Technicalities of the term "readings" (1 Viewer)

[Sush]

Hey guys!

I just went to to a HSC lecture on King Lear by a professor at the university of Newcastle who has been studying King Lear for over twenty years. Anyway, she brought up the misconception regarding the way in which people (and in particular many schools) categorise productions into readings.

She basically said that it is grossly incorrect to say for instance, Peter Brook's production is a nihilistic reading. She says this is because there are people who have their own individual and unique readings that are shaped by their values and their context, which cannot be categorised specifically as a type of reading.

You can only really describe their interpretation, for example Peter Brook accentuates aspects of King Lear that explore the issue of the absurdity of existence, you can include that Brook's interpretation is influenced by nihilistic ideals. However, to say that Peter Brook has a nihilistic reading is very restricting and suggests that Brook disregards all the other issues taht are presented in the play, which is not true, he only emphasises the issue of the absurdity of existence which are pertinent ideas to his context of post-war europe.

She also adressed that since there is no such thing as a type of interpretation just people who make them, so basically the only person who could have a strictly marxist reading is Karl Marx, because anyone else is just influenced by the ideas of Karl Marx, so it is sort of like part of their context, so that's also why it's incorrect.

So basically you just have to understand you are studying a person's own reading, not a type of reading, which is made up of so much more than a for e.g. a feminist reading but could be influenced by feminist ideals as a result of their context.

However, this is all a very radical idea for me lol n i'm having a hard enough time trying to make the adjustment myself, so I probably don't make much sense, but yeh this is just what she said and she said she even clarified it with the board of studies, so just a thing to watch Anyone's feedback about what your tecahers have said about this would be good to hear!

 

[JessC]

Hey! i went to a King Lear HSC lecture thing aswell just last wk and the lady was a professor aswel! n she sed exactly the same thing about the readings but when we told our teacher at skool she sed not 2 listen 2 her coz we had already learnt all the readings and that they have been teaching the previous years the same thing.
Was the lady old?...with an irratating voice?

 

[anti]

It's easier to say something has a Marxist slant than to say "Karl Marx would say this text suits his values'

Marxism itself has developed beyond what Marx himself would have foreseen, IMO. Marxism (Socialism, Feminism, etc) has some pretty well-defined values which define a 'marxist' sort of interpretation.

For example, not everybody is a Greer feminist, but she and other feminists obviously share similar core ideas, and when one talks about feminism they're referring to those core ideals.

Don't get too hung up on nitpicky things like that - they'll only confuse you. It's good to understand the difference between them, as it should influence the way you refer to readings (you don't say 'Lear is a nihilistic reading' because it ISN'T, shakespeare didn't intend it to be. Neither did Brooks. You can say 'a nihilistic reading of the text shows the development of such-and-such...')

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion point! Thanks for bringing it up.