Shakespeare’s first performed plays occurred in the late 16th century, the colour television was first demonstrated in 1928, the first YouTube video (‘Me at the zoo’, uploaded by co-founder Jawed Karim) was released approximately 23 years ago, and the modern social media titan, TikTok, was created approximately 10 years ago. The final marked an important, dangerous and disquieting epoch in entertainment. Though the claim that human attention span has dropped under that of a goldfish remains an incontrovertibly proven fallacy, in the past 20 years alone, the average amount of time a person can spend focused on a task digitally has plummeted from two and a half minutes to just 47 seconds. 47 seconds before we check the time, fiddle with our phones and lose our train of thought. Addiction to short-form content as such has greatly contributed to this collapse. To put it plainly, attention is a digital drug. It harnesses mass amounts of political, economic and social sway. For...
NOAH BUCKLE This essay won the 2020 edition of the New College of the Humanities English Essay Prize. “And thus a change of époque, which is a change of reader, is comparable to a change in the text itself…” ~ Paul Valéry Contemporary literary analysis, echoing D. A. Winstanley’s dictum that “nothing is more unfair than to judge the men [sic] of the past by the ideas of the present,” believes itself an extension of the juridico-political apparatus. Attempting to delineate precisely the aesthetic and moral bases on which we are to assess literature, then, has become a matter of justice; the collective distaste for ‘presentism’, we are informed, is (ironically) an expression of our civility and integrity. But it is also a matter of truth: “We should not,” maintain the ‘anti-presentists’, “judge past literature by the standards of the present, because the standards by which literature is judged ought to be objective.” The apparent modesty of those who would circumscribe criticism of...