I'm sure most readers have heard the latest micro-scandal about Hamlet's Father by Orson Scott Card. (If not, here.) Most shocking to me what this from Card's rejoinder to his critics:
Since my introduction to the book states that I was not remotely interested in Hamlet's "indecision and brooding" in Shakespeare's version of the story, I wonder how carefully the reviewer read the book.
That's a weirdly fascinating bit of egotism, right there. Card studied theater in school and found Hamlet tedious. To make it interesting, he rewrote the main character to make him decisive and made Hamlet Sr. a pedophile who preys on young boys. The general sort of moron stuff, indeed. But what I like is the petulant explanation to the reviewer. I already said not to criticize me for one of the things you're criticizing me about!
It's pretty peculiar to decide that the problem with Hamlet is Hamlet, and then complain when people disagree. There's a great tradition of revision of classics, of writing a new version based on the thematic holes or shortcomings of the canon. But those attempts—and some of them stink too, of course—reread the story in a way. Wide Sargasso Sea is a "prequel" of sorts to Jane Eyre, not a revision that has Jane go up to the attic and find a perfectly reasonable person there writing letters to the editor defending Chartism. Even inside the pedophile story, if Card is going to use incidents from the play like Ophelia's death, rewriting the reactions of the main character to the point where they make no sense is going to lead to criticism, even if he performs the ritual action of saying, "I know you're gonna say it! I'm touching home base! I win anyway!"
And yet, here he is, like so many (aesthetic and political) conservatives—simultaneously a lone genius bravely rewriting the canon, and the wimpiest whiniest victim of Ladies and Professors in the whole wide world.
Since my introduction to the book states that I was not remotely interested in Hamlet's "indecision and brooding" in Shakespeare's version of the story, I wonder how carefully the reviewer read the book.
That's a weirdly fascinating bit of egotism, right there. Card studied theater in school and found Hamlet tedious. To make it interesting, he rewrote the main character to make him decisive and made Hamlet Sr. a pedophile who preys on young boys. The general sort of moron stuff, indeed. But what I like is the petulant explanation to the reviewer. I already said not to criticize me for one of the things you're criticizing me about!
It's pretty peculiar to decide that the problem with Hamlet is Hamlet, and then complain when people disagree. There's a great tradition of revision of classics, of writing a new version based on the thematic holes or shortcomings of the canon. But those attempts—and some of them stink too, of course—reread the story in a way. Wide Sargasso Sea is a "prequel" of sorts to Jane Eyre, not a revision that has Jane go up to the attic and find a perfectly reasonable person there writing letters to the editor defending Chartism. Even inside the pedophile story, if Card is going to use incidents from the play like Ophelia's death, rewriting the reactions of the main character to the point where they make no sense is going to lead to criticism, even if he performs the ritual action of saying, "I know you're gonna say it! I'm touching home base! I win anyway!"
And yet, here he is, like so many (aesthetic and political) conservatives—simultaneously a lone genius bravely rewriting the canon, and the wimpiest whiniest victim of Ladies and Professors in the whole wide world.