Peter J. Smith tells us that he has seen Hamlet 40 times and that he does not like my book Hamlet and the Vision of Darkness (鈥More twists than a pretzel鈥, Books, 25 January). This is his right. Likewise, he is free to muster all the arguments he can in defence of the reflexive pieties through which the play is generally performed and read. The fact remains that his systematic misrepresentation of my book is a disgrace.
One example will have to suffice. Smith asserts that my Hamlet regards the theatre with 鈥渄isdain鈥, before concluding that 鈥渋t is neither Hamlet nor Shakespeare who is uninterested in theatre; it is Lewis鈥. Pass over in silence Smith鈥檚 elision of 鈥渄isdain鈥 and 鈥渦ninterest鈥. What I actually write is that Hamlet鈥檚 dramatic vision is 鈥渁 version of pastoral鈥; that he is an enthusiastic amateur who 鈥渁llows his self-absorption and social status to insulate himself from, and ultimately to distort his view of, the theatrical world he purports to admire鈥. From here, I propose that Hamlet strikes a blow at the classically minded parochialism of the university 鈥渨its鈥 who questioned Shakespeare鈥檚 dramatic credentials; more fundamentally, I suggest that Shakespeare uses Hamlet to elaborate a powerfully new model of tragedy able to comprehend a world in which versions of theatricality were the only way to get along.
I suppose we can be grateful that, in the years around 1600, the book-reviewing racket had not yet begun.
Rhodri Lewis
St Hugh鈥檚 College
Oxford
Send to
Letters should be sent to:聽THE.Letters@timeshighereducation.com
Letters for publication in聽糖心Vlog聽should arrive by 9am Monday.
View terms and conditions.
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 罢贬贰鈥檚 university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?