Coming into Contact with Lenses

In my English class at the moment, we are reading Shakespeare’s masterpiece Hamlet. The book is interesting and thought provoking, and I’ve been challenged and inspired reading it. I wouldn’t expect anything less from a piece of literature that’s been regarded as one of the best ever for thousands of years. What was more unexpected, for me, is how much time we’ve spent in class taking talking about different ways critics can read the same text.

Obviously, I knew before that there are many different lenses that a critic can use when viewing a piece of art. The lens a critic uses largely depends on their area of expertise. What I didn’t know, however, was how well-defined and specialized these lenses are. We learned about ways of looking at literature that I had never considered before, and some that I had considered but never really valued that much. Also, it came as a revelation that the author’s intent really doesn’t matter when choosing a lens to look at a text through. Shakespeare clearly didn’t want Hamlet to have Marxist or feminist themes, but that doesn’t mean it can be analyzed along those lines. Thought I never really understood all of the critical approaches (psychoanalysis isn’t really my thing), there are many that I will incorporate into the way I view literature in the future. While my reading of a text will never be only new historical or reader response, I will use these lenses as tools to gain a deeper understanding of whatever it is that I’m reading.

Understanding Libya through Cartoons

Cartoons have always been a medium that I’ve enjoyed. Whether I’m reading the Sunday morning cartoons in the paper, or a sharp editorial cartoon, it’s amazing how much can be said with just a couple panels of artwork. In some cases, only one picture is needed to get the point across. With the events in Libya serving as a backdrop, I recently read a fascinating article about cartoons that I think offers an interesting spin on the events from a unique point of view.
The gist of the article was this: as Moammar Gadhafi’s actions become increasingly more violent, it gets harder for cartoonists to depict him in an appropriate light. 10 years ago, Gadhafi was viewed as a clown, and could be characterized as such. His silly wardrobe and borderline insanity made it easy for cartoonists to poke fun at him. As the atrocities he’s committing against his own people come to light, though, these types of cartoons are no longer funny.
To deal with Gadhafi’s new persona, cartoonists have started drawing him a lot differently. The article showed some examples where he is not portrayed as a clown, but rather as an oblivious despot, which is what he actually seems to be. Each artist does this in a different way and in a different style, but I found the article fascinating. It highlighted something that I’d never given much thought to, which is the way in which cartoons can reflect shifts of opinion about global events.