Why is Shakespeare so highly regarded?

juan.kerr · 23-09-2012 05:21PM

Laziness on the part of the education system.

losthorizon · 23-09-2012 05:32PM

FloatingVoter wrote: »

The fact is the texts are plays. They are tools designed for workers (actors) to perform in front of an audience. Said audience would be more akin to that found at a football match not a modern day theatre.
They were never designed to be inflicted on children by bored schoolteachers. Aye, there's the rub.

I agree. I like going to the theatre every now and again but I would never sit down and read a play.

Imagine if you would having to read a Father Ted script but never getting the chance to see a Father Ted TV show. It probably wouldnt be as quarter as funny. FECK!

quickbeam · 23-09-2012 05:50PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Nobody does productions like the BBC

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

Edward III Richard II
Henry IV Part 1 & 2
Henry V

FYP. But otherwise totally agree with everything you said - great series, especially the first two (Richard II and Henry IV P1).

Also agree that Branagh's Henry V is fantastic and that Olivier's is pants. The Hollow Crown version lies somewhere in between.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-09-2012 08:10PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

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

Back in 1861 when Italy reunified perhaps 2% of the population - mostly the upper class in Tuscany - spoke the Tuscan dialect, the language that Dante wrote in.

Dante is the father of the Italian language.

Carter P Fly · 23-09-2012 08:39PM

Doc Farrell wrote: »

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

ARAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH srsly, if you're gonna quote Shakespeare quote it right, It's Thine, not Thy.

Anyways, moving swiftly along, Shakespeare wrote absolutely beautiful sonnets and his plays were stunning. A lot of the bad rap it gets is the way its taught in school where its seems like its all learn the lines and the how to answer the questions in the test and not on appreciating how beautiful it really is

Eve_Dublin · 23-09-2012 08:49PM

"Thine thou art within thine eyes and two dusts don't fall on thou feet!"

- William Shakespeare. He was such a wit!

holystungun9 · 23-09-2012 08:54PM

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

"Thine thou art within thine eyes and two dusts don't fall on thou feet!"

- William Shakespeare. He was such a wit!

"A stich in time gathers no moss."

- Rory (my neighbour)

Da Shins Kelly · 23-09-2012 08:58PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in 1861 when Italy reunified perhaps 2% of the population - mostly the upper class in Tuscany - spoke the Tuscan dialect, the language that Dante wrote in.

Dante is the father of the Italian language.

Fair enough. What about his influence on literature in general though? Do you think the works of Dante are as well-known and renowned as the works of Shakespeare?

Gauss · 23-09-2012 09:13PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in 1861 when Italy reunified perhaps 2% of the population - mostly the upper class in Tuscany - spoke the Tuscan dialect, the language that Dante wrote in.

Dante is the father of the Italian language.

Fair enough. What about his influence on literature in general though? Do you think the works of Dante are as well-known and renowned as the works of Shakespeare?

Well English is a much more dominant language world wide, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Seanchai · 23-09-2012 10:08PM

ArtSmart wrote: »

I dunno Claptrap. Some* have argued that he was more Irish than British, sticking to the 'old' religion (Catholicism) an all - and some strong Irish heritage in the bloodline.

* (the 'some' in question is fictional)

Well, the whole 'Who was Shakespeare?' question is not going to be solved here but suffice to say that Ulliam (Liam) Nuinseann/ William Nugent, 16th century baron of Skreen in Meath and a noted poet, has been proposed by several historians as the real Shakespeare with quite erudite historical arguments presented to that end. He was Catholic so I wouldn't say this argument is 'fictional'.

A Google should reveal more on this subject.

Da Shins Kelly · 23-09-2012 10:34PM

Gauss wrote: »

Well English is a much more dominant language world wide, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Well, perhaps Dante is the closest equivalent to Shakespeare in a foreign language, but his works have been translated into English too.

Mardy Bum · 23-09-2012 10:40PM

His contribution to the English language is staggering.

His success in Elizabethan England was outstanding.

The fact that shades of Hamlet is in almost every notable play since it was written speaks for itself.

He understood human nature in a way only a few men and women since have.

As Im typing this the "Now is the winter of our discontent" speech is being practiced in In America which probably is not too much of a coincidence due to the sheer influence of Shakespeare.

Mardy Bum · 23-09-2012 10:42PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Well, perhaps Dante is the closest equivalent to Shakespeare in a foreign language, but his works have been translated into English too.

Chekhov and Ibsen would be up there in terms of dramatic influence anyway.

SuperInfinity · 23-09-2012 10:53PM

*shrugs* I don't get it either. He was okay, nothing more.

I allow for the possibility that people more "educated" in english literature and drama than me know better and find he was a genius.

I studied Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. I found neither to be very entertaining, Macbeth was especially lame.

bnt · 23-09-2012 10:54PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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.

They teach Julius Caesar in school because it's possibly the simplest of his plays, with a straightforward narrative based on historical events. It's not that entertaining, I have to admit, but the real action is in the funeral speeches. Compare Brutus' and Mark Antony's for a lesson in how politics works: style beats substance every time, even if it gets people killed to death.

If you want the real deal, then stuff Hamlet and go straight to Macbeth.

Porter: Drink, sir, is a great provoker of three things.
Macduff: What three things does drink especially provoke?
Porter: Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

Macbeth is also called "The Scottish Play". Shakespeare never did an "Irish Play", and almost never used Irish characters, I think there's one in Henry IV Part II somewhere. So I'm not so surprised that he's not well liked by some here ... feeling a bit left out? :pac:

DyldeBrill · 23-09-2012 10:56PM

i actually enjoyed king lear and macbeth!

ViveLaVie · 23-09-2012 11:08PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

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

Homer is another one who is ridiculously influential.

ViveLaVie · 23-09-2012 11:08PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

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

Homer is another one who is ridiculously influential.

The King of Moo · 23-09-2012 11:14PM

SuperInfinity wrote: »

*shrugs* I don't get it either. He was okay, nothing more.

I allow for the possibility that people more "educated" in english literature and drama than me know better and find he was a genius.

I studied Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. I found neither to be very entertaining, Macbeth was especially lame.

Do you think it's possible that was due more to your teachers than the plays themselves?

As great as I think Shakespeare is, his plays can be intimidating for a teenager for whom they would likely appear incredibly irrelevant and difficult to understand. I wouldn't expect many people of schoolgoing age (myself notwithstanding) to be interested in Shakespeare without some encouragement.
Most students need a good teacher to show them how great and relevant Shakespeare is, and get past the obvious barrier of superficial differences in language and age.

That's the beauty of Shakespeare: you don't need to be particularly well educated to get the most out of them. The only help most people need apart from a glossary (which most texts provide) is a little encouragement, and someone able to make the greatness clear.

cloptrop · 24-09-2012 02:35PM

I thought hard times by charlie d was better to read than any WS work.
The bully of humility was the greatest discription of a chap in 3 words I ever read . It was describing Mr Bounderby .
Ive been trying to put them 3 words in a song since and I Just cant improve on it .

dpe · 24-09-2012 03:27PM

Seanchai wrote: »

Well, the whole 'Who was Shakespeare?' question is not going to be solved here but suffice to say that Ulliam (Liam) Nuinseann/ William Nugent, 16th century baron of Skreen in Meath and a noted poet, has been proposed by several historians as the real Shakespeare with quite erudite historical arguments presented to that end. He was Catholic so I wouldn't say this argument is 'fictional'.

A Google should reveal more on this subject.

Why did I just know that after slagging him off in one post you'd try to claim his works were written by an Irishman in the next. You really need to get that chip looked at.

Fratton Fred · 24-09-2012 03:39PM

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.

ejmaztec wrote: »

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.

It amazes me the number of Americans that visit the UK and spend two days in London, one in Stratford on Avon and one day in Inverness monster hunting

bnt wrote: »

Macbeth is also called "The Scottish Play". Shakespeare never did an "Irish Play", and almost never used Irish characters, I think there's one in Henry IV Part II somewhere. So I'm not so surprised that he's not well liked by some here ... feeling a bit left out? :pac:

I it not unlucky though for an actor to mention the play by name, hence "The Scottish Play".

conorhal · 24-09-2012 03:41PM

Doc Farrell wrote: »

[The OP] ...is 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.

Shakespeare, still relevent. Sure he could be talking about boards.ie today so he could,

--Kaiser-- · 24-09-2012 03:45PM

Seanchai wrote: »

Well, the whole 'Who was Shakespeare?' question is not going to be solved here but suffice to say that Ulliam (Liam) Nuinseann/ William Nugent, 16th century baron of Skreen in Meath and a noted poet, has been proposed by several historians as the real Shakespeare with quite erudite historical arguments presented to that end. He was Catholic so I wouldn't say this argument is 'fictional'.

A Google should reveal more on this subject.

From all I've read on the subject, the idea that William Shakepseare of Stratford-upon-Avon didn't write the plays attributed to him is more or less without merit

summerskin · 24-09-2012 03:45PM

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.

good god, take the chip off your shoulder.

and what's wrong with being a british nationalist? is it any different to being an irish nationalist??

Seanchai · 24-09-2012 06:35PM

dpe wrote: »

Why did I just know that after slagging him off in one post you'd try to claim his works were written by an Irishman in the next. You really need to get that chip looked at.

Reading fail, unsurprisingly. If you could improve your understanding of the English language even marginally you might understand that it was a rebuke of the person who said such claims about Shakespeare's identity do not exist. They do. Fact.

Seeing as on another thread you've admitted to being British, I'll overlook that typically delusional notion British people tend to have that somebody would have a chip on their shoulder for not being part of the nation that plundered, raped and occupied 20% of planet earth, including Ireland. Yes, what envy the world has for such a record. :rolleyes:

Seanchai · 24-09-2012 06:35PM

summerskin wrote: »

and what's wrong with being a british nationalist? is it any different to being an irish nationalist??

Hilarious. So summerskin, our veteran apologist for all things British nationalist, takes umbrage once again at anybody questioning a jingoistic nationalism which wants to rule lands beyond Britain. That you can't see a basic difference between the extremism of British nationalism and its claims on lands beyond Britain, and Irish nationalism which seeks to rule Ireland alone really does speak volumes at how mired you are in the imperialist cultural foundations upon which modern Britishness is built.

Now, surely you have some tabloid to read, or Pat Condell video to cheer on?

humanji · 24-09-2012 06:41PM

Give the politics a rest.

Sarky · 24-09-2012 06:42PM

So you don't like one of the most celebrated playwrights of all time because 800 years chuckie our lá?

That is both fair and reasonable, and I can see no flaw in your logic.

Fratton Fred · 24-09-2012 06:43PM

Christ almighty.

First Rory McIlroy, now Shakespeare. The uber Irish nationalist wants to claim everyone on the British isles for his own.

It'll be Guinness and Wilde next.

Why is Shakespeare so highly regarded?

Comments