Difference and Repetition in Shakespeare
In his book Teaching Shakespeare, Rex Gibson does an admirable job of offering an exhaustive list of Shakespeare’s literary conventions, but I am tempted to say that all, or almost all, depend upon the interplay of difference and repetition. Obviously, repeating phrases makes use of similarities in language. Building emotional tension in this way is effective, however, only when the phases repeated are ultimately replaced by something different that breaks the momentum. Alliteration and assonance rely on repetition and are used to a similar effect with contrasting words that break the repetition of vowel or consonant sounds. It’s clear that even personification relies upon this contrast when we consider that it involves speaking about something different as though it were in fact the same. It is exactly this contrast between seeing an object as a person and being aware that the object so perceived is in fact nothing like a person that makes the use of personification, especially in unlikely contexts, so interesting. Given the interplay of difference and repetition in Shakespeare’s writing, I wonder how this contrast functions in dramatic narrative and why we find it so emotionally pleasing.
September 27th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
[…] Cynthia offers to expand the definition of language beyond words by drawing on another means of meaning representation such as music. Ed calls for paying careful attention to difference and repetition in Shakespearean and the way these devices affect the reader. […]