Why is Shakespeare so highly regarded?

Gauss

I've read some of his stuff in school like everyone, I just don't get the hype. Sure he was talented, but the hype is over the top IMO.

BluesBerry

Better a witty fool, than a foolish wit - I suppose

Canis Lupus

Gauss wrote: »

I've read some of his stuff in school like everyone, I just don't get the hype. Sure he was talented, but the hype is over the top IMO.

Thanks for sharing.

I think lamb is overrated.

Seanchai

Gauss wrote: »

I've read some of his stuff in school like everyone, I just don't get the hype. Sure he was talented, but the hype is over the top IMO.

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

kneemos

HE FIXED THE ROAD!

golden lane

Seanchai wrote: »

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

he was very well known...around the "globe"...

Sunnyisland

I just remember his sister :-) not a bad group of singers imo.

hardCopy

Seanchai wrote: »

Gauss wrote: »

I've read some of his stuff in school like everyone, I just don't get the hype. Sure he was talented, but the hype is over the top IMO.

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

That want even his real beard

MadameGascar

Because he invented knock knock jokes!

mattjack

'cause he makes some fine fishing rods..
http://www.google.ie/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=800&bih=485&tbm=isch&tbnid=UOmhgf2j2wjWwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.seaisletackle.com/&docid=DkeqHEH7DcHpYM&imgurl=http://www.seaisletackle.com/graphics/si-shakespeare_fishing_rods.jpg&w=165&h=150&ei=V8ZeUOazCo6WhQfXioHACw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=138&vpy=196&dur=227&hovh=120&hovw=132&tx=91&ty=65&sig=101514873492788278823&page=1&tbnh=120&tbnw=132&start=0&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:68

cloptrop

Shakespeare is so highly regarded because he is British . Joe Cole , Joe Harte , Prine Haryy and William and Cheryl Cole are also over rated because the Englidh media like to build them up .

"If it were done when it were done then it were well it were done quickly".

squrm

cloptrop wrote: »

Shakespeare is so highly regarded because he is British . Joe Cole , Joe Harte , Prine Haryy and William and Cheryl Cole are also over rated because the Englidh media like to build them up .

"If it were done when it were done then it were well it were done quickly".

Reading that is like hearing Jonathan Ross speak it

dark crystal

squrm wrote: »

Reading that is like hearing Jonathan Ross speak it

Or Russell Brand. "It were me what done it Sir!"

Fluorescence

Did any other playwright at the time write a scene ending: "Exit: pursued by a bear"? Nope.

Case closed :cool:

Doc Farrell

This. Above all: to thy own own self be true.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Now is the winter of our discount tents ( O'Meara camping ad in the 80's)

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.


The common curse of mankind, - folly and ignorance.

kneemos

He's no Katie Price.

Capt'n Midnight

He couldn't even spell his own name.

Seriously, all of his surviving signatures are spelt differently.

humbert

Who would his detractors regard as, as good, or better?

Capt'n Midnight

Dante , Cervantes :pac:

NegativeCreep

I can't understand a word he bloody writes and I don't want to either. Hamlet is crap imo. Twihard till I die.

mattjack

mattjack wrote: »

'cause he makes some fine fishing rods..
http://www.google.ie/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=N&biw=800&bih=485&tbm=isch&tbnid=UOmhgf2j2wjWwM:&imgrefurl=http://www.seaisletackle.com/&docid=DkeqHEH7DcHpYM&imgurl=http://www.seaisletackle.com/graphics/si-shakespeare_fishing_rods.jpg&w=165&h=150&ei=V8ZeUOazCo6WhQfXioHACw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=138&vpy=196&dur=227&hovh=120&hovw=132&tx=91&ty=65&sig=101514873492788278823&page=1&tbnh=120&tbnw=132&start=0&ndsp=7&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:68

I prefer Hardy.

3ndahalfof6

because, just because.

losthorizon

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Dante , Cervantes :pac:

Fairly interesting fact

Cervantes died in April 22nd 1616

Shakespeare died on April 23rd 1616.

Cervantes is also much more readable imo.

Cervantes only wrote the second part of Don Quixote because someone else forged a second part in his name so in the book Don Quixote keeps bumping into people who have read about him in the forged book. Surreal or what!

The King of Moo

A few reasons:

• While he did often draw inspiration heavily from other works and historical events, he elevated everything he borrowed with a thematic complexity and a keen insight into human nature, which of course is also evident in his more original works.
  
• His mastery of the English language was amazing. Purely in terms of language, so much of what he committed to paper is utterly beautiful or profound, as well as being gorgeous purely in how it sounds thanks to his choice of words and use of iambic pentameter. To truly appreciate this, it helps to hear his words spoken aloud, though one can still appreciate them while reading them.
  It's a surprisingly rare skill to be able to tell a great story with complex themes and interesting, human characters, combined with language which is attractive in itself. Dickens is another great writer who could do this, but not at Shakespeare's level.
  
• Closely related to this is his contribution to the English language. I could provide some examples of words and phrases coined by him, but I genuinely don't know where to start, so I'll simply include this list.
  I doubt there's a single English-language thread of more than twenty posts on this website that doesn't include a word or phrase on that list.
  
• Lastly, he achieved the nigh impossible goal of appealing to a wide audience. His historical subjects and thematic depth have long-appealed to the intellectual classes, while his broad comedy and recognisable character types had a more populist appeal.
  It's generally now believed that Shakespeare offers nothing to the common man, which is a great pity. A tragedy, if you will. It's not difficult to understand Shakespeare at all. While some of his vocabulary is obviously going to be a little out-of-date, much of it can still be understood in context, and the grammar, crucially, is basically the same as it is now.
  When taught properly by a good, passionate teacher, and performed well, Shakespeare's works can be enjoyed by anyone.
  I saw Much Ado About Nothing (a highly relatable and relevant play about the battle of the sexes, and unlike some of his comedies, still genuinely funny) performed at The Globe last year. Everyone in the audience had a fantastic time and had no trouble following the action. This included a large group of secondary school students who spent most of the time doubled over with laughter. Few modern playwrights, I'd warrant, could achieve a similar effect.

Not bad for a glove-maker's son.

Wibbs

Seanchai wrote: »

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

The bold bit is the thing though. Damn near all writers plagiarise, but he did it better and made major improvements to the original stories.

Hercule Poirot

He was writing plays at a time when theatre was the only form of public entertainment, he was endorsed by royalty (iirc) and was generally the best in Britain - why is he still taught in schools today? Because teachers hate children

AnnyHallsal

Excellent post, King of Moo.

The more you read Shakespeare, the more you realise how inconceivably far ahead he is of his closest peer. The humanity of the pieces - to think of the second half of King Lear makes me well up - the mindboggling wisdom, the linguistic dexterity, the poetry, the range ...

It's irritating to hear some would-be provocateur (usually a teenager) trot out "Shakespeare is ****." That's objectively false. Fair enough, his reputation is staggering. But so is the work. And it was written for the popular stage, not for the kind of academic scrutiny that's been mining it for centuries.

AnnyHallsal

The plagiarism thing is a red herring. The Renaissance didn't prize originality. That's pretty much a Romantic invention.

Logical Fallacy

Wibbs wrote: »

The bold bit is the thing though. Damn near all writers plagiarise, but he did it better and made major improvements to the original stories.

Unless you were Early Man it's tough to write an original story. It always boils down to the same things, thematically.

markesmith

Someone had to be the best, and Shakespeare ticks all the boxes. It's like the Mona Lisa is the world's most famous painting, because some painting has to be the best.

Galwayguy35

Having to do Julius Caeser for the Inter cert and Hamlet for the Leaving seemed like a fate worse than death to me at the time.

Having to learn poetry was ridiculous as well.

danslevent

I think this captures it perfectly, by Bernard Levin. I want to get the poster of it

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare "It's Greek to me", you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise - why, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I were dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut, tut! for goodness' sake! what the dickens! but me no buts - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare. (The Story of English, 145)

stateofflux

NegativeCreep wrote: »

I can't understand a word he bloody writes and I don't want to either. Hamlet is crap imo. Twihard till I die.

Hamlet rules!

chock full of class lines

ejmaztec

Seanchai wrote: »

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

I don't think that anyone in the UK gives a toss, except for those involved in the "Shakespeare Country" tourism industry, and they're more concerned with hard cash than British nationalism.

Eve_Dublin

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Excellent post, King of Moo.

The more you read Shakespeare, the more you realise how inconceivably far ahead he is of his closest peer. The humanity of the pieces - to think of the second half of King Lear makes me well up - the mindboggling wisdom, the linguistic dexterity, the poetry, the range ...

It's irritating to hear some would-be provocateur (usually a teenager) trot out "Shakespeare is ****." That's objectively false. Fair enough, his reputation is staggering. But so is the work. And it was written for the popular stage, not for the kind of academic scrutiny that's been mining it for centuries.

I think this is the reason so many teenagers loath it though. The time spent dissecting every last word and stanza in class and finding meaning where he probably never intended it. I think it was particularly bad at honours level. The LC sucked any kind of joy out of it for me, to be honest. So in turn, I hated Shakespeare back then. However, I went to see a play of his in The Globe in London and really loved it. I've been to a few of his plays since and enjoyed them all and I'm not saying that in an effort to sound intellectual. It came alive on stage and all of a sudden I understood it.

I'll be honest with you though, school did much the same for everything I studied. Memorising for exams and not transmitting any kind of passion to learn for the sake of it.

It's not wonder he has such a bad rep.

AnnyHallsal

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I think this is the reason so many teenagers loath it though. The time spent dissecting every last word and stanza in class and finding meaning where he probably never intended it. I think it was particularly bad at honours level. The LC sucked any kind of joy out of it for me, to be honest. So in turn, I hated Shakespeare back then. However, I went to see a play of his in The Globe in London and really loved it. I've been to a few of his plays since and enjoyed them all and I'm not saying that in an effort to sound intellectual. It came alive on stage and all of a sudden I understood it.

I'll be honest with you though, school did much the same for everything I studied. Memorising for exams and not transmitting any kind of passion to learn for the sake of it.

It's not wonder he has such a bad rep.

Same with Irish. School makes a lot of people hate a lot of great stuff. I loved English class, though I blame school for making science seem really, really, really boring when it's actually endlessly fascinating. Damn school, I coulda been a scientist :pac:

Cee-Jay-Cee

He makes some very fine fishing rods.

mikemac1

Nobody does productions like the BBC

If anyone is interested BBC did a series called The Hollow Crown

Edward III
Henry IV Part 1 & 2
Henry V

It just caught my attention as Jeremy Irons is in it. Few well known actors in them, Alun Armstrong, Michelle Dockery from Downton Abbey and one of the guys from Game of Thrones. Two actually, Iain Glen is there too.
All up on youtube folks or the usual internet download places

I love these two clips too, masterful

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAvmLDkAgAM

A young Christian Bale in the second one!

I saw the Laurence Oliver production, meh the one by Branagh was better imo.
Olivier held up as some genius, I sure didn't see it

crazy cabbage

Becouse i seem to remembering him banishing all witches from earth..... or was that docter who...

3ndahalfof6

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Becouse i seem to remembering him banishing all witches from earth..... or was that docter who...

St Patrick. :cool:

--Kaiser--

In my humble opinion the works of Shakespeare are the greatest artistic achievement of mankind

kylith

IMO "Shakespeare is ****" is a euphemism for "I don't understand it, therefore it can't be any good". It's something we all do, I suppose; saying "people who don't like to read are idiots" or "How can people like classical music? I think it's boring".

When you get your ear in Shakespeare is very well written, hugely funny, and incredibly dirty. I especially like the bit in Hamlet where he tries to convince Ophelia to just let him put the tip of his cock in.

mikemac1

it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance


That gatekeeper in Macbeth was a wise man :cool:

Da Shins Kelly

I absolutely love Shakespeare, and there's nothing I can say about him that hasn't already been said here, particularly by The King of Moo. He is simply the greatest writer in the English language and there are so many words and phrases that we continue to use in everyday speech that can be attributed to him. There are many books and films that can be traced back to his works from the Lion King to any classic love story really to The Godfather. They don't call him "the greatest screenwriter in Hollywood" for nothing. Sure, he "plagiarised", but you'd be very hard pushed to find a writer who hasn't, and the thing about Shakespeare is that he built upon and improved previous works. There's a reason he is remembered in the way he is - he was just better than everyone else. His works are completely timeless.

I will agree however that the Leaving Cert absolutely sucks the life out of Shakespeare. His works can be analysed and re-analysed till kingdom come and people will continue to find new meaning in them, which is amazing and one of the reasons I love Shakespeare, but the way it is taught in the Leaving Cert is wrong, really. Teachers shouldn't be telling students how to feel about him, which is the worst part of all. Students need to discover for themselves, and one of the most important aspects of this is actually going to see the plays. They were written to be performed, not read. Sitting in a classroom reading the plays and then having a teacher tell students what to think of them is not the right way to be teaching Shakespeare at all.

And to conclude, I wholeheartedly agree with this.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

In my humble opinion the works of Shakespeare are the greatest artistic achievement of mankind

ejmaztec

There was something for all the family in Shakespeare, even a cutesy little dog in Macbeth that Lady Macbeth was having trouble with. "Out damn spot!"










The most annoying thing about Shakespeare IMO is the bunch of "intellectuals" who insist on using Shakespeare quotes in everyday conversation. They deserve a good slap.

Gauss

Some interesting points being made. Taken on board.

Who would be the equivalent of Shakespeare in other languages if they exist at all?

Eve_Dublin

AnnyHallsal wrote: »

Same with Irish. School makes a lot of people hate a lot of great stuff. I loved English class, though I blame school for making science seem really, really, really boring when it's actually endlessly fascinating. Damn school, I coulda been a scientist :pac:

I loved English too only because I'd a fantastic teacher but still the curriculum required we memorised chunks of poems, Shakespeare etc. and answers to questions that were predicted to come up that year. It wasn't Mr. O'Sullivan's fault.

I did Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge for my LC and fooking hated it. Decided to give Hardy another shot the year after I left school and now he's still my favourite writer of all time. I simply read his books and drew what I wanted from them instead of being told what I was supposed to think.

It's all so pointless and bizarre looking back on it now but even then I was cynical.

FloatingVoter

Gauss wrote: »

Some interesting points being made. Taken on board.

Who would be the equivalent of Shakespeare in other languages if they exist at all?

Tolstoy in Russia
Joyce in Ireland....all good foir tourism.
The bunch of nuts who cobbled together the Bible.

AnnyHallsal

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I loved English too only because I'd a fantastic teacher but still the curriculum required we memorised chunks of poems, Shakespeare etc. and answers to questions that were predicted to come up that year. It wasn't Mr. O'Sullivan's fault.

I did Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge for my LC and fooking hated it. Decided to give Hardy another shot the year after I left school and now he's still my favourite writer of all time. I simply read his books and drew what I wanted from them instead of being told what I was supposed to think.

It's all so pointless and bizarre looking back on it now but even then I was cynical.

We had Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I ended up doing a PhD on the Victorian novel and I still feckin' hate that book

The King of Moo

Gauss wrote: »

Some interesting points being made. Taken on board.

Who would be the equivalent of Shakespeare in other languages if they exist at all?

I'm not really sure they could be an equivalent, simply due to the flexibility, variety of pronunciation, and immense vocabulary of English compared to other major languages.

There was an interesting episode of Stephen Fry's programme about words which focussed largely on Shakespeare. He talked to actors and theatre directors from around the world and while they mentioned the merits of Shakespeare's works translated into their own language, all, as I recall, agreed without hesitation that Shakespeare was infinitely superior in English.

He was the greatest writer writing in the greatest language.

Da Shins Kelly

I can't think of any writer in any other language who has had the same influence.