What do you think?
Rate this book
A Theatre of Envy: William Shakespeare
In this groundbreaking work, one of our foremost literary and cultural critics turns to the major figure in English literature, William Shakespeare, and proposes a dramatic new reading of nearly all his plays and poems. The key to A Theater of Envy is Rene Girard's novel reinterpretation of
"mimesis." For Girard, people desire objects not for their intrinsic value, but because they are desired by someone else--we mime or imitate their desires. This envy--or "mimetic desire"--he sees as one of the foundations of the human condition.
Bringing such provocative and iconoclastic insights to bear on Shakespeare, Girard reveals the previously overlooked coherence of problem plays like Troilus and Cressida , and makes a convincing argument for elevating A Midsummer Night's Dream from the status of a chaotic comedy to a
masterpiece. The book abounds with novel and provocative Shakespeare becomes "a prophet of modern advertising," and the threat of nuclear disaster is read in the light of Hamlet . Most intriguing of all, perhaps, is a brief, but brilliant aside in which an entirely new perspective
is brought to the chapter in Joyce's Ulysses in which Stephen Dedalus gives a lecture on Shakespeare. In Girard's view only Joyce, perhaps the greatest of twentieth-century novelists, comes close to understanding the greatest of Renaissance playwrights.
Throughout this impressively sustained reading of Shakespeare Girard's prose is sophisticated, but contemporary, and accessible to the general reader. Anyone interested in literature, anthropology, or psychoanalysis will want to read this challenging book. And all those involved in theatrical
production and performance will find A Theater of Envy full of suggestive new ideas.
"mimesis." For Girard, people desire objects not for their intrinsic value, but because they are desired by someone else--we mime or imitate their desires. This envy--or "mimetic desire"--he sees as one of the foundations of the human condition.
Bringing such provocative and iconoclastic insights to bear on Shakespeare, Girard reveals the previously overlooked coherence of problem plays like Troilus and Cressida , and makes a convincing argument for elevating A Midsummer Night's Dream from the status of a chaotic comedy to a
masterpiece. The book abounds with novel and provocative Shakespeare becomes "a prophet of modern advertising," and the threat of nuclear disaster is read in the light of Hamlet . Most intriguing of all, perhaps, is a brief, but brilliant aside in which an entirely new perspective
is brought to the chapter in Joyce's Ulysses in which Stephen Dedalus gives a lecture on Shakespeare. In Girard's view only Joyce, perhaps the greatest of twentieth-century novelists, comes close to understanding the greatest of Renaissance playwrights.
Throughout this impressively sustained reading of Shakespeare Girard's prose is sophisticated, but contemporary, and accessible to the general reader. Anyone interested in literature, anthropology, or psychoanalysis will want to read this challenging book. And all those involved in theatrical
production and performance will find A Theater of Envy full of suggestive new ideas.
384 pages, Hardcover
First published October 3, 1990
About the author
René Girard
123 books656 followersRené Girard was a French-born American historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science whose work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
He was born in the southern French city of Avignon on Christmas day in 1923. Between 1943 and 1947, he studied in Paris at the École des Chartres, an institution for the training of archivists and historians, where he specialized in medieval history. In 1947 he went to Indiana University on a year’s fellowship and eventually made almost his entire career in the United States. He completed a PhD in history at Indiana University in 1950 but also began to teach literature, the field in which he would first make his reputation. He taught at Duke University and at Bryn Mawr before becoming a professor at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. In 1971 he went to the State University of New York at Buffalo for five years, returned to Johns Hopkins, and then finished his academic career at Stanford University where he taught between 1981 and his retirement in 1995.
Girard is the author of nearly thirty books, with his writings spanning many academic domains. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature on his work and his influence on disciplines such as literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.Girard’s fundamental ideas, which he has developed throughout his career and provide the foundation for his thinking, are that desire is mimetic (all of our desires are borrowed from other people), that all conflict originates in mimetic desire (mimetic rivalry), that the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry, and that the Bible reveals these ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.
In 1990, friends and colleagues of Girard’s established the Colloquium on Violence and Religion to further research and discussion about the themes of Girard’s work. The Colloquium meets annually either in Europe or the United States.
René Girard died on November 4, 2015, at the age of 91 in Stanford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
October 4, 2018
this book is deranged, making wild speculation with dubious basis. however, what he says is so compelling and fascinating that its hard to deny that hes onto something. a very odd read, but does what you could ever want from a shakespeare book - finds new ideas in old texts
November 28, 2019
Η θεατρική ζήλια, αυτή που ο Άγγλος λογοτέχνης με δεξιοτεχνία και πολλές φορές με κωμικό τρόπο τοποθετεί στα έργα του, αναλυμένη από τον René Girard με τον καλύτερο δυνατόν τρόπο.
Μέσα από τα σαιξπηρικά έργα άλλοτε διαφαίνεται, άλλοτε παρουσιάζεται με έντονο τρόπο ο ερωτικός μιμητισμός, η ζηλοτυπία και ο ασυνείδητος ανταγωνισμός.
Θα μπορούσα να γράφω ώρες τις σκέψεις μου για την συγκεκριμένη ανάλυση που προτείνει ο Girard, αλλά θα περιοριστώ σε μερικά από τα σημεία που θεώρησα καινοτομίες στο έργο του Σαιξπηρ.
Αρχικά, ο διττός χαρακτήρας των έργων αυτών. Ο Σαίξπηρ είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι γνώριζε ότι τα θεατρικά έργα αφενός, θα παρουσιαστούν κατ’αποκλειστικότητα σε ένα κοινό συντηρητικό το οποίο τηρούσε με ευλάβεια τον θεμελιωμένο ηθικό κώδικα της εποχής αφετέρου είχε επίγνωση ότι θα υπάρχει, κάπου ανάμεσα σε αυτό το εύθικτο κοινό, ένα νουνεχές και σκεπτόμενο τμήμα ανθρώπων.
Για αυτόν τον λόγο τα έργα του, πολλές φορές, υπό τον προστατευτικό μανδύα του χιούμορ ντύνουν αληθινά γεγονότα. Το κωμικό στοιχείο, δηλαδή, μοιάζει να καλύπτει περιστατικά που θα θεωρούνταν σκανδαλοθηρικά. Η ατόφια, όμως, σαιξπηρική ύλη που εμπεριέχει τα καινοτόμα στοιχεία παραμένει παρούσα και φτάνει στους δεκτές που πρέπει να φτάσει, το έλλογο κοινό.
Το δεύτερο στοιχείο που θα σταθώ, αν και δεν πρόκειται ενδεχομένως για κάτι που συναντάμε στα πρώιμα έργα του συγγραφέα, είναι η ισότητα που θα αντιμετωπίσει τόσο τον αρσενικό πρωταγωνιστή όσο και την θηλυκή πρωταγωνίστρια.
Και οι δυο είναι πηγές ζήλιας, ανταγωνισμού, πέφτουν θύματα συγκυριών αλλά κυρίως διεκδικούν έναν διαφορετικό τρόπο ζωής από αυτό που οι άλλοι τους προτάσσουν.
Συγκεκριμένα, οι γυναίκες ( Όνειρο καλοκαιρινής νυχτός) παίρνουν την ερωτική ζωή στα χέρια τους και ακολουθούν αυτό που επιθυμούν. Οι οικογένεια, με χαρακτηριστικότερη λογοτεχνική φυσιογνωμία αυτή του αυστηρού πατέρα που περιορίζει τη ζωή της θηλυκής απόγονου, υπάρχει μόνο ως «χάρτινος» τρομοκράτης.
Δεν ξέρω αν ήταν σαφές, αλλά έχω ενθουσιαστεί με το παρόν βιβλίο!
Μέσα από τα σαιξπηρικά έργα άλλοτε διαφαίνεται, άλλοτε παρουσιάζεται με έντονο τρόπο ο ερωτικός μιμητισμός, η ζηλοτυπία και ο ασυνείδητος ανταγωνισμός.
Θα μπορούσα να γράφω ώρες τις σκέψεις μου για την συγκεκριμένη ανάλυση που προτείνει ο Girard, αλλά θα περιοριστώ σε μερικά από τα σημεία που θεώρησα καινοτομίες στο έργο του Σαιξπηρ.
Αρχικά, ο διττός χαρακτήρας των έργων αυτών. Ο Σαίξπηρ είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι γνώριζε ότι τα θεατρικά έργα αφενός, θα παρουσιαστούν κατ’αποκλειστικότητα σε ένα κοινό συντηρητικό το οποίο τηρούσε με ευλάβεια τον θεμελιωμένο ηθικό κώδικα της εποχής αφετέρου είχε επίγνωση ότι θα υπάρχει, κάπου ανάμεσα σε αυτό το εύθικτο κοινό, ένα νουνεχές και σκεπτόμενο τμήμα ανθρώπων.
Για αυτόν τον λόγο τα έργα του, πολλές φορές, υπό τον προστατευτικό μανδύα του χιούμορ ντύνουν αληθινά γεγονότα. Το κωμικό στοιχείο, δηλαδή, μοιάζει να καλύπτει περιστατικά που θα θεωρούνταν σκανδαλοθηρικά. Η ατόφια, όμως, σαιξπηρική ύλη που εμπεριέχει τα καινοτόμα στοιχεία παραμένει παρούσα και φτάνει στους δεκτές που πρέπει να φτάσει, το έλλογο κοινό.
Το δεύτερο στοιχείο που θα σταθώ, αν και δεν πρόκειται ενδεχομένως για κάτι που συναντάμε στα πρώιμα έργα του συγγραφέα, είναι η ισότητα που θα αντιμετωπίσει τόσο τον αρσενικό πρωταγωνιστή όσο και την θηλυκή πρωταγωνίστρια.
Και οι δυο είναι πηγές ζήλιας, ανταγωνισμού, πέφτουν θύματα συγκυριών αλλά κυρίως διεκδικούν έναν διαφορετικό τρόπο ζωής από αυτό που οι άλλοι τους προτάσσουν.
Συγκεκριμένα, οι γυναίκες ( Όνειρο καλοκαιρινής νυχτός) παίρνουν την ερωτική ζωή στα χέρια τους και ακολουθούν αυτό που επιθυμούν. Οι οικογένεια, με χαρακτηριστικότερη λογοτεχνική φυσιογνωμία αυτή του αυστηρού πατέρα που περιορίζει τη ζωή της θηλυκής απόγονου, υπάρχει μόνο ως «χάρτινος» τρομοκράτης.
Δεν ξέρω αν ήταν σαφές, αλλά έχω ενθουσιαστεί με το παρόν βιβλίο!
May 3, 2020
N WYNDHAM LEWIS'S The Lion and the Fox: The Role of the Hero in the Plays of Shakespeare, he observes, "Troilus and Cressida is the one play that no shakespearian [sic] critic ever approaches without a baffled 'hem!' and a sense of treading on dangerous ground. It is an eccentric integrant of the series that will not fit in with the smooth picture he [i.e., the critic] has been able to compose elsewhere...".
Lewis has a point here--but he did not foresee Girard. In Girard's analysis of Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida is the central exhibit, the subject of six of A Theater of Envy's thirty-eight chapters. (Midsummer Night's Dream gets eight, Julius Caesar and The Winter's Tale five each, Hamlet one, Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra zero; Richard III gets half a chapter, the other histories zip.)
Girard (1923-2015) might turn out, years hence, to be a figure on the scale of Freud or Marx--a thinker with a big idea that explains nearly everything. For Marx, the big idea is class conflict, the driver of history. For Freud, the big idea is the unconscious, unacknowledged determiner of what we do and how we feel. For Girard, the big idea is mimesis--that we are basically imitative creatures. We decide what we want mainly by seeing what other people want, and then adopting their desires as our own. (At the very least, Girard completely explains middle school social life.) Since we all end up wanting the same things, rivalry ensues, competition, conflict, eventually violence. If we are lucky, the violence evolves into a myth of "a founding murder," the sacrifice of an innocent that we can ritually re-enact to remind ourselves not to let things get so far out of hand.
Girard finds pieces of this scenario in a variety of Shakespearean plays. The sexual version forms the core of the plot in Midsummer Night' s Dream, Lysander and Demetrius seemingly most interested in whatever the woman the other is interested in. Julius Caesar is the political version, Rome's most powerful men all converging on the same prize, Brutus trying to engineer a "sacrifice" that will create peace, but the murder stubbornly remaining a murder, with civil war ensuing.
Troilus and Cressida is the whole enchilada. Pandarus goads Troilus into obsession with Cressida by describing how avidly others are obsessed with her, then goads Cressida into obsession Troilus by describing how avidly others are obsessed with him. The background for this erotic mimesis is another political mimesis, as Greeks and Trojans kill each other out of desire to secure what the other side desires--Helen. But as in Julius Caesar, the sacrifice--the brutal, cowardly slaying of Hector-- fails.
In The Winter's Tale, though, Leontes' jealousy (his fear and rage that his friend Polixenes wants what he, Leontes, wants) leads to two deaths, but ritual remembrance has the astonishing effect of restoration and healing.
A really worthwhile book--new angles on Shakespeare are relatively rare, and I learned a lot.
Rather like Freud (via Ernest Jones) on Shakespeare, though, Girard sometimes seems to congratulate Shakespeare on having intuited what he, Girard, actually described and named:
"With his awareness of the victimage mechanism and its religious consequences, [Shakespeare] reached an anthropological vision that has remained undeciphered to this day but is finally becoming intelligible, thanks to the same mimetic theory that enabled us to unravel the significance of the comedies" (209).
His original audiences, who knew not Girard, could not really have been able to understand how far ahead of his time Shakespeare was:
"For which spectators were such marvels conceived as we have in this play, still totally misunderstood and disdained after four centuries?" (236)
But Girard, unlike Freud, seems sometimes to be onto himself, as in this remark about an earlier Shakespeare explicator, Stephen Dedalus in the "Scylla and Charybdis"episode of Ulysses:
"...Egomen's reasoning: 'Since Shakespeare knows everything about mimetic desire, and so do I, and since no one else does, except for a few towering asters, I must be a towering master myself'." (264-65)
Lewis has a point here--but he did not foresee Girard. In Girard's analysis of Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida is the central exhibit, the subject of six of A Theater of Envy's thirty-eight chapters. (Midsummer Night's Dream gets eight, Julius Caesar and The Winter's Tale five each, Hamlet one, Lear, Macbeth, and Antony and Cleopatra zero; Richard III gets half a chapter, the other histories zip.)
Girard (1923-2015) might turn out, years hence, to be a figure on the scale of Freud or Marx--a thinker with a big idea that explains nearly everything. For Marx, the big idea is class conflict, the driver of history. For Freud, the big idea is the unconscious, unacknowledged determiner of what we do and how we feel. For Girard, the big idea is mimesis--that we are basically imitative creatures. We decide what we want mainly by seeing what other people want, and then adopting their desires as our own. (At the very least, Girard completely explains middle school social life.) Since we all end up wanting the same things, rivalry ensues, competition, conflict, eventually violence. If we are lucky, the violence evolves into a myth of "a founding murder," the sacrifice of an innocent that we can ritually re-enact to remind ourselves not to let things get so far out of hand.
Girard finds pieces of this scenario in a variety of Shakespearean plays. The sexual version forms the core of the plot in Midsummer Night' s Dream, Lysander and Demetrius seemingly most interested in whatever the woman the other is interested in. Julius Caesar is the political version, Rome's most powerful men all converging on the same prize, Brutus trying to engineer a "sacrifice" that will create peace, but the murder stubbornly remaining a murder, with civil war ensuing.
Troilus and Cressida is the whole enchilada. Pandarus goads Troilus into obsession with Cressida by describing how avidly others are obsessed with her, then goads Cressida into obsession Troilus by describing how avidly others are obsessed with him. The background for this erotic mimesis is another political mimesis, as Greeks and Trojans kill each other out of desire to secure what the other side desires--Helen. But as in Julius Caesar, the sacrifice--the brutal, cowardly slaying of Hector-- fails.
In The Winter's Tale, though, Leontes' jealousy (his fear and rage that his friend Polixenes wants what he, Leontes, wants) leads to two deaths, but ritual remembrance has the astonishing effect of restoration and healing.
A really worthwhile book--new angles on Shakespeare are relatively rare, and I learned a lot.
Rather like Freud (via Ernest Jones) on Shakespeare, though, Girard sometimes seems to congratulate Shakespeare on having intuited what he, Girard, actually described and named:
"With his awareness of the victimage mechanism and its religious consequences, [Shakespeare] reached an anthropological vision that has remained undeciphered to this day but is finally becoming intelligible, thanks to the same mimetic theory that enabled us to unravel the significance of the comedies" (209).
His original audiences, who knew not Girard, could not really have been able to understand how far ahead of his time Shakespeare was:
"For which spectators were such marvels conceived as we have in this play, still totally misunderstood and disdained after four centuries?" (236)
But Girard, unlike Freud, seems sometimes to be onto himself, as in this remark about an earlier Shakespeare explicator, Stephen Dedalus in the "Scylla and Charybdis"episode of Ulysses:
"...Egomen's reasoning: 'Since Shakespeare knows everything about mimetic desire, and so do I, and since no one else does, except for a few towering asters, I must be a towering master myself'." (264-65)
January 17, 2009
Worldclass. One of the best books I have read.
July 23, 2016
Όλες οι ανθρώπινες σχέσεις στο έργο του Σαιξπιρ καίγονται στις φλόγες της ζηλοτυπίας , του φθόνου -και ψυχαναλυτικά μιλώντας - και του ερωτα .
Ο Ζιραρ μας κανει να τα ανακαλύψουμε ολα αυτα .
Ο Ζιραρ μας κανει να τα ανακαλύψουμε ολα αυτα .
November 30, 2012
Girard's insights into Shakespeare through his theory of mimetic desire help us see the plays with new eyes and hear with new ears. (Mimetic desire is the human tendency to copy not just actions but the desires of other people.) As noted by one review here, Girard does not explain EVERYTHING about the plays. Who could? But it is an important angle because Shakespeare shows an awareness of mimetic desire deeper than most other great writers of Western civilization & that's saying something. "The Winter's Tale," for example, becomes surprisingly comprehensible instead of silly when we see, through Girard, mimetic desire at work. Also, Shakespeare gives us so many examples of mimetic desire acted on stage (and thus in real life) that Shakespeare deepens our awareness of the phenomenon. For more on Girard & mimetic desire, see my blog at http://bit.ly/Tqbeqw I discuss Midsummer Nights' Dream" & "Winter's Tale" in my article "Violence and the Kingdom of God" at http://bit.ly/SwYVuH
January 6, 2022
What a read! Intense and deep, but worth it. If you love Shakespeare this is a must-have reference book. Although, before reading it one needs to have a working knowledge of the mimetic theory of Rene Girard. If one has that working knowledge they can kind of jump around the book to enter into different critiques of the plays of Shakespeare based on Rene’s understanding of them. Just reading his understanding of the Shakespearean sonnets and the winter’s tale makes this book well worth the read. Again, a solid recommend but one needs to have a general working knowledge of the mimetic theory of Girard.
February 18, 2012
Come sostenere in 600 pagine una interessante tesi che puoi sostenere in 200.
May 18, 2019
Quite interesting. High praise.
"Theater of Envy" is my introduction to Girard, mimetic desire, the scapegoat mechanism, and so on.
I lack the expertise to comment on the validity of Girard--he builds off of common observations. The whole is interesting and makes sense-although Girard often is caught up in the universality of this theory (all desire is mimetic) and a need for acceptance from his peers.
The book is very well put together. Girard does an excellent job of leading the string of thought. I often found myself 'thinking ahead' to a point he would later establish or wondering about an observation to which he would immediately provide an answer. Regarding the Shakespeare, Girard makes a compelling case built clearly from Shakespeare's own words. Often in criticism, the criticism is a complex explanation of the 'deeper' text. Here, however, it is Shakespeare providing clear statements in support of Girard's theories-almost stunning in how clearly and solidly Girard finds support in Shakespeare.
At times, especially in the 'lesser' plays and comedies, Shakespeare's plots can take cheap turns or feel a bit clunky. Girard contends that at least in some of these cases, the cheap turn is clue that Shakespeare has a second 'deeper' plot in play that is more sound than the surface. A curious point, almost to obsession, is his insistence that critics have a psychological blindness to mimetic desire and the mimetic cycle. I don't know what to make of that--I lack the expertise in Shakespeare and psychology, anthropology and so forth to adequately evaluate Girard. The chapters on The Winter's Tale are super. He makes a good case and this book is one of the coolest things I have read.
December 10, 2015
I appreciate Girard's insight; it's a fascinating lens with which to study the Bard. My one concern about his global notion of mimetic desire is that he makes it sound like a bad thing. If it's a natural part of our human nature it can't be all bad.
Flocks of birds search for food. When one bird sees food it flies toward it and the others follow it. They survive that way. Mimetic desire becomes dangerous when the desired object can be neither shared not surrendered. A generous spirit may not create great drama but it too helps us survive.
Flocks of birds search for food. When one bird sees food it flies toward it and the others follow it. They survive that way. Mimetic desire becomes dangerous when the desired object can be neither shared not surrendered. A generous spirit may not create great drama but it too helps us survive.
February 25, 2022
This literary critique of Shakespeare is a great tribute to the playwright. Yet many Shakespeare wonks would be offended by the book because it provides a quite radical new interpretation of his work. Girard combs through Shakespeare's work methodically to show that the latter's great insights flowed from his implicit discovery of Girard's own mimetic theory. The power of Girard's interpretation is that it renders some of Shakespeare's more obscure and seemingly inferior plays intelligible and brilliant. I, for one, was convinced.
Want to read
February 27, 2021On the crisis of degree, see here.
October 8, 2023
Sigh. I don't know where to start with this one. I had so many problems with this. Some of his takes are just so weird and problematic that I have honestly no idea how he came up with them. While I think that his main thesis of mimetic envy makes sense, I don't think it's a good idea to force his idea on almost every single play and try to make sense of it this way. Because his way turns everything a character does into envy and trying to imitate the other in their desire. Especially with the female characters I think this view is immensely problematic. They are being reduced from full characters to simly pining, envious women and that honestly doesn't sit right with me. Women and female character do have other motivations than just being envious? Girard's thesis takes away their agency!?
I must also confess that I absolutely despise the idea that he thinks that his mimetic theory, with the focus on envy (and desire), is a good framework for human behaviour and and human conflicts. Yes, some feelings and desires are shaped by the desires of others but, once again, this reduces everything a human ever did or felt to this mimetic envy, which I feel like is not true at all. Humans have so many more emotions that are not just solely shaped by envy and imitating desires of other people.
And I also think that Girard knows that but he thinks he's so smart and special and said something intelligent that he refuses to acknowledge that his thesis isn't applicable to every single play that he just glosses over it and, instead, says something even dumber. I sometimes even wondered if a) he has even read the plays, b) had read any critical theory, and c) has ever felt any emotion or was empathtic towards another person.
The thesis is just simplifies everything. Girard puts a focus on social, cultural and religious factors for the mimetic desire which makes me think, okay, what about other cultures and societies? What about the individual experience of people/characters? Is the religious belief not just one (highly individual !!!) aspect of a human? His scapegoat mechanism is so overly reductionist.
I must also confess that I absolutely despise the idea that he thinks that his mimetic theory, with the focus on envy (and desire), is a good framework for human behaviour and and human conflicts. Yes, some feelings and desires are shaped by the desires of others but, once again, this reduces everything a human ever did or felt to this mimetic envy, which I feel like is not true at all. Humans have so many more emotions that are not just solely shaped by envy and imitating desires of other people.
And I also think that Girard knows that but he thinks he's so smart and special and said something intelligent that he refuses to acknowledge that his thesis isn't applicable to every single play that he just glosses over it and, instead, says something even dumber. I sometimes even wondered if a) he has even read the plays, b) had read any critical theory, and c) has ever felt any emotion or was empathtic towards another person.
The thesis is just simplifies everything. Girard puts a focus on social, cultural and religious factors for the mimetic desire which makes me think, okay, what about other cultures and societies? What about the individual experience of people/characters? Is the religious belief not just one (highly individual !!!) aspect of a human? His scapegoat mechanism is so overly reductionist.
March 13, 2023
Groundbreaking work.
This book has changed how I approach literary analysis.
Fundamentally humans don’t know what we want so we figure it out by copying what others seem to want because what we really want is the regard and appreciation of others.
From a personal perspective that means I don’t really want a Rolex, I want the respect I think I will get from people I admire for owning a Rolex.
From a literary perspective it means that the motives and motivation of characters need to be considered appropriately.
Helena and Hermia, in midsummer nights dream, aren’t fighting for Demetrius and Lysander, they are fighting because Helena wants the love and affection of Hermia.
The Greeks want Helen back because the Trojans want her and the Trojans are willing to let thousands of Trojans die because the Greeks want Helen back.
Paris doesn’t particularly want Helen but he wants to be king just like Menelaus; taking his wife is just a subconscious attempt at acquiring that which he can’t get as one of the youngest of 50 children.
Girard’s essays are dense and I will have to re-read many of them but it is clear to me that anyone who wants to really think deeply about what they are reading needs to read these essays.
This book has changed how I approach literary analysis.
Fundamentally humans don’t know what we want so we figure it out by copying what others seem to want because what we really want is the regard and appreciation of others.
From a personal perspective that means I don’t really want a Rolex, I want the respect I think I will get from people I admire for owning a Rolex.
From a literary perspective it means that the motives and motivation of characters need to be considered appropriately.
Helena and Hermia, in midsummer nights dream, aren’t fighting for Demetrius and Lysander, they are fighting because Helena wants the love and affection of Hermia.
The Greeks want Helen back because the Trojans want her and the Trojans are willing to let thousands of Trojans die because the Greeks want Helen back.
Paris doesn’t particularly want Helen but he wants to be king just like Menelaus; taking his wife is just a subconscious attempt at acquiring that which he can’t get as one of the youngest of 50 children.
Girard’s essays are dense and I will have to re-read many of them but it is clear to me that anyone who wants to really think deeply about what they are reading needs to read these essays.
May 17, 2019
A quite long book to be making the same points over and over. But still an excellent one at that. Some of Girard's claims are quite outlandish, but he delivers them with such conviction I (almost) believe them.
January 13, 2022
Läste en tredjedel av avsnitten och ser fram emot att ta upp den igen
October 13, 2022
Better to go straight to the source, consuming writing about writing is suboptimal
February 25, 2023
Can't say I agree with every conclusion or some of the logic, but a fun and insightful read.
LOVE the Ceasar and Midsummer chapters.
LOVE the Ceasar and Midsummer chapters.
May 7, 2023
May be true, but regardless, Girard's thesis is bleak and annoying.
October 4, 2016
"Colui che trasforma gli eroi in traditori e i traditori in eroi, ossia il poeta, è in realtà un apprendista stregone che in ogni momento può diventare vittima del suo stesso gioco. Se gli spettatori non accettano la vittima che offre loro, si rivolteranno contro di lui, e lo sceglieranno quale loro vittima sostitutiva: il poeta diventerà il vero capro espiatorio del proprio teatro".
3,5
C'è voluto un po' per venire a capo di questo libro (probabilmente all'epoca dell'università ci avrei messo di meno a leggerlo, ma ormai non ho più la resistenza che avevo all'epoca...certe cose vanno prese a piccole dosi!): un lungo saggio che porta alla luce una teoria, quella legata alle dinamiche del desiderio mimetico, che sembra trovare pochi sostenitori, almeno nell'ambito dello studio delle opere di Shakespeare. Certi capitoli sono più interessanti di altri e una menzione speciale spetta a tutta la parte dedicata all'analisi del "Giulio Cesare" e al concetto di violenza fondativa; non male anche la lunga analisi di "Sogno di una notte di mezza estate" e degli ultimi romance.
Bellissimo anche il modo in cui l'autore dimostri come, in maniera sistematica, Shakespeare costruire due opere in una una: una versione più superficiale per accontentare il pubblico, e una di stampo prettamente mimetico e comprensibile solo a un circolo ristretto di persone.
Verso la fine viene piazzato un "simpatico" capitolo che parte da un brano tratto da "Ulysses" di James Joyce...diciamo che è rimasto l'unico punto interrogativo, visto che non era né particolarmente chiaro, né interessante.
L'ideale sarebbe leggere questo libro affiancandolo di volta in volta con le varie opere che vengono citate, almeno si può avere un riscontro immediato.
L'unica cosa che non mi è piaciuta è stato l'atteggiamento a tratti davvero saccente di Girard: capisco che debba presentare la sua teoria, però non c'è bisogno di minimizzare costantemente le opinioni altrui, no?
3,5
C'è voluto un po' per venire a capo di questo libro (probabilmente all'epoca dell'università ci avrei messo di meno a leggerlo, ma ormai non ho più la resistenza che avevo all'epoca...certe cose vanno prese a piccole dosi!): un lungo saggio che porta alla luce una teoria, quella legata alle dinamiche del desiderio mimetico, che sembra trovare pochi sostenitori, almeno nell'ambito dello studio delle opere di Shakespeare. Certi capitoli sono più interessanti di altri e una menzione speciale spetta a tutta la parte dedicata all'analisi del "Giulio Cesare" e al concetto di violenza fondativa; non male anche la lunga analisi di "Sogno di una notte di mezza estate" e degli ultimi romance.
Bellissimo anche il modo in cui l'autore dimostri come, in maniera sistematica, Shakespeare costruire due opere in una una: una versione più superficiale per accontentare il pubblico, e una di stampo prettamente mimetico e comprensibile solo a un circolo ristretto di persone.
Verso la fine viene piazzato un "simpatico" capitolo che parte da un brano tratto da "Ulysses" di James Joyce...diciamo che è rimasto l'unico punto interrogativo, visto che non era né particolarmente chiaro, né interessante.
L'ideale sarebbe leggere questo libro affiancandolo di volta in volta con le varie opere che vengono citate, almeno si può avere un riscontro immediato.
L'unica cosa che non mi è piaciuta è stato l'atteggiamento a tratti davvero saccente di Girard: capisco che debba presentare la sua teoria, però non c'è bisogno di minimizzare costantemente le opinioni altrui, no?
Read
November 14, 2010Ha senso avere timore di iniziare un libro perché si è certi che lo si troverà troppo bello?
Scherzi a parte, immagino che il testo sia fondamentale perché dovrebbe vedere la teoria del desiderio e del capro espiatorio di Girard all’opera sull’universo di Shakespeare, dove desideri e conflitti sono centrali. C’è da dire che Girard tende a ridurre tutto a propria immagine e somiglianza – cioè a inquadrare tutto nella cornice della propria teoria, che per l’appunto è una teoria che dovrebbe dare ragione di tutte le manifestazioni culturali. Un approccio del genere, di fronte a un gigante come Shakespeare, potrebbe da un lato essere “riduttivo”, dall’altro lato rivelare una nuova prospettiva. (Ma che scrivo a fare, visto che il libro ancora non l’ho letto – ma amo troppo Girard…)
Scherzi a parte, immagino che il testo sia fondamentale perché dovrebbe vedere la teoria del desiderio e del capro espiatorio di Girard all’opera sull’universo di Shakespeare, dove desideri e conflitti sono centrali. C’è da dire che Girard tende a ridurre tutto a propria immagine e somiglianza – cioè a inquadrare tutto nella cornice della propria teoria, che per l’appunto è una teoria che dovrebbe dare ragione di tutte le manifestazioni culturali. Un approccio del genere, di fronte a un gigante come Shakespeare, potrebbe da un lato essere “riduttivo”, dall’altro lato rivelare una nuova prospettiva. (Ma che scrivo a fare, visto che il libro ancora non l’ho letto – ma amo troppo Girard…)
January 7, 2008
The philosophy and theories are solid, but it seems that he focuses on what will help him make his own arguments and doesn't really examine the other side. I think a good argument should include showing that it lives up to close scrutiny, and I feel Girard falls short in this at times. I do find his examination of mimesis compelling though.
July 24, 2008
Girard's writing style and well argued position make this a pleasurable read. His attempt to create a sort of unifying theory about Shakespeare's work comes up short, but carrying his theory into a reading of Shakespeare's work can only enrich the experience.
January 18, 2014
Terrific. Analysis of triangulation and mimetic desire illuminates some of the plays - especially Hamlet. Theological understanding of desire assists in illuminating both Girard and Shakespeare.Application of Girardian analysis to Cain and Abel story proves interesting as well.
July 13, 2015
Packed full of great stuff, a really rewarding approach. Unsurprisingly, a hit with me.
October 25, 2023
When someone hijacks one of the greats to support their own work, you can't help but scoff. How Girardian can Shakespeare really be? Turns out a lot.
November 9, 2011
Too thorough a thesis to be true. I'll have to think about this one.
March 30, 2017
What to say? I have read so little Shakespeare and know so little
Shakespearean English that I am not in a position to comment on Girard's
thesis or almost any of his sub-points. The one thing I know I did not like
was his use of the anachronistic word sexist in discussing Troilus and Cressida. It's one thing
to talk about men and women as they really are--I'm all for that. And it's one
thing to critique a play as a play. But to insert the word sexist for the medieval
trope or convention or whatever of the unfaithful woman just pulled me out of
the criticism and made me think less of the critic.
But I remember being floored by his (possession of) insight into human nature
in the first chapter. Perhaps he's insightful all throughout... but it's hard not to view him
as the man to whom, having just discovered a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Shakespearean English that I am not in a position to comment on Girard's
thesis or almost any of his sub-points. The one thing I know I did not like
was his use of the anachronistic word sexist in discussing Troilus and Cressida. It's one thing
to talk about men and women as they really are--I'm all for that. And it's one
thing to critique a play as a play. But to insert the word sexist for the medieval
trope or convention or whatever of the unfaithful woman just pulled me out of
the criticism and made me think less of the critic.
But I remember being floored by his (possession of) insight into human nature
in the first chapter. Perhaps he's insightful all throughout... but it's hard not to view him
as the man to whom, having just discovered a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews