NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion, the latter.

Put up a poll so I can statistically show that I agree! :cool:

Put up a poll so I can statistically show that I agree! :cool:

Done.

Honestly, I think his plays are alright, yet I find the man to be very hypocritical

He was one of the best writers out there yet there are alot of writers below him (i.e. Bill Clinton) and very few better writers. yet you really have to take it in a genre by genre case because like Robert Ludlum is an exquisite writer but in a totally different way than William Shakespeare plus Shakespeare cannot be THE best because he took a good number of plays from others and used them as his own. For these reasons he is just good.

If for nothing else, Shakespeare was just prolific. He was more--he was brilliant in his pacing and storytelling ability, and the proof of that is in how many of his plays are remade today in film and onstage, either as his plays or open adaptations, or as ripoffs that are marginally disguised. When you add in the effect he's had on writers over the last 400 years, he's damn near untoppable. He's the 800 pound gorilla in the world of literature.

I am a huge fan of Shakespeare - there have been few truly classic works of literature in the western cultural history - and most of what have been created have been Shakespearian works, or derived from Shakespeare.

I think it is a shame that modern educational standards seem to be regarding Shakespeare as irrelevant, and I hear that in some places, Shakespeare is no longer even considered syllabus material.

The thing about Shakespeare taking older material and putting a new spin on it: Shakespeare never claimed that he wasn't doing that. He wasn't writing for a 'publisher', in the way modern writers do - he was writing material for his troupe to perform, and the work was constantly evolving as they performed - keeping what worked, and cutting the dead-wood. In this manner, we are left a legacy of some exquisitely crafted work, the product of decades (in some cases) of revision and performance.

Shakespeare was the author of the pieces, but the creation of the 'works' was totally collaborative - and arguably the greatest gift to the literature of the english language.

But by the same token, if you're an athiest, think of the influence Jesus had...
Or if you're a capitalist, think of the influence Marx had...
There are shoes that fit all the situations where people that aren't necessarily good have huge influences...

If for nothing else, Shakespeare was just prolific. He was more--he was brilliant in his pacing and storytelling ability, and the proof of that is in how many of his plays are remade today in film and onstage, either as his plays or open adaptations, or as ripoffs that are marginally disguised. When you add in the effect he's had on writers over the last 400 years, he's damn near untoppable. He's the 800 pound gorilla in the world of literature.

I totally agree.

The only person who has even come close is Tolkein... and, when you think about it, much of his material owes it's origin to Shakespeare - or the myths on which Shakespeare drew.

I totally agree.

The only person who has even come close is Tolkein... and, when you think about it, much of his material owes it's origin to Shakespeare - or the myths on which Shakespeare drew.And in terms of sheer volume, Shakespeare leaves Tolkien--and most writers--in the dust. My copy of the Complete Works is 1250+ pages, and that's in very small type.

I chose "no opinion," only because how can I vote on whether or not "Shakespeare" is the best writer if nobody even knows if he actually wrote "his" works or not.

And in terms of sheer volume, Shakespeare leaves Tolkien--and most writers--in the dust. My copy of the Complete Works is 1250+ pages, and that's in very small type.
Tolkien isn't exactly left in the dust. He wrote a lot more than just the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit...

But by the same token, if you're an athiest, think of the influence Jesus had...
Or if you're a capitalist, think of the influence Marx had...
There are shoes that fit all the situations where people that aren't necessarily good have huge influences...

Well, Jesus wasn't much for the Atheist camp, I believe - and most of his 'material' can be tracked back to at least 600 years earlier... so, in that way I guess he was kind of a religious Shakespeare figure - he just assembled a canon of work.

The thing is - from a literature point of view, the works of Shakespeare are quite extraordinary. The depth and breadth of imagery, the tight scripting, the incredible depth of character and the breath-taking use of the language to create something that mirrors everyday conversation, but in a beautiful and artistic fashion. The fact that those words stay in the public mind, even after 400 years. And then you take into account that all of this was acheived in Iambic Pentameter - it is just dizzying.

Tolkien isn't exactly left in the dust. He wrote a lot more than just the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit...

And Tolkein has had a profound effect on literature since also - but still, Shakespeare created a codified canon of such great scope, as a fan of Tolkein I am not ashamed to put Tolkein in second place.

I chose "no opinion," only because how can I vote on whether or not "Shakespeare" is the best writer if nobody even knows if he actually wrote "his" works or not.

I already touched on this above.

First: Although Shakespeare was the 'author', all of his works were collaborative efforts - if you've seen manuscripts you will have seen the continuous process of amendment that took place over many years of performance and revision - and there is little doubt that Shakespeare was the hand on the quill.

Second: The chief contenders for the 'authorship' of many of the Shakespearian works are Marlowe and Bacon - and neither have a 'style' that matches the finished works of Shakespeare - but, since the works were collective anyway - that becomes almost irrelevent.

Whoever was the 'hand on the quill' - the works are known as being by 'Shakespeare'. Take that as a brandname if you are more comfortable with it. All of the 'Shakespeare' works show enough consistency that they are clearly the work of the same author/collective - so the specific identity of Shakespeare (while I personally believe him to be the author) becomes almost irrelevent in the face of the works.

We've seen many voices for why Shakesphere is good, but then why do some think otherwise? What reasons do you have? Have you read many of his works? Have you seen plays or movies based on them?

I've seen and read some truly nauseating versions of Shakesphere's works, and I can guess that anyone who had seen them could be quite turned off to them. Overall though, they solid works with a long history of spin offs and tributes.

Homer is the best. The Iliad is the greatest piece of Western literature ever.

He's good, his stuff is pretty cool, and he's had a huge affect on literature...


...But I'd perfer Murakami over him anyday :p

I love Shakespeare... I'm an enormous theatre geek and Shakespeare is easily one of my favourites to perform and/or study.

however, callling him the greates writer of all time I THINK is inaccurate. He may be the greatest WESTERN PLAYwriter of all time, but there are Spanish playwrites like Lope De Vega who I think are better, and there are novelists like Kurt Vonnegut and Salman Rushdie who are better overall writers than Shakespeare was.

... I'm an enormous theatre geek and Shakespeare is easily one of my favourites to perform...

Yeah theatre! We just did a stellar adaptation of Macbeth at a local theatre I work at. And I agree - I do enjoy working on his works as a play, but his work just doesn't impress me. His tragedies are so overdone I find even the originals boring and his comedies are beginning to grate on my nerves. I think it's the laguage that really gets to me.

But I have three more years of studying him. Ceaser and Taming of the Shrew this year.

Hurrah. :rolleyes:

I did really like him, but now I've got to study him, I'm starting to hate his works....

Shakespeare was a master of his craft. But I don't feel that makes him the greatest.

I liken him to Spielberg. Spielberg has mastered the craft of making films (both writing and directing like Shakespeare), but the stories are generally stolen from elsewhere and terribly formulaic.

So... not the greatest mind, just a master of the craft and the most popular.

A note about the Shakespeare/Spielberg comparison: Shakespeare is far wittier and able to weave multiple levels to his plots than Spielberg. Aside from that, pretty close.

Perhaps the greatest thing about Shakespeare is not what is said, but how much is open. In and of itself Shakespeare's works are just frameworks at best, but the themes are so universal that a good director can take one of his plays and spin it with a new interperetation that makes it incredibly interesting.

Of course... they can also go off the deep end and do things like having Mel Gibson blatantly want to $#%& his mother.

He was one of the best writers out there yet there are alot of writers below him (i.e. Bill Clinton) and very few better writers. yet you really have to take it in a genre by genre case because like Robert Ludlum is an exquisite writer but in a totally different way than William Shakespeare plus Shakespeare cannot be THE best because he took a good number of plays from others and used them as his own. For these reasons he is just good.

Totally agree. All a question of context. Superb playwright anyway.

I find people who dislike Shakespeare have yet to fully appreciate the writing. It is, at its very essence, great art.

It always amuses me that people will accept without question the sheer musical genius of Mozart and Beethoven, oohing and aahing at every savory phrase and practically drooling their chins glistening at even the simplest motifs of Bach, but when it comes to Shakespeare, rather than delighting at the meter and fawning over the incredulous ability to shift a phrase (not to mention the delicious humor) the uneducated simply fall into the tired old (400 year old) rants about how it was collaboration or that the man didn't exist or that he stole his works and penned his name to them.

To those hell bent on the systematic destruction of what was possibly one of the greatest story tellers who ever put pen to paper, I can only think of A Midsummer Night's Dream, Act V, Scene 1:

WALL: :headbang:
In this same interlude it doth befall
That I, one Snout by name, present a wall;
And such a wall, as I would have you think,
That had in it a crannied hole or chink,
Through which the lovers, Pyramus and Thisby,
Did whisper often very secretly.
This loam, this rough-cast and this stone doth show
That I am that same wall; the truth is so:
And this the cranny is, right and sinister,
Through which the fearful lovers are to whisper.

If you must, however, require visuals, I would suggest going to your local video store and renting any Shakespeare as adapted to film by Kenneth Branagh (I particularly like his Henry V).

I suppose it doesn't matter, though, for the ignorant and uneducated shall inheret the earth.

[/arrogant rant]

Why has no-one yet mentioned Johann Goethe? He was head and shoulders above Shakespeare. Read 'Faust' if you want to see sublime writing.
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/faustidx.html
Incidently, Goethe's IQ has been estimated at 210, higher than anyone else's. Ever.
Another couple: Sir Francis Bacon or Phillip Marlowe - let's face it, there's been accusations one of them wrote Shskespeare's works, so that should give you an idea of their quality.
And what's wrong with T.S.Eliot, Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw?
I especially like Shaw's answer when asked what he thought of Shakespeare:
"With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer...whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his.... It would positively be a relief to me to dig him up and throw stones at him."
Another few I like are Robert Louis Stevenson, Dostoevsky, and Hans Christian Anderson.

Why has no-one yet mentioned Johann Goethe? He was head and shoulders above Shakespeare. Read 'Faust' if you want to see sublime writing.

oooh, forgot aobut Goethe. You may be right. The hole 'sturm und drang' movement was the best thing to happern to theatre or literature (except maybe the beat movement).

Why has no-one yet mentioned Johann Goethe? He was head and shoulders above Shakespeare. Read 'Faust' if you want to see sublime writing.

I especially like Shaw's answer when asked what he thought of Shakespeare:


I did a rather nice essay on Faust in my junior year Literature class in college. I'll have to dig it up.

Ah, yes, and Shaw ... writer of Pygmalion ... a brilliant satirist and I think you may be taking his quote out of context. Shaw wrote "Caesar and Cleopatra" as homage to Shakespeare, satirical yes, but homage nonetheless.

One of my favorite quotes rom Pygmalion: "Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech: that your native language is the language of Shakespeare and Milton and The Bible; and dont sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon." (Henry Higgins)

I also adore Shaws comparative study on Christianity being the birthplace of Communism.

I also adore Shaws comparative study on Christianity being the birthplace of Communism.
Yes I love his quote:
"Any man who is not a Communist before he is twenty is a fool; Any who still is after thirty is a bigger fool."

Speaking of quotes. my favourite about USA is by Oscar Wilde:
"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."

....It always amuses me that people will accept without question the sheer musical genius of Mozart and Beethoven, oohing and aahing at every savory phrase and practically drooling their chins glistening at even the simplest motifs of Bach, but when it comes to Shakespeare, rather than delighting at the meter and fawning over the incredulous ability to shift a phrase (not to mention the delicious humor) the uneducated simply fall into the tired old (400 year old) rants about how it was collaboration or that the man didn't exist or that he stole his works and penned his name to them....

no one is saying that shakespeare is a bad writer. They are, since they know little about music but were raised on books, doing an analysis of his writing due to the fact that they know more about the man and his works. I mean seriously once you get out of grade school you are not forced into music and therefore you are not really taught about Beethoven, Mozart, or Bach yet they will always in different literature classes pound the life and works of Shakespeare into your head until you leave college and go to a job or postgraduate school. I mean no one thinks Shakespeare is a horrible writer they are saying "Shakespeare was a magnificint writer who is rivaled by a microscopic amount of people in his genre, but there are some things he could have done better, since no one is perfect, such as not using others works, yet the thing about him not existing, those people say the same thing about the Holocaust and i havent seen anyone, in this forum, say he doesnt exist. So in conclution, Shakespeare YAY yet there are other good writers too and Shakespeare could be better. :cool:

In my opinion, the latter.

I suppose you believe James MacDonald, Stephen King, Tom Clancy or Barbara Cartland to be better.

I don't see anyone studying them in 400 years....

The thing about Shakespeare taking older material and putting a new spin on it: Shakespeare never claimed that he wasn't doing that. He wasn't writing for a 'publisher', in the way modern writers do - he was writing material for his troupe to perform, and the work was constantly evolving as they performed - keeping what worked, and cutting the dead-wood. In this manner, we are left a legacy of some exquisitely crafted work, the product of decades (in some cases) of revision and performance.

Not only that, but this style of rewriting was, in fact, not only acceptable but preferred practice in his time... you rewrote what the masters of Roman and Greek lit had done before you... and you went with what worked. Only today, in the age of copyrights, does this become plagiarism.

BTW, similar things happen today -- The original "Star Wars" was based very strongly on a Japanese film called "The Hidden Fortress", and "Ran" is generally referred to as "the Japanese Macbeth."

I suppose you believe James MacDonald, Stephen King, Tom Clancy or Barbara Cartland to be better.

I don't see anyone studying them in 400 years....

Certainly not King, I hope. Story IDEAS okay, story WRITING - horrible at best.

Ah, why should wrath be mute and fury dumb?
I am no baby, I, that with base prayers
I should repent the evils I have done.
Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did
Would I perform if I might have my will.
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul.

Now, that's villainy. Hope I didn't misquote him.

I suppose you believe James MacDonald, Stephen King, Tom Clancy or Barbara Cartland to be better.

I don't see anyone studying them in 400 years....


i can see them talking about King and Clancy when they study "litertaure" of this era...not only that but in the films both will be talked about but not studied like Shakespeare is


If you must, however, require visuals, I would suggest going to your local video store and renting any Shakespeare as adapted to film by Kenneth Branagh (I particularly like his Henry V).


his are the best adaptations of Shakspeares plays...I had to watch Hamlet for a class two years ago...had to treck all the way back to the college to one of the lecture halls on my own time to watch it, but it was really good...then we got to watch the Mel Gibson version, it sucked

Why has no-one yet mentioned Johann Goethe? He was head and shoulders above Shakespeare. Read 'Faust' if you want to see sublime writing.
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/faustidx.html
Incidently, Goethe's IQ has been estimated at 210, higher than anyone else's. Ever.
Another couple: Sir Francis Bacon or Phillip Marlowe - let's face it, there's been accusations one of them wrote Shskespeare's works, so that should give you an idea of their quality.
And what's wrong with T.S.Eliot, Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw?
I especially like Shaw's answer when asked what he thought of Shakespeare:

Another few I like are Robert Louis Stevenson, Dostoevsky, and Hans Christian Anderson.

First: There have been accusations that Bacon or Marlowe wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare - but the styles do not match, and it is long established that the Shakespearean works were collaborative - some of those collaborations including Marlowe. Surely, over the length of his career of performance and revision with his 'troupe', some of them might have noticed that he wasn't himself...

Second: Don't know where you got the "Goethes' IQ... higher than anyone else's. Ever" thing from. Surely, if he only scored circa 210, he was nowhere near as gifted as William James Sidis (Who apprently scored between 250 and 300 at various times).

Third: While Goethe, Anderson, Stevenson et al are doubtless talented writers, none match the eloquence, artistry and insight of Shakespeare - or the enduring popularity, for that matter.

I like a few of his plays, but not all of them. The ones that I like tend to be, but are not limited to, the Tragedies. No idea why though.

I wouldn't say that he his my favorite writer.

But he does have extraordinary talent (not just in terms of his work, but also the awesome new words he bought to the English language).

What ruined Shakespeare for me for a long time was having to study his plays in the most boring ways possible at school. I still cannot stomach "Midsummer Night's Dream."

I like a few of his plays, but not all of them. The ones that I like tend to be, but are not limited to, the Tragedies. No idea why though.

I wouldn't say that he his my favorite writer.

But he does have extraordinary talent (not just in terms of his work, but also the awesome new words he bought to the English language).

What ruined Shakespeare for me for a long time was having to study his plays in the most boring ways possible at school. I still cannot stomach "Midsummer Night's Dream."

If you haven't seen it, let me recommend the Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, Kevin Kline, Christian Bale, Michelle Pfeiffer and Anna Friel version?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140379/

Anyone else remember Anna Friel before she made movies....?

If you haven't seen it, let me recommend the Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, Kevin Kline, Christian Bale, Michelle Pfeiffer and Anna Friel version?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140379/


I'm sorry, but nothing could turn back the scarring done at the hands of the British education system.

I think the problem is probably association rather then me thinking it is bad.

I'm sorry, but nothing could turn back the scarring done at the hands of the British education system.

I think the problem is probably association rather then me thinking it is bad.

Suffered through the same ordeal, mate.

Guess I was lucky enough that we did Macbeth at the same time...

(And when you consider that the other texts were "Brighton Rock" and some BBC made-for-tv movie... "Flying into the wind"...??? something like that...)

Suffered through the same ordeal, mate.

Guess I was lucky enough that we did Macbeth at the same time...

(And when you consider that the other texts were "Brighton Rock" and some BBC made-for-tv movie... "Flying into the wind"...??? something like that...)
I'm just glad that I read Wuthering Heights and Huckleberry Finn as quickly as possible in my AS year.

I voted Shakespeare good, but not the best, considering the fact he came after Homer and all the other great antinquity classicists.

Homer seems foremost because on the brink of civilization he spun this incredible tale, the Iliad. In all my years of schooling, no better class than the seminar on the Iliad; it is a timeless epic. The new movie didn't do it credit. Of course, Homer suffers the same identity crisis Shakespeare does. Maybe in two thousands years, so will Tolkien and Paul Johnson.

As for Shakespeare, he is universally ranked as sumpreme English poet, followed by Chaucer, Milton and Spenser. I don't think any other English writer has anything to compare with Hamlet.

As for Goethe, yes, he was a great writer, but I wouldn't say because of his IQ. Great IQ does not mean great story-teller. Also, other great European writers include Tolstoy, Voltaire, and Cervantes.

America's best are Washington Irving, Hawthorne, Wilde, Twain, Lincoln, Whitman, to name a few, but none compare to the English tradition.

Also, if you know Spanish, Julio Cortazar of Argentina and Juan Rulfo of Colombia are my favorite South American writers.

But Homer uber alles.

I'm just glad that I read Wuthering Heights and Huckleberry Finn as quickly as possible in my AS year.

Isn't it a little ironic to study Huck Finn in 'English' Literature?

Isn't it a little ironic to study Huck Finn in 'English' Literature?
It wasn't lost on us either. :D

We also had a few debates (the morning break over a fag type) wether Chauser was.

It wasn't lost on us either. :D

We also had a few debates (the morning break over a fag type) wether Chauser was.

Well, at least Chaucer lived in England... you could justify him as 'english' that way...

My personal favourites of authors (as someone said, there are other forms of literature then plays and fiction, reading Proudhon, Stirner and Platon gives me as much joy as reading fiction, they are excellent debaters):

1. Leo Tolstoj/ Fjodor Dostojevskij
2. August Strindberg (swedish author of the 1800 hundreds)/ Johann Goethe
3. Shakespeare

I don't think that there are better writers than Tolstoj and Dostojeskij, if any one think that they know better writers, then tell me so.

I like Strindberg's and Goethe's plays more than Shakespeare's for one reason, the feelings. I don't know if it is the Shakespeare assignments from school that has made me think this way but for some reason the Shakespearian way to write seems much more formal and far from reality than the plays of those two listed above, or maybe it is the more bombastic style of Shakespeare that makes the other plays feel more alive?,
New Obbhlia

i think we need to bring back the concept of HUBRIS just for you, roach

he's no sophocles or euripedes but shakespeare will do in a pinch. his ability to turn a phrase is amazing. he is second only to the bible in the number of phrases in common use.

i honestly find the world of homer to be too far out of my experience to appreciate. at the beginning of the iliad, achilles is crying to his mamma that agamemnon is being mean to him. perfectly FINE at the time, esp considering that his mom was some kind of demigod. but today that just makes him a whiney wimp mama's boy. so i like it more in the knowing about than in the reading of.

Oh ... as far as American writers ... the greatest American storyteller was Ernest Hemingway ... no greater American writer ... period. (well, yet anyway)

Faulkner comes a distant second ... very distant.

Poe would be a close third on Faulkner's second ... very close.

on this I don't know what to say I haven't got into him much maybe once I have I can comment, I missed the local shakespeare festival again and my school doesn't have anything on it. that and I don't much care I'd say he's overated from what little I know but ah blah

I hate Shakespeare. I'm almost tempted to blame the Holocaust at least partly on "The Merchant of Venice" or whatever the play with the greedy Jewish bad guy was called.

I hate Shakespeare. I'm almost tempted to blame the Holocaust at least partly on "The Merchant of Venice" or whatever the play with the greedy Jewish bad guy was called.

Other way round, I'm afraid...

At the time Shakespeare was writing his plays, Jews were being rounded up in towns like Lincoln, dropped into pits and stoned to death. At this point they were also still made to wear yellow, to show that they were Jews.

But - yes, "Merchant of Venice"... the character you refer to is "Shylock".

Oh, no... not this again. With regards to The Merchant..., you have to remember the context and the times. It's a highly dubious play in terms of its racial morality and yet... I've always taken there to be an undercurrent of sympathy for Shylock. It certainly adds a dark undertone to the frivolous final Act with all its innuendos and (unusually) demonstrations of the power women have over men.

To Grave n idle, I'm sorry but I really didn't like the film version of Dream you mentioned. I'm yet to be persuaded of the play's overall merits, especially since performing in it.

What's gratifying for me is the rise in interest in his more obscure plays. I quoted from Titus Andronicus earlier. This play was denigrated and written off as a below-par early collaborative effort until fairly recently; it's great to see its new-found respect and popularity. Julie Taymor's film adaptation captures it's vicious black humour perfectly.

Sadly, I believe one of Shakespeare's main flaws is his inability to write great female parts. This isn't surprising given the time in which he wrote but it's frustrating for female actors. Portia, Viola and Tamora are very good but they're no match for Hamlet, Lear and Iago, to name but a few.

Wasn't there a conspiracy about Shakespeare stealing his ideas from someone else?

The books of Shakespeare would have been long forgotten if not for British government: they subsidised those books for all schools so kids would learn some older english literature.

I think he should have been forgotten, because real artworks will be remembered no matter what. Shakespeares works do not seem (to me) to have survived (in this grandeur) if they wouldn't have been compulsory (still are).

It's not that they're bad, but I do not find them extraordinary or something.

Wasn't there a conspiracy about Shakespeare stealing his ideas from someone else?
He (and other playwrights of his time) openly took plays and stories written by others (particularly Italians) and adapted them. This was normal and not stealing. It's not very different from today, really.

I hate Shakespeare. I'm almost tempted to blame the Holocaust at least partly on "The Merchant of Venice" or whatever the play with the greedy Jewish bad guy was called.
Why? Beleive me, there are worse ones written by others (in terms of anti-semitism), For example The Jew of Malta (http://www.gutenberg.net/dirs/etext97/jmlta10.txt) by Christopher Marlowe.

"ITHAMORE: Faith, master,
In setting Christian villages on fire,
Chaining of eunuchs, binding galley-slaves.
One time I was an hostler in an inn,
And in the night-time secretly would I steal
To travellers' chambers, and there cut their throats:
Once at Jerusalem, where the pilgrims kneel'd,
I strewed powder [acid] on the marble stones,
And therewithal their knees would rankle so,
That I have laugh'd a-good to see the cripples
Go limping home to Christendom on stilts."


I think he should have been forgotten, because real artworks will be remembered no matter what. Shakespeares works do not seem (to me) to have survived (in this grandeur) if they wouldn't have been compulsory (still are).
I suppose this explains why Shakespeare is so popular all over the Globe right? Especially in Germany (for some reason).

To Grave n idle, I'm sorry but I really didn't like the film version of Dream you mentioned. I'm yet to be persuaded of the play's overall merits, especially since performing in it.
This isn't a reply to this, but it jogged my memory. I remember seeing "Twelth Night" when I was younger. And during a scene when one of the female characters is in a bit of a state (for the life of my I cannot remember who or at what part), and her tit popped out. Nearly everyone lost part of the play because we were staring. (I know it was rude, but it was the majority of the audience was between 11 and 13)

One of the funniest Shakespeare comedies I have ever seen (this was at a point in my life when it was amusing, and [cannot think of a word])

Ah, the joys of live performance. Speaking of which, the key thing to remember about Shakespeare is that he wrote for performance. As beautiful as some of his poetry (and prose) is, it should be regarded as secondary to the theatrical nature of his work. I'm always somewhat bemused by those who place so much emphasis on the texts, fragmented and disputed as they are.

Oh, no... not this again. With regards to The Merchant..., you have to remember the context and the times. It's a highly dubious play in terms of its racial morality and yet... I've always taken there to be an undercurrent of sympathy for Shylock. It certainly adds a dark undertone to the frivolous final Act with all its innuendos and (unusually) demonstrations of the power women have over men.

To Grave n idle, I'm sorry but I really didn't like the film version of Dream you mentioned. I'm yet to be persuaded of the play's overall merits, especially since performing in it.

What's gratifying for me is the rise in interest in his more obscure plays. I quoted from Titus Andronicus earlier. This play was denigrated and written off as a below-par early collaborative effort until fairly recently; it's great to see its new-found respect and popularity. Julie Taymor's film adaptation captures it's vicious black humour perfectly.

Sadly, I believe one of Shakespeare's main flaws is his inability to write great female parts. This isn't surprising given the time in which he wrote but it's frustrating for female actors. Portia, Viola and Tamora are very good but they're no match for Hamlet, Lear and Iago, to name but a few.

I found that version of "dream" an interesting adaptation. Not necessarily great, but interesting. I figured it might be accesible to those who have lost interest. (Part of the reason I mentioned it was because Anna Friel has something of a skeleton in her closet, in terms of British TV, and since I was talking to an Englishman, I thought that his lost interest might be piqued to see her appearing in Shakespeare).

Maybe I am just a whore, but my 'personal' favourite play is Macbeth (and I guess everyone says it...). In terms of a screened version, I think my favoured would be "Much Ado...", the Kenneth Brannagh version.

It is true that Shakespeare had difficulty writing truly inspirational female parts. I think part of it was the politics, but I suspect more of it was to do with men playing those parts - and the degree of suspension of disbelief possible before it becomes an accidental comedy.

Oh, no... not this again. With regards to The Merchant..., you have to remember the context and the times. It's a highly dubious play in terms of its racial morality and yet... I've always taken there to be an undercurrent of sympathy for Shylock. It certainly adds a dark undertone to the frivolous final Act with all its innuendos and (unusually) demonstrations of the power women have over men.

To Grave n idle, I'm sorry but I really didn't like the film version of Dream you mentioned. I'm yet to be persuaded of the play's overall merits, especially since performing in it.

What's gratifying for me is the rise in interest in his more obscure plays. I quoted from Titus Andronicus earlier. This play was denigrated and written off as a below-par early collaborative effort until fairly recently; it's great to see its new-found respect and popularity. Julie Taymor's film adaptation captures it's vicious black humour perfectly.

Sadly, I believe one of Shakespeare's main flaws is his inability to write great female parts. This isn't surprising given the time in which he wrote but it's frustrating for female actors. Portia, Viola and Tamora are very good but they're no match for Hamlet, Lear and Iago, to name but a few.

What about Juliet? Or lady Capulet, Ophelia, Lady Macbeth and Katarina? (although Katarina gets annoying at the end). Titania is one of my favourite roles. She gets the best speech (in my opinion) in A midsummer nights dream. '(These are the forgeries of jealousy)'
I think when you have to overanalyse Shakespeare it can spoil it. Watching and playing Shakespeare is incredible but not having to analyse every line to death.

Yah, Lady Macbeth. When we did Macbeth in English Lit, I had a crush on her. g33k that I was.

Will our great-great-great(...) grandchildren be taught Stephen King?

Let's hope not.

*shudders*

*dreams of a school play about Carrie*
:D

I suppose this explains why Shakespeare is so popular all over the Globe right? Especially in Germany (for some reason).

It is popular because EVERYONE who enjoys their educations HAVE to read it. The more people that read it, the more popular it will be. How many people in Germany read Shakespeare? How many read a single other famous playwrite (for comparison)? It's just like Hollywood. Many people love Hollywood movies because it's all (or at least most) of what they see (movie-wise). There are TONS of good (AND better) films NOT made in Hollywood. MTV another example. Loads of people love the stuff on MTV. Why? Because it's all they see and hear on the radio...