Is Shakespeare...

Letree

really all that good?

mzungu

Nowhere near as good as his sister.

Dave0301

He is no Albert Einstein :pac:

Letree

I think he is pretty crap to be honest, They are on RTE radio now discussing him and i just don't think he was all that good.

nullzero

Letree wrote: »

really all that good?

That is the question...

GLaDOS

Shake your spear at Shakespeare

Letree

nullzero wrote: »

That is the question...

to answer or not to answer

Boom_Bap

Good at what?

El_Duderino 09

He was good for his time. The stories are good but they get lost in a semi dead language.

Expecting children to read it is ridiculous. The story goes t need to get told in a language laden down with references that children will never understand without a translation.

Letree

He is placed on a pedestal even if someone uncovered some drunk ramblings by him people would be interpreting it as amazing writing.

Winterlong

One thing is for sure , he was one dirty boy, sneaking all sorts of sordidness in to his works.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54442/10-shakespeares-best-dirty-jokes

Hotei

mzungu wrote: »

Nowhere near as good as his sister.

Comparisons are odorous!

topper75

Winterlong wrote: »

One thing is for sure , he was one dirty boy, sneaking all sorts of sordidness in to his works.

True that. He was also a keen political agenda man - very supportive of the incumbent royalty in London and though his plays had historical settings, the 'message' always related to what was going on in his day.

I think his works are unrivalled. But there is no measuring tape for such things. Think what you will yourself.

SEPT 23 1989

that country album lost him a lot of fans

Ted111

'Hamlet' is good. But it's not in the league of say 'Raiders of the lost Arc'
or 'Terminator'
But we can all only do our best.
At least he was expressing himself. That's the main thing.

ohnonotgmail

good enough that he didnt need click-bait titles.

catbear

I love shakespeare, read all his plays although I think another one was recently ascribed as his.
I don't know what it was but in school I was captivated and I was a middling student. I guess the moral questions asked in his dramas were strong, like in Lear how could a daughter forgive her father for expelling her just because she spoke truthfully. It really is life and death stuff.

MeatTwoVeg

Early stuff good. Went downhill after Macbeth.

Birneybau

Can we ban these clickbait threads? They are invading like Japanese knotweed.

osarusan

He's no Jinx Lennon.

Letree

Birneybau wrote: »

Can we ban these clickbait threads? They are invading like Japanese knotweed.

Find more than....






























3 of them on AH recently

Speedwell

Yeah, he was good. So were many other writers for the stage who lived at the same time. Christopher Marlowe was arguably better at tragedies. Shakespeare's particular appeal probably derived from the fact that he knew how to entertain a wider audience than many of his contemporaries who chose to pitch to the wealthy and educated.

Birneybau

Letree wrote: »

Find more than....






























3 of them on AH recently

You won't believe what I think of Shakespeare!

corner of hells

His fishing rods aren't bad.. the reels are ok too.

Letree

Letree wrote: »

really all that good?

I never thought so in school. But then again I did not think much literature in school was that good. Looking back I realise this was equal parts both my failing - and the failing of a really poor and passionless English Teacher.

Recently I watched this. And I came out of it A) wanting to read more Shakespeare and really really wishing John Green had been my English Teacher in school. C) entirely unsure how I missed all the homo-eroticism in his works.

But yea I learned more about Shakespeare in that 12 minute video than I did in 6 years of secondary school.

Turtyturd

Lord of the Rings is his best work and I can't see him topping it now.

LDN_Irish

I like the way he wrote one of the most famous anti-racism speeches ever and then got pretty much every other character in the book and presumably the audience of the day to go "lol fuk u."

seamus

Shakespeare's appearance was a bit like the Beatles; arriving at a time when a number of different factors aligned, combined with a tremendous talent, all converged to create a legendary artist.

Had he been born 100 years prior or after, he would be largely just another footnote, an artist with a few notable poems in a couple of books. But he happened to be the right guy in the right place at the right time.

Reading the stuff as a teenager, teachers would often point out alternative ways of reading the text - hidden meanings and so forth. I'd often think, "You're reading way too much into this, it's coincidence".
But if you go back and look at it, everything he wrote is meticulously put together, nothing is just filler material.

On the inaccessibility of the texts, that's not solely down to the language itself, but as much down to the fact that it is also written lyrically rather than as prose. Plays were written in such a way that they could be spoken or sung, but either way had a rhythm to them.

The plays themselves are as much like the spoken language of the day as a modern musical or song is like spoken language today.

L.Jenkins

Dave0301 wrote: »

He is no Albert Einstein :pac:

Shakespeare was a Literary, while Einstein was a Scientist, so there's no real comparison between the two. Would be like comparing Jimi Hendrix to Stephen Hawking.

ohnonotgmail

L.Jenkins wrote: »

Shakespeare was a Literary, while Einstein was a Scientist, so there's no real comparison between the two. Would be like comparing Jimi Hendrix to Stephen Hawking.

exactly, Hendrix is much better.

jester77

He was too ghetto for my liking

GeneralVanilla

Yes. Very good. His sht goes way deep at times. Theres real wisdom in some of his works.

L.Jenkins

jester77 wrote: »

He was too ghetto for my liking

Shakespeare or Hendrix?

Birneybau

L.Jenkins wrote: »

Shakespeare or Hendrix?

Einstein.

Ted111

seamus wrote: »

"You're reading way too much into this, it's coincidence".
But if you go back and look at it, everything he wrote is meticulously put together, nothing is just filler material.

You get an english professor who writes a book about one of his plays and all the real meaning or metaphor in it. Then you see that another hundred academics have alternative interpretations. Shakey would have to have been a super computer to have weaved so many tonnes of layers of meanings and messages into his works.
I think it's a bit like a muddy puddle or a cloudy sky. You can look at it and see shapes objects nobody else sees.

I used to find these interpretations, especially the crazier ones, far more interesting than the plays themselves.

L.Jenkins

Ted111 wrote: »

...I used to find these interpretations, especially the crazier ones, far more interesting than the plays themselves.

There's no real interpreting of Scientific works, but I'm sure that multiple interpretations of Macbeth would be interesting to read.

Not that one

He was a great man but couldnt kick points like Colm Corkery .... or something

eamonnq

He is no Brendan O'Carroll

Dave0301

L.Jenkins wrote: »

Shakespeare was a Literary, while Einstein was a Scientist, so there's no real comparison between the two. Would be like comparing Jimi Hendrix to Stephen Hawking.

My comment was in reference to a thread on here a month or two back.

The flaw with reading Shakespeares work in school is that his plays aren't meant to be read. They're meant to be performed and watched, a totally different dynamic altogether from sitting in class examining a play line by line. It's not the correct context to experience the work.

Shakespeares plays are the nuts on stage, where they're meant to be.

I have to say I disagree with the pretty disheartening notion that Shakespeare is somehow lackluster on the page, compared to performance.

I have only been to two Shakespeare performances in my life (Hamlet and Much Ado), have seen three in film (all terrible, except for Kurzel's Macbeth) but have read Shakespeare's Collected Works and regard them, in total, as the greatest material throughout all of artistic creation (flawed as this opinion may be, not having seen them performed).

Lets remind ourselves that Shakespeare's literary sobriquet is 'the Bard', and not 'the Playwright', 'the Thespian', or 'the Producer'. Although 'bardic' may imply performance, it primarily refers to the art of composition; Shakespeare was first and foremost a writer, a wordsmith, a poet.

I think there is something in Shakespeare bordering on the occult. His rhythm and his swaggering use of language are captivating, and instantly recognizable; maybe someone in the fields of science or phonetic psychology will be able to tell us why they have an hypnotic effect.
Even in plays where Shakespeare collaborated with another writer, such as with Fletcher in Henry VIII, one can clearly spot the divergences of language and rhythm to distinguish between the two authors (indeed, there is a wealth of scholarship in the academia where researchers isolate Shakespeare's contributions from his collaborators). They are as different as between sipping on a cup of Ribena versus glugging a bottle of that gorgeous Aldi Pinotage, straight from the bottle!

I use that metaphor deliberately, because there is nothing snobbish or esoteric about enjoying Shakespeare. Take this from someone whose posting would be incomprehensible gibberish (that is, moreso than they are already) were it not for the miracle of Chrome's spell-checking capacity. I wish everyone would read & love Shakespeare in the same way everyone should experience excitement at man's incredible ingenuity to create beauty, which is what Shakespeare inevitably boils down to.

I also challenge the pretty obscene claim that Shakespeare might have found himself submerged into anonymity by the cruel dice of fate, had be been born 100 years before or after 1564.

Although not usually a fan of counterfactual arguments, I couldn't disagree more. Just look at El Greco, Thoreau, Poe, Emily Dickinson or GM Hopkins, all of whom were only 'discovered' in later years after they died or when their style found its fashion. William Shakespeare didn't just stumble across Lady Luck (in the form of Queen Elizabeth or otherwise), he changed the world of English literature by creating new ways of writing that the world had never seen. Just like Galileo, whose reformative ideas were rejected by his peers, the revelation of Shakespeare was inevitable.

Normally, we should be skeptical to find that a man has no critics, as seems to be the case with Shakespeare (Yes, some of his lines are occasionally awful, butI have never met anyone who has read Shakespeare and accused him of mediocrity) Shakespeare is different.

If nothing else, he invented at least half a dozen of the words I've used in this post. Even if you don't want to read Shakespeare, or see his plays, he's all around us. He is—thankfully—inescapable.

LordSutch

Letree wrote: »

I think he is pretty crap to be honest, They are on RTE radio now discussing him and i just don't think he was all that good.

Interesting opinion.

Harvey Normal

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have to say I disagree with the pretty disheartening notion that Shakespeare is somehow lackluster on the page, compared to performance.

I have only been to two Shakespeare performances in my life (Hamlet and Much Ado), have seen three in film (all terrible, except for Kurzel's Macbeth) but have read Shakespeare's Collected Works and regard them, in total, as the greatest material throughout all of artistic creation (flawed as this opinion may be, not having seen them performed).

Lets remind ourselves that Shakespeare's literary sobriquet is 'the Bard', and not 'the Playwright', 'the Thespian', or 'the Producer'. Although 'bardic' may imply performance, it primarily refers to the art of composition; Shakespeare was first and foremost a writer, a wordsmith, a poet.

I think there is something in Shakespeare bordering on the occult. His rhythm and his swaggering use of language are captivating, and instantly recognizable; maybe someone in the fields of science or phonetic psychology will be able to tell us why they have an hypnotic effect.
Even in plays where Shakespeare collaborated with another writer, such as with Fletcher in Henry VIII, one can clearly spot the divergences of language and rhythm to distinguish between the two authors (indeed, there is a wealth of scholarship in the academia where researchers isolate Shakespeare's contributions from his collaborators). They are as different as between sipping on a cup of Ribena versus glugging a bottle of that gorgeous Aldi Pinotage, straight from the bottle!

I use that metaphor deliberately, because there is nothing snobbish or esoteric about enjoying Shakespeare. Take this from someone whose posting would be incomprehensible gibberish (that is, moreso than they are already) were it not for the miracle of Chrome's spell-checking capacity. I wish everyone would read & love Shakespeare in the same way everyone should experience excitement at man's incredible ingenuity to create beauty, which is what Shakespeare inevitably boils down to.

I also challenge the pretty obscene claim that Shakespeare might have found himself submerged into anonymity by the cruel dice of fate, had be been born 100 years before or after 1564.

Although not usually a fan of counterfactual arguments, I couldn't disagree more. Just look at El Greco, Thoreau, Poe, Emily Dickinson or GM Hopkins, all of whom were only 'discovered' in later years after they died or when their style found its fashion. William Shakespeare didn't just stumble across Lady Luck (in the form of Queen Elizabeth or otherwise), he changed the world of English literature by creating new ways of writing that the world had never seen. Just like Galileo, whose reformative ideas were rejected by his peers, the revelation of Shakespeare was inevitable.

Normally, we should be skeptical to find that a man has no critics, as seems to be the case with Shakespeare (Yes, some of his lines are occasionally awful, butI have never met anyone who has read Shakespeare and accused him of mediocrity) Shakespeare is different.

If nothing else, he invented at least half a dozen of the words I've used in this post. Even if you don't want to read Shakespeare, or see his plays, he's all around us. He is—thankfully—inescapable.

Good post. However I think that seamas was saying that he arrived around the time when early modern English was in flux , later and it would have been too settled. He also needed to avoid the puritans and have an art accessible to both the masses and later (partly because of his success) the King. I'm not sure what the theatre world was like a century later but probably not as vibrant or as open to newcomers.

He probably would still have written the poems though.

As for his ability, by far the best writer in the English language, and I doubt if he will ever be beaten.

bpmurray

Candie wrote: »

The flaw with reading Shakespeares work in school is that his plays aren't meant to be read. They're meant to be performed and watched, a totally different dynamic altogether from sitting in class examining a play line by line. It's not the correct context to experience the work.

Shakespeares plays are the nuts on stage, where they're meant to be.

Completely agree. I used to go to the RSC performances when I lived in London and they were amazing. Of course, the RSC actors are terrific which helped, but the stories, plots, etc. are all fantastic too.

Estrellita

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Expecting children to read it is ridiculous. The story goes t need to get told in a language laden down with references that children will never understand without a translation.

Sure most children don't even lift a book these days. Glued to fcuking consoles and phones instead of using their imaginations and developing their vocabularies. You may forget Shakespeare when they can't master modern English.

Capt'n Midnight

To be blunt he couldn't even spell his own name :rolleyes:

His surviving signatures are

Willm Shakp
William Shakspēr
Wm Shakspē
William Shakspere
Willm Shakspere
William Shakspeare

Harvey Normal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

To be blunt he couldn't even spell his own name :rolleyes:

His surviving signatures are

Willm Shakp
William Shakspēr
Wm Shakspē
William Shakspere
Willm Shakspere
William Shakspeare

There was no formal spelling of anything then, particularly names.

Letree

I read recently somewhere that Shakespeare may not have been one person or that some of the work may have been produced by other people but attributed to Shakespeare

Harvey Normal

Letree wrote: »

I read recently somewhere that Shakespeare may not have been one person or that some of the work may have been produced by other people but attributed to Shakespeare

There was some collaboration but he definitely was one person.

mzungu

Letree wrote: »

I read recently somewhere that Shakespeare may not have been one person or that some of the work may have been produced by other people but attributed to Shakespeare

Indeed, that accusation was first made back in the mid 1800s. Although, funnily enough, back when he was alive, and for the 200 odd years after his death, nobody questioned it.

A bit of a hoax!

GLaDOS

The only Shakepeare I've read was what I covered in school, Othello and The Merchant of Venice. Quite enjoyed Othello.

Been meaning to expand that a bit more, I feel like I'm missing out by not reading Macbeth and Hamlet in particular.