Tolstoy says that Shakespeare is a bad writer. You can't really prove that Shakespeare is good; it would be a waste of time. But Tolstoy cannot prove he is bad either. What you have to say is that readers experience Shakespeare as being excellent, and have for some time. Withstanding the test of time is evidence of his worth as a writer, according to Orwell. That seems more substantial than any one person's judgment. So Orwell takes as the question, not whether Shakespeare is good or not, but why Tolstoy is motivated to argue in this way in the first place.
The canon can change. Orwell says there could be time when Shakespeare no longer seems like a good writer. I would argue, though, that it will not change by argument or by fiat. Tolstoy's judgment has had absolutely no impact on Shakespeare's reputation, despite Tolstoy's own place in the canon. Even if a few people happen to be convinced by the argument, it still would still be wrong, simply because it flies in the face of the facts of literary history.
No comments:
Post a Comment