T. McLaughlin 2007-09-30

5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

I recommend this book, it contains many interesting insights. However, I think a more apt subtitle would have been: "Some Meaningful Discoveries" and a more apt title would have been "Philosophic Questions Raised in Some of Shakespeare's Better Known Plays". Within these boundaries, it's quite good. Of course, it doesn't add anything to Shakespeare, or not very much. And I'm not sure that comparisons to lesser lights like Hume, Wittgenstein, Freud and even Montaigne are very illuminating. When you recall your state at the end of a good production of King Lear or Hamlet, it's hard to think what needs to be added, except maybe explanations of archaic expressions, and that's pretty minor. With Shakespeare, all we ordinary mortals can do is to point out interesting things about the landscape and method, as Helen Vendler did in her wonderful book on the sonnets. Still, I think if you love Shakespeare, you'll like this book. It reminds you of those troubling questions and revelations your first experience of Shakespeare's plays evoked. The cultural world of our collective imagination is not going to be re-defined by Professor MeGinn's book. If this was all you had of Shakespeare, it wouldn't be much, but as an amplification of the experience you've already had, it's not bad.

Some of his most insightful observations had nothing to do with the study of philosophy, for example, the uniqueness and authenticity of each major character. This would make an excellent topic for a book: how real these men and women are. Very few characters in literature have a life of their own the way Hamlet, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, Othello and many others do. They are like historical figures, as definable and at the same time as mysterious as Lincoln or Charles II or Napoleon or Josephine are. I thought this was a very good observation.

Richard Aven 2007-08-20

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

the first three quarters of the book are better than its ending, but mr. mcginn is a clean writer and makes what could be a pedantic subject easily accessible.

Timothy Haugh 2007-06-12

18 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

It's doubtful that anyone who has an enduring interest in Shakespeare and his plays would doubt that the Bard was of a philosophical bent. Certainly, one of the reasons Shakespeare has endured is that his characters speak deeply to the heart of what it means to be human. So, having the observations of an experienced philosopher on Shakespeare's work is quite appealing. Fortunately, Mr. McGinn doesn't disappoint.

In fact, the book is much like one would expect from a serious philosopher. He opens with a chapter on the themes he is going to pursue, outlining his ideas and defining his terms. He follows with chapters on six major plays (Midsummer, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, Lear and The Tempest). Then, he offers four chapters on general topics such as gender and ethics. Finally, he wraps things up with an examination of Shakespeare's genius.

Overall, McGinn's analysis of the plays is quite insightful. The first few pages of his chapter on Hamlet made me think about the opening scene of the play (Bernardo & Francisco on the ramparts) in a new way. He has a powerful ability to take a single philosophical idea and dig deeply into a play. This can open up important new avenues of thought.

Still, feeling the weight of McGinn's intelligence in his writing, a reader does have to be careful in thinking that he has cut down to the heart of the plays. Though enlightening, in some ways, McGinn's views are narrow because he has a particular purpose that reflect his own interests. For example, McGinn sees Montaigne's influence on Shakespeare very clearly and there can be no doubt Shakespeare read Montaigne and this impacted his work; however, McGinn's highlighting of Montaigne cannot help but put other influences into shadow.

It is also true that to be completely convinced by the philosophical assertions McGinn has made it would be necessary to see how his work in useful in understanding the other thirty or so plays. He only talks about six in detail, remember, which leaves an awful lot of ground unplowed. It would be interesting to see McGinn's take on the rest of the canon.

To a reader with some background in Shakespeare, McGinn's work is a valuable addition to the scholarship surrounding the Bard. And, despite its philosophical topics, you don't have to be a professional to read, enjoy and understand this book. It is definitely worth reading.

M. F. Woodcock 2007-02-17

4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:

an interesting and erudite exploration of some of the possible ideas and ideals driving the representations in shakespeares work. Well written beautifully explained and accessable for the fairly everyday reader. Well worth while reading and of course having in your collection for reference.

MFW

Stanley H. Nemeth 2007-01-07

39 of 42 people found the following review helpful:

Though occasionally insightful in its readings of specific passages, McGinn's book suffers from a questionable approach, the effort to discover the meaning behind Shakespeare's plays by dressing the author in borrowed clothes, the too tight doublet and hose of the smaller Montaigne or the completely inappropriate straightjackets of Hume or Wittgenstein. Thus, for McGinn, Shakespeare emerges as a sort of skeptical naturalist, a thesis difficult to maintain if one considers the plays in their entirety, neither neglecting nor distorting passages that undermine such a narrow view.
Consider as a signal example McGinn's reading of Hamlet's refusal to kill Claudius at prayers. McGinn comments that Hamlet is worried "Claudius will go to heaven if killed now, instead of to the hell he deserves. This has seemed to everyone like a rationalization rather than a genuine reason...." Not so fast! Such eminent commentators as Maynard Mack and C.S.Lewis have taken Hamlet at his word and seen this decision as the very climax of the play. Hamlet was charged with killing the king, not with damning his soul. In such arrogant God-playing, the Prince ironically misses the perfect opportunity, as we - though not he - learn, for Claudius tells us in his closing couplet that he has not, in fact, been able to pray. If McGinn had applied to this event his shrewd insights about the opacity that is man's lot instead of his contemporary secular bias, he would have come up with a reading more respectful to the details of the Shakespearean text.
A similar "updated" vision coupled with inattention to textual detail can be found in McGinn's treatment of Cordelia. When she says, "No cause," most commentators do not think, like McGinn, that she's giving voice to a Hume-like theory of randomness. Critics more at home with older culture recognize that she indeed has no cause, but only an excuse for a cause should she treat her repentant father with disdain. Equally problematic is McGinn's judgment of Cordelia in the play's opening scene. Even though he concedes her "manifest integrity," he finds her not "entirely blameless." She should have, like any consumer of current self-help books, walked on eggshells, avoided offending her proud father, and thus averted tragedy. Despite McGinn's concession, he is here to a certain extent blaming the victim, something the play refuses to do. A glance at Kent's remarks in this scene about the need to speak truth to power when "majesty falls to folly" or the play's closing admonition to "speak what we feel, not what we ought to say" strikes me as fatal to McGinn's view.