How to do justice to this book? It is addressed to a non-professional audience with an interest in Shakespeare and its insight is utterly profound. Fascinating, scintillating, provoking, superlative.
Kermode outlines the ways in which Shakespeare graduated towards a "toughening of the language" by "rougher handling of the pentameter", something Kermode elsewhere calls "progression", although far from steady and uninterrupted. But also, another, more subtle change from the simpler expression of the earlier plays to a more dramatically complex, more life-like and much greater psychologically penetrating language.
Early in the book Kermode gets rid of the idolatrous perception that Shakespeare never collaborated in his work. With something like half of all the plays put on in the public theatres during his writing life playwrights collaborated to bring a play to production. If he never, or rarely, collaborated he would have been almost alone among his peers. That's not to say, as Kermode points out, that he did not write the vast majority of the work ascribed to him.
Above all, Shakespeare's language changed in the service of characterisation (a huge leap towards modernity), towards prose that might be characterised as that with the cadence and feeling of poetry, and away from formal schemata, though he used poetry proper throughout his writing life in all of his plays. The early play, The Merry Wives of Windsor has 87 percent prose, Twelfth Night 61 percent, whereas the first tragedy Titus Andronicus has only 1 percent prose. Hamlet has 27 percent and Corliolanus 22 percent. There is no overall pattern to this, perhaps showing the confoundedness of trying to reach conclusions about Shakespeare's language, at least in technical detail.
My particular favourite among the essays about the plays is the discussion of Hamlet. Despite seeing this on the stage (a semi-professional, but very good production) and on film (oh dear, Mel Gibson), I cannot get enough exposition and explanation to make me feel I understand the play in its entirety. I fail, and am mocked (see closing quote), but at least I'm in good company. Kermode's discussion of Hamlet in this book seems to me to be masterly. Kermode outlines the importance of various tropes and thematics - doubling, shadowing, mirroring; the importance of the theme of incest; plots and errors, woes and wonders. The language of Hamlet is both entrancingly beautiful and full of violent, shockingly angry passion, especially in his diatribe against his mother.
Kermode closes this chapter with a superb summation: "Hamlet is literature's greatest bazaar: everything available, all warranted and trademarked... the whole idea of dramatic character is changed forever by this play... The new mastery is a mastery of the ambiguous, the unexpected, of conflicting evidence and semantic audacity. We are challenged to make sense, even mocked if we fail."