.png)
 |
| Evan Clark ('20) |
One of the central lessons I took from this extraordinary trip came to my attention during the Oxford Society’s travel to Statford-upon-Avon, the birthplace of William Shakespeare. As the McConnell Scholars rode toward the town, Dr. Andrew Rabin stressed the importance of understanding Shakespeare and his writing process accurately. Popular myths about Shakespeare abound in contemporary Western culture, portraying Shakespeare as a genius who labored tirelessly in an author’s studio to unleash his brilliant language and plots upon a grateful world. Such myths draw upon a misunderstanding of how authorship worked in Shakespeare’s day, as well as how it works today. Great writers do not produce their works in a vacuum, nor are they responsible for developing every idea in their works from scratch. Dr. Rabin emphasized that Shakespeare, in contrast to contemporary myths, did not write his plays unilaterally. In fact, Shakespeare often took ideas for the plots of his plays from historical sources or other pieces of literature, and he regularly collaborated with other playwrights of his time. This cultural conversation between Shakespeare, his fellow playwrights, and literary sources allowed Shakespeare to share his ideas with his contemporaries as well as appropriate their ideas into his own works. Using source material as a starting point for the development of plots gave Shakespeare the opportunity to focus his efforts on honing the rich language for which he has attained worldwide renown. Thus, Shakespeare did not just become an exceptional writer on the merits of his skill as a poet and a playwright. Rather, he also effectively participated in a cultural dialogue with sources and other writers to enrich his works and to contribute his ideas to the works of others.
Keeping in mind that much of Shakespeare’s work can trace its influences to the works of other writers and source material, we can avoid the alluring yet deceptive call of what Dr. Rabin calls “bardolatry” – the veneration of Shakespeare as if he were a genius solely responsible for his plays’ grandeur. If one fails to recognize the myriad influences that shaped Shakespeare’s background and the ideas that would find their way into his works, one will not only gain a flawed impression of who Shakespeare was, but also an inaccurate understanding of how the process of writing should take place. Contemporary misperceptions of the writing process usually place more emphasis on the perceived gifts of the writer rather than the themes or quality of his or her work. However, the most successful writers learn to write most effectively when they, like Shakespeare, participate in a cultural conversation with literary sources, new ideas, and the writings and feedback of others. As much as certain writers may have a spark of genius when it comes to devising gripping plots or fleshing out beautiful prose, a writer is better off when he or she makes an effort to learn from the knowledge and techniques of past writers and to look for inspiration from a vast variety of sources. Good writers do not and cannot rely solely on ideas of their own, for even the concepts that may appear to be wholly their own almost always draw upon influences from their background and culture. Rather than working in isolation, effective writers recognize the importance of learning from other writers’ ideas, successes, and failures. When writers find inspiration from all sorts of cultural influences and from a host of writers, past and contemporary, they will be better equipped to produce works that speak to a wide audience with themes that run the gamut of human experience. By participating in this cultural conversation, Shakespeare gained the writing experience and the breadth of knowledge and insight that helped him write exquisite plays that speak to human emotions, human needs, human desires, and human conflicts throughout all time periods.
As a student who enjoys all kinds of writing and who writes fiction as a hobby, I found Dr. Rabin’s argument particularly poignant, for many of the motifs in my writing can trace their origins back to literary or cultural influences that have captivated my imagination. Thus, I know from firsthand experience that Dr. Rabin was absolutely correct when he described the cultural conversation that was essential to the writing process of famous writers like Shakespeare. No writer can be said to be wholly responsible for every shred of creativity in his or her work, for everyone appropriates certain themes from other writings or from life experiences. Certainly, renowned writers like Shakespeare deserve much credit for synthesizing the influences on their writing into powerful works with moving language that speaks to all kinds of audiences. Still, we must never forget that each writer is a single player in an enormous conversation that stretches back throughout history, weaving together the writings and stories of the human experience into a sort of library to which a writer continually looks for inspiration. When we consider the tremendous impact of the amalgam of human wisdom and writings on the writers of the present and the past, we can place our focus on the quality of the themes of a piece of writing and refrain from judging a work of writing by the name of its author. The true genius of a writer lies not in his or her ability to express completely new ideas, but to appropriate old ideas in such a combination as to articulate a new means of interpreting the human experience. Thus, my Oxford Society experience has taught me to see the signs of the cultural conversation in all literature and to recognize the true value of literature not as an expression of individual genius, but as a key to better understanding the human condition and our place in the universe.
As a student who enjoys all kinds of writing and who writes fiction as a hobby, I found Dr. Rabin’s argument particularly poignant, for many of the motifs in my writing can trace their origins back to literary or cultural influences that have captivated my imagination. Thus, I know from firsthand experience that Dr. Rabin was absolutely correct when he described the cultural conversation that was essential to the writing process of famous writers like Shakespeare. No writer can be said to be wholly responsible for every shred of creativity in his or her work, for everyone appropriates certain themes from other writings or from life experiences. Certainly, renowned writers like Shakespeare deserve much credit for synthesizing the influences on their writing into powerful works with moving language that speaks to all kinds of audiences. Still, we must never forget that each writer is a single player in an enormous conversation that stretches back throughout history, weaving together the writings and stories of the human experience into a sort of library to which a writer continually looks for inspiration. When we consider the tremendous impact of the amalgam of human wisdom and writings on the writers of the present and the past, we can place our focus on the quality of the themes of a piece of writing and refrain from judging a work of writing by the name of its author. The true genius of a writer lies not in his or her ability to express completely new ideas, but to appropriate old ideas in such a combination as to articulate a new means of interpreting the human experience. Thus, my Oxford Society experience has taught me to see the signs of the cultural conversation in all literature and to recognize the true value of literature not as an expression of individual genius, but as a key to better understanding the human condition and our place in the universe.
Evan Clark, of Owensboro, Ky., is a member of the McConnell Scholar Class of 2020. He studies political science, history and Spanish.