In his blog posts, Clifford Venho tends
to take a kind of deconstructive approach to the play, working outward from the
complex network of associative imagery (or even at times the individual units
of meaning in a word), to create his own interpretive nexus of thought, sound,
wordplay etc. One particularly interesting aspect of his mode of deconstruction
is to explore not only the literal or even metaphorical meaning of words, but
also their sound value or their visual signification. For example, he
deconstructed the language associated with the character of Richard III by
calling attention to the emphatic use of words beginning with the letter D in
connection with that character, and pointing elsewhere to indications of Richard as “half
Edward’s moiety,” Edward being the son of York (or “sun” as the pun goes in the
first lines of the play) which would make Richard resemble the shape of the
letter D. This is perhaps Venho's most admirable skill as a literary critic, showing
the depth and intricacy of Shakespeare’s work. He also sometimes attempts to
tackle the philosophical dimension of the plays, although he does this rather
haltingly. We might cut him some slack, however, in this regard, as topics such
as the ontological significance of Feste’s phraseology (e.g. “that that is is”)
are perhaps quite tricky to navigate, especially in a language which he claims
can merely point in the direction of meaning. One might feel compelled to raise
one’s eyebrow at such an excuse, thinking it rather suspect, but for my part, I
think he’s sincere enough. I also detect a Romantic strain in his
deconstruction, as he often refers quite matter-of-factly to the connections
between human beings and the beings of nature, for example the link between the
forces of the moon and those of human consciousness in A Midsummer Night’s
Dream. His blog on this play also features an interesting line of
deconstruction toward the end when again he calls attention to the visual cues
inherent in words that permeate the play, such as “moon,” “woods,” “solemnities,”
pointing out the O’s, and then the relationship between the shape of the letter
and its association with the spheres of the mOOn and the sun (Latin “sol”).
This nice bit of analysis is helpful in bringing to our attention elements of
the play which would under normal circumstances remain subconscious.
Personally, I’m not sure I could deconstruct at text with such precision. I’m
not sure I’d have the courage to point out, for example, the diplomatic and vaguely
British tone of my own analytic work, which really hints at the insecurity that
lies behind it, and an unwillingness to be honest with myself. Or if I could
for example call attention to the diction I use when it comes to this question
of Feste’s nonsensical language and Venho’s dubious interpretation; diction
like, “raise one’s eyebrow,” as in “raze” one’s “eye,” (a rather graphic symbol
of my own blindness, and unwillingness to confront my illusory identity). Or
when I say, “cut him some slack,” again the emphasis on “cutting,” on something
incisive that might cut my own legs out from under me, and “slack,” as in “slacker,”
or “hacker” (again cutting) or to “lack” something—or even the original meaning
of “slack,” as in my slack line of thought, which is in need of some cuts. But
I digress. All in all, Clifford Venho has a knack for deconstruction, if a rather
bizarre brand of it, and despite some odd ends here and there, he gets his point across.
--Alfred J. Littlerock
