>If I don't like it, nobody should talk about it
You remind me of my kid brother, who got really mad when I mentioned the socio-economic commentary of They Live. Except he was a dumb edgy teenager. Not everything plays into your weird strawman fantasies OP.
>b-but muh SJWs!
I swear to fucking christ. People can't discuss anything without triggering you fucking manchildren. Why are you even in a lit class if you only want to read Hemingway and jerk off?
Who are you quoting?
Shakespeare doesn't have any queer themes you fucking SJW. Stop trying to rewrite history.
analysis by queer theory does not necessarily assume shakespeare was writing with queer themes in mind. there is a fair bit of crossdressing to work with though, and let's not forget the cultural context of women played by men.
t. nu-male cucks
Uh-oh. Hemingway is your favorite author, isn't he?
>Bloom outlines the term "School of Resentment" in the introduction to his book The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages (1994). Bloom stresses that he does not necessarily object to analysis and discussion of social and political issues in literature, but expresses indignation toward college literature professors who teach their own political motives through literature more than the aesthetics of literary worth. In his book, Bloom defends the Western canon of literature from this "School of Resentment", which in his view threatens to break down the canon through the insertion of potentially inferior literary works for political purposes. Bloom believes that the goals of reading must be solitary aesthetic pleasure and self-insight rather than the "forces of resentment" or a goal of "improving" one's society, which he casts as an absurd aim, writing: "The idea that you benefit the insulted and injured by reading someone of their own origins rather than reading Shakespeare is one of the oddest illusions ever promoted by or in our schools." His position is that politics has no place in literary criticism: a feminist or Marxist reading of Shakespeare's Hamlet would reveal something about feminism or Marxism, he says, but likely nothing about Hamlet itself.
>Shakespeare most definitely deals with themes of non heterosexual relationships
How could he have done so if he had no conception of such a dichotomy?
Youre taking this out of proportion. I am not at all hinting at any homosexuality where there isnt none. All im saying is that analyzing these themes changes your understanding of the plays.
shakespeare wasn't writing with existentialists in mind either, but i can guarantee you there's a few academics who've devoted a lot of energy to reading shakespeare through the lens of nietzsche and sartre.
is this rewriting history, or does that begin and end with forbidden subjects like degenerate gays?