Geek Studies

[ellenkushner]

(inspired by writingjen's comment yesterday: )

Robin Hood Studies . . . Arthurian Studies . . . Shakespeare . . . [your passion here - they do have academic courses in Anime now, don't they?] . . . .

Those of you who've taken the Academic Route, I'm curious: Is there a great difference between informally loving something and formally studying it?

For extra credit:
Why did Shakespeare have no interest in writing a Robin Hood play?

Comments

[gaedhal.livejournal.com]

I meant the more mythic stuff apart from the History
plays. He gets into a bit of English folklore material
in "Merry Wives" but there must have been a myriad
of English material that he might have drawn from --
the Robin Hood stuff only scratches the surface.

It's interesting to think of why writers are drawn to
certain material and not so interested in others.
Why Romeo and Juliet and not Tristan and Isolde?
Why Cleopatra and not Boudicca? Again, was it what
the audience demanded?

[not-vacillating.livejournal.com]

Because that was more 'highbrow'--got the educated in as well as the groundlings? And doesn't the Scottish play break the pattern?

[vschanoes.livejournal.com]

For English folklore material, I'd look at Midsummer Night's Dream and Cymbeline as well. Cymbeline also indicates one of the reasons why Boudicca wouldn't have been as desirable a subject. England was quite invested in tracing its descent from Rome--there was a whole myth about being founded by Brutus (not the one who killed Caesar, a different one) and that's why they were called Britain. Focusing on English defiance of Rome and Roman atrocities would not have fit into the national myth.

The other thing to remember about Shakespeare is that he never, ever (almost) came up with his own plots. So if there wasn't a relatively popular source telling the Tristan and Isolde story, say, he wouldn't have been writing it.