügen
This classic of Shakespeare scholarship begins with a masterly introductory essay analysing and exemplifying the various categories of sexual and non-sexual bawdy expressions and allusions in Shakespeare's plays and sonnets. The main body of the work consists of an alphabetical glossary of all words and phrases used in a sexual or scatological sense, with full explanations and cross-references. Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden. |
Aktuelle DiskussionenKeineBeliebte Umschlagbilder
Google Books — Lädt ... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)822.33Literature English & Old English literatures English drama Elizabethan 1558-1625 Shakespeare, William 1564–1616Klassifikation der Library of Congress [LCC] (USA)BewertungDurchschnitt:
Bist das du?Werde ein LibraryThing-Autor. |
So, top marks for Partridge for putting together a glossary that finds some remarkably obscure dirty words in Shakespeare. Love it.
The opening essay is more of a mixed bag, to be honest. One-third is great, just in justifying Shakespeare's use of smut (nowadays, as we know more about theatre production and can equate it with the 17th century, we need this less). One-third is really just a recap of the glossary, since clearly Partridge is feeling pretty defensive. The other third is... more pretentious. And unpleasant. It's Partridge's overly psychologically telling explanation of why Shakespeare was expressly heterosexual. Now, don't get me wrong, I believe Shakespeare was at most bisexual, and ultimately it doesn't matter. But Partridge - while certainly "tolerant" of the deviant homosexuals he sees everywhere around him - directly appeals to his heterosexual readers to show less bias and to appreciate that only a straight man would make so many vagina jokes while writing a play for a mainstream audience. Um, Eric? Half of my friends are homosexual writers and/or comedians, and very few of them are afraid to discuss the pudenda. At length. But, thanks for playing.
So, his contributions far outweigh his puzzling psychological tells, but this book is probably outdated nonetheless. ( )