NationStates Jolt Archive

Now my English teacher always raves about Shakespeare. Supposedly this man, a quiet, self-obsessed opium smoker was a genius of the English language who battled crimes such as cock-fighting, bear-baiting and prostitution with the quill. I'm not convinced, however. I believe that some people just enthuse about him because they fear being labelled 'ignorant' if they say that they don't think it's all that great. I also think that people look into the scripts of Shakespeare too deeply and make over-the-top assumptions to this man's literal talent. It's rather like The Bible Codes or Yuri Geller's 11:11 conspiracy, although strange and quite brilliant, take something and you can twist it into the exact opposite.

So what do you think about ol' Willy 'Man of the Millenium' Shakespeare?

A genius at brainwashing maybe.

I think a lot of his stuff is overrated, and that the word 'genius' is too liberally applied to the man at times. However, I do feel that he had at least moments of genius - some of the scenes and verse from Hamlet, for example, still take my breath away.

one of the four or five best writers in the English language

....honestly, have you even read Shakespere?

There were recent discussions that none of the works were his, that it was infact that work of his cousin, who, due to his position in the Government, was unable to print the works in his own name.

one of the four or five best writers in the English language

....honestly, have you even read Shakespere?

Yes, and I think that it has been so deeply scrutinized by the English brigade that it is given FAR more credit than deserved.

There were recent discussions that none of the works were his, that it was infact that work of his cousin, who, due to his position in the Government, was unable to print the works in his own name.

none of which is actually true

none of which is actually true

But him smoking opium is! It was on 'Have I Got News For You'.

He's the greatest writer, and quite possibly the greatest mind, of all time.

So I'm going with "yes".

He's the greatest writer, and quite possibly the greatest mind, of all time.

So I'm going with "yes".

Wouldn't you prefer to read something in the proper English that we use today though? I admit his plays have good storylines and would make good skeletons for modern films but I think people are deterred by all the Middle-English malarky.

Wouldn't you prefer to read something in the proper English that we use today though? I admit his plays have good storylines and would make good skeletons for modern films but I think people are deterred by all the Middle-English malarky.
Shakespeare didn't write in Middle English.

Having watched some of Shakespeare's plays (and having a total lack of respect for most literary criticism...the people who rave about him, amongst others) I say he was a genius.
As an observer of the human condition, and a crafter of touching, very human drama, in my experience he is unmatched.

The most influential writer in English, by far, and probably also the best.

Its difficult to overstate Shakespeare's talent.

one of the four or five best writers in the English language

....honestly, have you even read Shakespere?
If by best you mean "over-hyped," yes, I must agree.

Actually I don't think the theory that Shakespeare was the idiot cousin of a genius, whose name was replaced to keep his cousin out of trouble, was disproven.

Wouldn't you prefer to read something in the proper English that we use today though? I admit his plays have good storylines and would make good skeletons for modern films but I think people are deterred by all the Middle-English malarky.
Middle English:
A povre wydwe, somdeel stape in age
Was whilom dwellyng in a narwe cotage,
Biside a grove, stondynge in a dale.
This wydwe, of which I telle yow my tale,
Syn thilke day that she was last a wyf,
In pacience ladde a ful symple lyf,
For litel was hir catel and hir rente.
By housbondrie of swich as God hire sente
She foond hirself and eek hir doghtren two.
Thre large sowes hadde she, and namo,
Three keen, and eek a sheep that highte malle.
Ful sooty was hire bour and eek hir halle,
In which she eet ful many a sklendre meel.
Of poynaunt sauce hir neded never a deel.
No deyntee morsel passed thurgh hir throte;
Hir diete was accordant to hir cote.
Repleccioun ne made hire nevere sik;
Attempree diete was al hir phisik,
And exercise, and hertes suffisaunce.

Shakespeare:
Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches
First Witch
When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.

Third Witch
That will be ere the set of sun.

First Witch
Where the place?

Second Witch
Upon the heath.

Third Witch
There to meet with Macbeth.

First Witch
I come, Graymalkin!

Second Witch
Paddock calls.

Third Witch
Anon.

ALL
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.

Exeunt


I do hope you can see the difference.

The alien language Shakespeare wrote in was not Middle English, it was poetry.

Actually I don't think the theory that Shakespeare was the idiot cousin of a genius, whose name was replaced to keep his cousin out of trouble, was disproven.


They've never disproven the idea that people get abducted by space aliens either.

What of it?

<Shakespeare quote>

Dr. Seuss could write as well as that. Shakespeare is nothing special.

Dr. Seuss could write as well as that. Shakespeare is nothing special.


If he could, he never demonstrated it to anyone.

Get thee to a university.

Dr. Seuss could write as well as that. Shakespeare is nothing special.

I will tell you why; so shall my anticipation prevent your discovery, and your secrecy to the king and queen moult no feather. I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory, this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.

vs.

I meant what I said,
and I said what I meant
An elephant's faithful,
one hundred percent.

One of my favorite parts of Hamlet:

KING CLAUDIUS
Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?

HAMLET
At supper.

KING CLAUDIUS
At supper! where?

HAMLET
Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end.

KING CLAUDIUS
Alas, alas!

HAMLET
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and cat of the fish that hath fed of that worm.

KING CLAUDIUS
What dost you mean by this?

HAMLET
Nothing but to show you how a king may go a
progress through the guts of a beggar.

KING CLAUDIUS
Where is Polonius?

HAMLET
In heaven; send hither to see: if your messenger
find him not there, seek him i' the other place
yourself. But indeed, if you find him not within
this month, you shall nose him as you go up the
stairs into the lobby.

KING CLAUDIUS
Go seek him there.


Not a genius... heh.

Dr. Seuss could write as well as that. Shakespeare is nothing special.
I never said he was, if you have read me correctly, you will have noticed that all I was doing was pointing out that Shakespeare did not write in Middle English.

At any rate, Shakespeare was ahead of his time and remains one of the great English writers.

Saying he is nothing special is akin to saying George Orwell was only just about average where political writing is concerned.

At any rate, Shakespeare was ahead of his time and remains one of the great English writers.

Saying he is nothing special is akin to saying George Orwell was only just about average where political writing is concerned.


That would be true though, he wasnt a real political theorist on the order of Hobbes &al.

Middle English:
A povre wydwe, somdeel stape in age
Was whilom dwellyng in a narwe cotage,
Biside a grove, stondynge in a dale.
This wydwe, of which I telle yow my tale,
Syn thilke day that she was last a wyf,
In pacience ladde a ful symple lyf,
For litel was hir catel and hir rente.
By housbondrie of swich as God hire sente
She foond hirself and eek hir doghtren two.
Thre large sowes hadde she, and namo,
Three keen, and eek a sheep that highte malle.
Ful sooty was hire bour and eek hir halle,
In which she eet ful many a sklendre meel.
Of poynaunt sauce hir neded never a deel.
No deyntee morsel passed thurgh hir throte;
Hir diete was accordant to hir cote.
Repleccioun ne made hire nevere sik;
Attempree diete was al hir phisik,
And exercise, and hertes suffisaunce.

That is wonderful.

Orwell? Now that's someone who's over-hyped.

I may have the name wrong....but....William Wycombe? Something like that, I think.
Quality, for those of us sad enough to like old-style language.

Orwell? Now that's someone who's over-hyped.
Ever read "Keep the Aphidistra Flying"?

Shakespeare didn't write in Middle English.

Yeah, well, that was slightly ironic. It also tied in with a neat alliteration between 'Middle' and 'malarky'.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the poster who mentioned the language barrier. There's a quote which goes, (I think) "Everyone gets to read Shakespeare in their native languages, except English-speaking people."

With that said, aside from that I don't mind Shakespeare.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by the poster who mentioned the language barrier. There's a quote which goes, (I think) "Everyone gets to read Shakespeare in their native languages, except English-speaking people."

With that said, aside from that I don't mind Shakespeare.

It's not that much of a barrier, really.

Ever read "Keep the Aphidistra Flying"?
Yes. And I actually like that one, quite a bit - mainly because he writes about human beings in it. Down and Out is also good, but otherwise, I really don't think he deserves the degree of praise he gets. He's a good writer, sure, but I've never found him revelatory.

And if you want politics, read Coriolanus.

I am personally of the opinion that all "classics" are overrated. They are good certainly, but not really any better than anything good from today.

The reason they are considered classics is because people have been taught to regard them as such, and having read them is a sort of achievement, allowing a degree of intellectual snobbery. Shakespeare is considered so good because 1) He is good, but not anything particularly special 2) He is not exactly easy to understand. While he didnt write in Middle English, it was Early Modern English, and the whole rythm etc makes it hard to get into the frame of mind to understand it. Once you do, it is far easier but till that point you just stare at the page going "What?". Reading King Lear, the first time we read the first 2 pages it just went over my head. After that I got the feel, and the rest was easy... 3) People were taught them at school... and were told they were classics... so it just became accepted opinion.

Saying this stuff is how I rile my English Graduate of a father. Saying Scottish Gailic should just be left to die off is the way I nark off my mum.

But I do believe it to a degree.

Yes. And I actually like that one, quite a bit - mainly because he writes about human beings in it. Down and Out is also good, but otherwise, I really don't think he deserves the degree of praise he gets. He's a good writer, sure, but I've never found him revelatory.

And if you want politics, read Coriolanus.
I'm just glad you have an opinion while being well-read. Its the opposite I can't stand.

It's not that much of a barrier, really.<shrug> It wouldn't be so bad if he weren't so unnecessarily verbose.

<shrug> It wouldn't be so bad if he weren't so unnecessarily verbose.
I did notice that he misplaced the preposition for one of Romeo's lines. It ruined the whole act for me; it's a wonder I understood it.

I am personally of the opinion that all "classics" are overrated. They are good certainly, but not really any better than anything good from today.
That's a fairly sweeping generalisation, and without substantiating it, it sort of looks like you're doing what you criticise in your point 3) (a point in which there is doubtless a considerable degree of truth - I certainly wouldn't have picked up a 400 year old play to read if someone hadn't told me it was wonderful first) - and reacting against it. "They say it's great...so I say it's not."

I did notice that he misplaced the preposition for one of Romeo's lines. It ruined the whole act for me; it's a wonder I understood it.I meant more along the lines of he said in 20 lines what could have been said in 5.

I meant more along the lines of he said in 20 lines what could have been said in 5.


What an illiterate mexican peasant with a fleeting grasp of english could have 'said,' yes.

Old Master painters could have drawn stick figures, too.

What an illiterate mexican peasant with a fleeting grasp of english could have 'said,' yes.

Old Master painters could have drawn stick figures, too.And if adding detail to the stick figure wouldn't make the picture any better, then it would be silly to do so.

You shouldn't judge Shakespeare on reading the plays. Reading the sonnets, fair enough; but the plays should be watched in performance to come alive.

It's amazing how the "difficulty" with his brand of English just melts away when it's on stage, as well.

No, I never read 'Keep the Aphidistra Flying', on the other hand I have read "Keep the Aspidistra Flying". Personally I do not think Orwell to be over-hyped.

Dan Brown is over-hyped. J.K Rowling is over-hyped.

Shakespeare and Orwell are not over-hyped, though admittedly they aren't everyone's cup of tea.

That is wonderful.
The start of The Nun's Priest's Tale proper (i.e. after the prologue)

You shouldn't judge Shakespeare on reading the plays. Reading the sonnets, fair enough; but the plays should be watched in performance to come alive.

It's amazing how the "difficulty" with his brand of English just melts away when it's on stage, as well.I do have to agree, the sonnets are better, and as I've never seen the plays performed I can't say how that would go.

It's amazing how the "difficulty" with his brand of English just melts away when it's on stage, as well.
Agreed, very strongly. However, I don't think that's him, as much as it is the nature of theatre. I've watched plays in languages I didn't know a word of, and understood more than I would have by looking at a page of indecipherable words.

Still, Shakespeare > all.

The start of The Nun's Priest's Tale proper (i.e. after the prologue)
Reading through and understanding roughly 4/5 of something so old and getting the "gist", is a strangely ego-boosting experience. I'm not saying that others don't understand it, though...
Also, language derivation is really fascinating for me.

Reading through and understanding 3/4 - 4/5 of something so old and understanding the gist, is a strangely ego-boosting experience. I'm not saying the others cannot understand it. Also, language derivation is really fascinating for me.
Well, I can understand pretty much all of it, but mainly because I studied it for a year ;)

But yeah, Middle English has a certain...distant familiarity. You can understand alot of it, and it feels just like 'home', but there are some parts that you just don't understand.

I'll just jump on the bandwagon of saying the plays were written to be watched not read. And they make damn good watching.

William Shakespeare in his day would have been a directing and writing genius but these days it's difficult understanding the old English and strange names like Machbeth, Titania, Hippolyta, Polonius and Fortinbras.

Even though William Shakespeare died over 300 years ago his writing's and stories are still taught in Secondary Schools to this day so there must be something good in those stories (although I once had to study Romeo and Juliet for six weeks got so board and ended up having paper fights with my mates, still scored 65% on the portfolio.)

Even though William Shakespeare died over 300 years ago his writing's and stories are still taught in Secondary Schools to this day so there must be something good in those stories (although I once had to study Romeo and Juliet for six weeks got so board and ended up having paper fights with my mates, still scored 65% on the portfolio.)
I pity you. I really don't think Romeo and Juliet is very good at all - and I think its popularity is a good indication of what some people have been talking about, a sort of automatic canonisation of everything he shat on simply because other people say so.

William Shakespeare in his day would have been a directing and writing genius but these days it's difficult understanding the old English and strange names like Machbeth, Titania, Hippolyta, Polonius and Fortinbras.

Old English:
HWÆT WE GARDE na in geardagum
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon
hu ða æþelingas elle(n) fremedon.
Oft scyld scefing sceaþen[a] þreatum
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah
egsode eorl{e} syððan ærest wear(ð)
feasceaft funden he þæs frofre geba(d)
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah.
oð þ him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde
gomban gyldan þ wæs god cyning.



Shakespeare:
Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches
First Witch
When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.

Third Witch
That will be ere the set of sun.

First Witch
Where the place?

Second Witch
Upon the heath.

Third Witch
There to meet with Macbeth.

First Witch
I come, Graymalkin!

Second Witch
Paddock calls.

Third Witch
Anon.

ALL
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.

Exeunt


I do hope you can see the difference.

I pity you. I really don't think Romeo and Juliet is very good at all - and I think its popularity is a good indication of what some people have been talking about, a sort of automatic canonisation of everything he shat on simply because other people say so.

Some of the Teachers thought it would be a good Idea to put the more modern Version on the TV for us staring Leonardo de Caprio every time they left the room we would ever just mess about or rewind it to the beginning.

Some of the Teachers thought it would be a good Idea to put the more modern Version on the TV for us staring Leonardo de Caprio every time they left the room we would ever just mess about or rewind it to the beginning.
Yeah, that's crap. Plus, it has a song by Radiohead. *vomits*

Yeah, that's crap. Plus, it has a song by Radiohead. *vomits*
I know, disgusting that magnificent music like that should be defiled by being part of the sound track to that film...

Yes, Shakespeare was a genius. Though apparently unlike many others here, I much prefer reading his plays to seeing them.

Old English:
HWÆT WE GARDE na in geardagum
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon
hu ða æþelingas elle(n) fremedon.
Oft scyld scefing sceaþen[a] þreatum
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah
egsode eorl{e} syððan ærest wear(ð)
feasceaft funden he þæs frofre geba(d)
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah.
oð þ him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde
gomban gyldan þ wæs god cyning.



Shakespeare:
Thunder and lightning. Enter three Witches
First Witch
When shall we three meet again
In thunder, lightning, or in rain?

Second Witch
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.

Third Witch
That will be ere the set of sun.

First Witch
Where the place?

Second Witch
Upon the heath.

Third Witch
There to meet with Macbeth.

First Witch
I come, Graymalkin!

Second Witch
Paddock calls.

Third Witch
Anon.

ALL
Fair is foul, and foul is fair:
Hover through the fog and filthy air.

Exeunt


I do hope you can see the difference.


When I mean old english I mean the stuff you can't understand such as;

'Tis a goodday, the and thay wife are to venture to skegness to barsk in the sunlight from the heavens.'

I made that up to show you how difficult it is to understand at least it was difficult to understand as a fourteen year-old.

I know, disgusting that magnificent music like that should be defiled by being part of the sound track to that film...
Bah. Radiohead is not music.

When I mean old english I mean the stuff you can't understand such as;

'Tis a goodday, the and thay wife are to venture to skegness to barsk in the sunlight from the heavens.'

I made that up to show you how difficult it is to understand at least it was difficult to understand as a fourteen year-old.

Then you must have been a particularly slow fourteen year old.

I am personally of the opinion that all "classics" are overrated. They are good certainly, but not really any better than anything good from today.


I don't know about that. . .I'm thinking I could probably get a better reflection of the human condition out of MacBeth than I could The Devil Wears Prada.

Shakespeare isn't a great mind in the normal sense of the term. He never creates a theory of human behavior or an argument for a universal condition. In that respect, then, he is far behind other thinkers and writers like Aristotle or Plato. Heck, if you want argumentation, he's a long way behind even his relative contemporaries Rene Descartes and John Locke.

He is, however, an outstanding observer of humanity, and unmatched in demonstrating how the oftentimes our greatest weakness is often our greatest strength put to the wrong test. He's incomparable within the English tradition in two respects: he is the best writer at fleshing a character into someone we really could believe would fall or rise as the character falls or rises, and he's bar none when it comes to literary flourish; even the King James edition of the Bible cannot compare to Shakespeare when it comes to purely breathtaking prose.

Bah. Radiohead is not music.
True, verily, it is the nectar of the gods.

Then you must have been a particularly slow fourteen year old.

Or someone that didn't Value Education. When did you first study Shakespeare?

Was Shakespeare a genius? Absolutely. Shakespeare was the popular culture of the past that endured the test of time. Any work that can be read centuries later and still be appreciated on this kind of level is genius, not to mention that most of his plays, if not ALL, are seamlessly written with deep psychological insights that not many of his time had. Don't say he's not a good writer just because modern movie adaptations are stupid or that it's hard to understand. The way he writes and some of the words he use often gives you a sense of the context that not many authors can create. Shakespeare also invented many words still used in the modern English language. His plays and works are good for entertainment and deeper analysis, and that's what makes it so genius.

I don't think that Shakespeare's a bad writer. In fact, some of his stuff impresses me. He's not, however, one of my favourites. Nothing against him; I just prefer stuff slightly more contemporary (ie: Bronte sisters, TS Eliot, etc. NOT Dan Brown, JK Rowling, etc.). On the question of whether or not he was a genius, I have no answer. There are still plenty of questions about some of his work, and, unless I can time travel back to the Elizabethan era and administer various IQ tests, I cannot tell you how intelligent the bard was.

True, verily, it is the nectar of the gods.
See, I just don't get it. If Thom Yorke wrote a book (a short one), I'd probably read it. Because yes, he has a nice turn of phrase - even then, I don't think he's the great lyricist he's made out to be sometimes. But listen to him? Ugh, no. Because he cannot sing.

Plus they're indirectly responsible for Coldplay.

Or someone that didn't Value Education. When did you first study Shakespeare?
I believe I was 12.

First form English. An Introduction to Shakespeare, or somesuch.

Probably studied him before that, but that's the earliest I can remember.

See, I just don't get it. If Thom Yorke wrote a book (a short one), I'd probably read it. Because yes, he has a nice turn of phrase - even then, I don't think he's the great lyricist he's made out to be sometimes. But listen to him? Ugh, no. Because he cannot sing.

He can't sing?

No other voice would ever be as good for their music as his is.

And, unlike most bands, the voice in Radiohead is for many songs secondary to the music, or it acts just as another instrument.

Plus they're indirectly responsible for Coldplay.

Which means they're indirectly responsible for "Parachutes". That's a good thing.

He can't sing?

No other voice would ever be as good for their music as his is.

And, unlike most bands, the voice in Radiohead is for many songs secondary to the music, or it acts just as another instrument.
(Obligatory cheap shot: "yeah, an out of tune one, hurr hurr")

Ok. Well, I just have never got them, musically, and I've made my peace with that. There's a pianist (Christopher someone, I think) who plays Radiohead tracks, and I didn't even like that, so I accept they're just a blind spot for me. But I am yet to be convinced that his wailing is "deliberate", and not merely like that because he wants us to feel pain.

Which means they're indirectly responsible for "Parachutes". That's a good thing.
Yeah, Parachutes is ok. But Rush of Blood and X&Y are awful, especially the latter.

There were recent discussions that none of the works were his, that it was infact that work of his cousin, who, due to his position in the Government, was unable to print the works in his own name.

What cousin?
There are a lot of "suspects", but frankly, none of the arguments seemed too compelling to me. One theory is that it was Christopher Marlowe, which makes no sense as he was ALREADY a playwright -- and he was murdered before Shakespeare's later plays were written.

Wouldn't you prefer to read something in the proper English that we use today though? I admit his plays have good storylines and would make good skeletons for modern films but I think people are deterred by all the Middle-English malarky.


First of all, it's not Middle English. It's Early Modern English. Secondly, I question calling what I hear and see on the screens and page today "proper English". Thirdly, it sounds as if your objection is that you find it too difficult to read -- which is remarkable, considering it's virtually the same language.

What cousin?
There are a lot of "suspects", but frankly, none of the arguments seemed too compelling to me. One theory is that it was Christopher Marlowe, which makes no sense as he was ALREADY a playwright -- and he was murdered before Shakespeare's later plays were written.
Furthermore, his style is really different to Shakespeare's. As much as anything, he's nothing like as good: so why write all the great stuff under someone else's name, and claim personal credit for a second-rate version of Faust? No, Marlowe's right out. And my take on all this conspiracy stuff is: I don't care. They could have been written by a ten-foot pyramid of blancmange for all it matters - the words count, and that's it.

(Obligatory cheap shot: "yeah, an out of tune one, hurr hurr")

Ok. Well, I just have never got them, musically, and I've made my peace with that. There's a pianist (Christopher someone, I think) who plays Radiohead tracks, and I didn't even like that, so I accept they're just a blind spot for me. But I am yet to be convinced that his wailing is "deliberate", and not merely like that because he wants us to feel pain.

Radiohead, despite the stupid view many people have of then, don't do pointedly depressing music or lyrics. Some of their stuff is a bit downbeat, but alot of it is completely the opposite.

So, no, I very much doubt it's because he wants us to 'feel pain'.


Yeah, Parachutes is ok. But Rush of Blood and X&Y are awful, especially the latter.

A Rush of Blood To The Head had some cracking songs on it.

X&Y is shit.

Shakespeare is my favorite writer and i think that whether or not he is one of the best writers in history, he is one of the most influential. So many books, plays, scripts, etc. written today have Shakespearean elements. I just love what he did with words, how lyrical and poetic everything was, even his prose. As someone said, he was also a wonderful observer of the human condition and human behaviour. One thing he often did, was create situations which made the audience laugh, but at the same time, made them ashamed of their laughter. The Merchant of Venice is an example of that. He used the stereotype of Jews to create Shylock the money-lender and the audience would laugh at certain things that happened to him, but at the same time, me made them feel bad for laughing.

What he also had the uncanny ability to do was write a play about recent history, such as a relative of Elizabeth or James, so that the audience would know exactly who he was talking about, but the person he was mocking wouldn't. With his sonnets it was the opposite, as with most sonneteers, he wrote his poems about particular people. Those people knew the poems were addressed to them, the general public didn't, but even without knowing, they were still able to enjoy them, simply because of how he wrote them.

Now all that being said, it's all subjective. I've never liked Charles Dickens, yet some people consider him to be a great writer.

As for Romeo and Juliet, i do like it, but not because i think it is the best written one, just because i like love stories. When it comes to his writing itself, i prefer Hamlet and Macbeth.

Shakespeare is actually not that difficult to understand, his writing is easier to understand than some that came later.

Radiohead, despite the stupid view many people have of then, don't do pointedly depressing music or lyrics. Some of their stuff is a bit downbeat, but alot of it is completely the opposite.
I know that - I was just being vague and flippant really. All my friends adore Radiohead and go on and on and on and on and on about how uplifting they can be. I know that. But to me, it always sounds nothing more than dreary, overcoat wearing bus-shelter music.

I think the term genious is overused and has become somewhat meaningless. Shakespeare was a talented writer and psychologist who would most likely have gone unnoticed in any other period of history. The country was ready and he was there. Without a doubt he is the most influencial writer of the English language in history and has had a far greater impact on the language than most people know.

I'd have to agree with the "people like him because we're taught to like him".
Then again, I haven't read all that much, simply because he doesn't interest me.
His stories skelectal plot lines are good, but they don't capitvate my attention. And we're just taught "He is a good writer. You will read it, and like it."
I can say this, because last year, we spent a bloody quarter of the school year (if not more) on Romeo and Juliet. I think the best part was the pun "Come back to me tommorow, and you'll find me a grave man" (something along those lines).

We're taught to like him, just because they need to fill up time, and so we can learn to appreciate something. Which is good, but he's really not that good... I think that is the same with Ray Bradberry as well. His storys are good, but just not that good...

I did notice that he misplaced the preposition for one of Romeo's lines. It ruined the whole act for me; it's a wonder I understood it.


That's not a function of the language per se, that was more of his fitting the line into iambic pentameter.

I know that - I was just being vague and flippant really. All my friends adore Radiohead and go on and on and on and on and on about how uplifting they can be. I know that. But to me, it always sounds nothing more than dreary, overcoat wearing bus-shelter music.
Listen to it more then :p

Well, I can understand pretty much all of it, but mainly because I studied it for a year ;)

But yeah, Middle English has a certain...distant familiarity. You can understand alot of it, and it feels just like 'home', but there are some parts that you just don't understand.


Strangely enough, though, my students when faced with Chaucer, understand it in the original when written; when they hear how it's pronounced, though, their eyes glaze over. ;)

Some of the Teachers thought it would be a good Idea to put the more modern Version on the TV for us staring Leonardo de Caprio every time they left the room we would ever just mess about or rewind it to the beginning.

A teacher who leaves the room and leaves students unsupervised is 1) very foolish and 2) risking their job.

When I mean old english I mean the stuff you can't understand such as;

'Tis a goodday, the and thay wife are to venture to skegness to barsk in the sunlight from the heavens.'

I made that up to show you how difficult it is to understand at least it was difficult to understand as a fourteen year-old.

Yes, because those words are nonsense words that never existed.

Strangely enough, though, my students when faced with Chaucer, understand it in the original when written; when they hear how it's pronounced, though, their eyes glaze over. ;)
When I hear it I can understand maybe 1/2 what I can when I read it.

Genius, that's hard to say. Is he THE writer of the English language, yes, yes, and YES! The man took his storylines from elsewhere (only a few of his plays were not copied from earlier works), and yet it is his plays that have survived all these years. The effects of Shakespeare on our culture and language would be very hard to overstate. You may never have read Hamlet, but will automatcially get the joke in Bugs Bunny when he says, "2B, or not 2B! That is the question." We get the referance to Romeo and Juliet on cell phone adverts. Not to mention that Shakespeare invented a lot of words currently used by us.

And of course many of his plays comes down to us in the form of sayings. Pound of flesh, anyone?

Someone mentioned that his plays make good bases for movies, but this fails to understand that many movies draw from Shakespeare, even movies that you don't think about have Shakespearean elements.

His prose was unique and beautiful, his sence of character profound, and his ability to balance between the comic and the tragic, magical. No, it is not so much that he is over hyped, he cannot be with the influance he has had on our language; maybe rather it is hard to read him now because he has had so much influance. Perhaps he seems boring because we are surounded by his works all the time.

Still, he is, and always will be, the Bard.

Besides, he's also one of the raunchest authors I know, and you gotta love him for that.

Strangely enough, though, my students when faced with Chaucer, understand it in the original when written; when they hear how it's pronounced, though, their eyes glaze over. ;)
Really? I found that I liked it better when read than when I was reading it. Of course Middle English vowel sounds are actualy closer to how Japanese pronounce theirs so I may have just been used to it and ready to accept that kind of phrasing.

Old English:
HWÆT WE GARDE na in geardagum
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon
hu ða æþelingas elle(n) fremedon.
Oft scyld scefing sceaþen[a] þreatum
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah
egsode eorl{e} syððan ærest wear(ð)
feasceaft funden he þæs frofre geba(d)
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah.
oð þ him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde
gomban gyldan þ wæs god cyning.

Beowulf?

Beowulf?
Yup.

Yup.
One of these days I WILL go back and take that Old English course and I WILL read that epic in the language it was orginally written in. I enjoyed Chaucer far more when I read it in Middle English so I assume the same would hold with that particular work. ;)

One of these days I WILL go back and take that Old English course and I WILL read that epic in the language it was orginally written in. I enjoyed Chaucer far more when I read it in Middle English so I assume the same would hold with that particular work. ;)
I'd love to be able to understand it in the Old English. I'll probably learn it sometime, when I'm bored or something.

His plots are... dodgy. I mean, a random encounter with Pirates to get Hamlet home? What? But his characters and speeches... My god its good... I think its partly that we are enveloped with it and so used to it...

No, I never read 'Keep the Aphidistra Flying', on the other hand I have read "Keep the Aspidistra Flying". Personally I do not think Orwell to be over-hyped.

Dan Brown is over-hyped. J.K Rowling is over-hyped.

Shakespeare and Orwell are not over-hyped, though admittedly they aren't everyone's cup of tea.
IT'S A HARD WORD TO SPELL.





(damnit)

One of the tests of genius is the test of time. Shakespeare's work is as relevant today as it was in Elizabethan England. I have not read all of his work, but I have read some and I've seen several of the plays. It's astonishing how many phrases from his plays have become "household words" (that phrase is from Henry V, incidentally).

The man was a genius, regardless of what he smoked.

I used to feel like the OP until I saw a Shakespeare play with a girlfriend of mine. It suddenly became oh so much more intelligent to me.

I'm glad I found why it's so worth knowing about.

One of the tests of genius is the test of time. Shakespeare's work is as relevant today as it was in Elizabethan England. I have not read all of his work, but I have read some and I've seen several of the plays. It's astonishing how many phrases from his plays have become "household words" (that phrase is from Henry V, incidentally).

The man was a genius, regardless of what he smoked.
And not just that, but also the effect he had on writers who followed him. Practically every writer of the last two to three hundred years has reacted in some way to Shakespeare, whether aping him or reacting against him. That's the true nature of genius.

Then you must have been a particularly slow fourteen year old.
Not to put too fine a point on it...

Yes, and I think that it has been so deeply scrutinized by the English brigade that it is given FAR more credit than deserved.

Your really going to have to provide reasons for this argument. His primary genieus was in being able to use both Iambic pentamiter and rhyming couplets almost univerally throught his plays and still being able to tell a story. Also remember that your view of his works is tainted by the era you come from. In Shakespeare's time, the theatre was about the only form of entertainment there was

Yeah, that's crap. Plus, it has a song by Radiohead. *vomits*Yeah, but that was before Radiohead started to suck.

There are a lot of "suspects", but frankly, none of the arguments seemed too compelling to me. One theory is that it was Christopher Marlowe, which makes no sense as he was ALREADY a playwright -- and he was murdered before Shakespeare's later plays were written.The theory holds that Marlowe faked his death to avoid being prosecuted for heresy, and of course if he faked his death then he couldn't write more plays under his own name.

Furthermore, his style is really different to Shakespeare's. As much as anything, he's nothing like as good: so why write all the great stuff under someone else's name, and claim personal credit for a second-rate version of Faust?Aren't Henry VI, Richard III, and Titus Andronicus thought to be very stylistically similar to Marlowe?

Who cares who wrote it? It's like asking who wrote the Odyssey. The work is what matters, unless you're one of those fools who says "He was a middle class tradesman so OF COURSE he would write that". But they are beneath contempt.

Aren't Henry VI, Richard III, and Titus Andronicus thought to be very stylistically similar to Marlowe?
I haven't studied Marlowe enough to say, but they were contemporaries, and so would have been influenced similarly. But even if the man we call William Shakespeare didn't write every word of the plays credited to him--and I'm not conceding that--the legend of Shakespeare is the thing that is really under discussion here.

It's probably fair to say that a lot of people who have issues with Shakespeare were turned off him by HAVING to study him at school. I first encountered his work when I was quite young, probably 8 or so when my parents started taking me to the theatre (beyond the xmas panto!) and first read Hamlet before I went to secondary school. So by the time we got round to studying him I was already a fan and enjoyed reading the plays out loud in class, unlike most of my classmates.

I did drama right through school and my degree was in drama, film & tv, so was exposed to him a lot, not to mention going to see a couple of performances a year and appearing in a contemporary production of Romeo & Juliet at 13. Seeing the plays is a must before passing judgement on them. They are plays afterall, not novels! I just didn't "get" Beckett until I saw his work on stage.

I actually really like the Baz Luhrmann film of R&J (and its soundtrack), I'm not what some people might call a "purist", I think one of the true signs of the genius of Shakespeare is that the plays can be adapted to a modern context, they are timeless. You'll notice that hardly a word was changed for the film, and yet it doesn't feel anything other than modern because of the ways some terms have been re-interpreted (longsword as a shot gun, love it!). The version I was in was set in a nightclub and had scaffolding all over the stage. I'm open minded.

Anyway, not everyone is going to like the same things, it's perfectly ok to not enjoy Shakespeare. But to dismiss him and put down the people who do appreciate him is unfair and somewhat immature. It sounds rather like "it's crap 'cuz we had to do it at school" to me, rather than any kind of critical analysis leading to the personal opinion that his plays are simply not to one's taste.

I haven't studied Marlowe enough to say, but they were contemporaries, and so would have been influenced similarly. But even if the man we call William Shakespeare didn't write every word of the plays credited to him--and I'm not conceding that--the legend of Shakespeare is the thing that is really under discussion here.True, this particular discussion is off topic. I do like the theory, though.

Anyway, as I've said, I think Shakespeare would be more enjoyable if the language was translated in a more modern way.

I like Shakespear, but he does seem to have borrowed a lot from the ancient greeks in some of his plays..

I like Shakespear, but he does seem to have borrowed a lot from the ancient greeks in some of his plays..
And the Romans, and the history of England. Few people understand that the idea of an original story is very new to literature. Hell, the idea of intellectual property in general is new. Twain said "Good writers borrow, great writers steal," and he was right, because great writers understand the tradition they're stealing from when they tranfsform old stories into new works of art.

I adore Shakespeare. He's EASILY my favourite playwrite, and EASILY one of my favourite writers, period. It doesn't matter that he borrowed plots - he added emotional depths to them that no one had ever managed to do before. His genius comes from his perfect explorations of humanity. He was looking at madness as something that ISN'T comical (Hamlet, King Lear etc.) long before anyone else did. His work is complicated, and that's why I love it.

I adore Shakespeare. He's EASILY my favourite playwrite, and EASILY one of my favourite writers, period. It doesn't matter that he borrowed plots - he added emotional depths to them that no one had ever managed to do before. His genius comes from his perfect explorations of humanity. He was looking at madness as something that ISN'T comical (Hamlet, King Lear etc.) long before anyone else did. His work is complicated, and that's why I love it.

Just so you know, it's a playwright.
Well, I don't really enjoy plays, so I have nothing with which to compare him...but he seems all right.

It doesn't matter that he borrowed plots - he added emotional depths to them that no one had ever managed to do before. Have you read any of the plays he based work on? They're great works in their own right. Claims of the type "no one .. ever .." seem a bit strong in general.

I used to feel like the OP until I saw a Shakespeare play with a girlfriend of mine. It suddenly became oh so much more intelligent to me.

I'm glad I found why it's so worth knowing about.
It isn't worth learning about because you don't learn about them as plays, they are taught as books, stories if you will. That is why they suck. No English class goes to a Shakespeare festival to show people the plays, they just read them and take them apart and test on them. Oh sure, if you're lucky a teacher might select people and read it outloud, but that is reading outloud and the people doing it are not players.

And the worst part is, you don't learn about anyone else. Faulkner can go to hell.

It isn't worth learning about because you don't learn about them as plays, they are taught as books, stories if you will. That is why they suck. No English class goes to a Shakespeare festival to show people the plays, they just read them and take them apart and test on them. Oh sure, if you're lucky a teacher might select people and read it outloud, but that is reading outloud and the people doing it are not players.

And the worst part is, you don't learn about anyone else. Faulkner can go to hell.

Oh dear. What school did you go to?! We disected Shakespear in English; designed costumes and stage sets in art and textiles; and most importantly performed the plays, went to see them and used passages for analysis in drama. At A Level we went to Stratford for a long weekend to see his home and performed various pieces on the lawns of The Swan!

I'm sorry that your experience of Shakespeare at school was such a negative one. I can understand that you wouldn't be enthused just from reading aloud in a class or two.

Shakespeare is great.
The most amusing thing is hearing arrogant upper class people talking about going to see Shakespeare, when the plays were written for the peasants!

And the Romans, and the history of England. Few people understand that the idea of an original story is very new to literature. Hell, the idea of intellectual property in general is new. Twain said "Good writers borrow, great writers steal," and he was right, because great writers understand the tradition they're stealing from when they tranfsform old stories into new works of art.
And then some, IIRC, only The Tempest, his last work, isn't heavily borrowing from something else (I could be very wrong, but my Shakespeare book is back at home so...). Most of his plays took basic plot points from all over the place, stories, other plays, and the like.

He fleshed them out a lot more though.

Shakespeare is great.
The most amusing thing is hearing arrogant upper class people talking about going to see Shakespeare, when the plays were written for the peasants!
Um, actually he wrote for both. He had the higher class parts of his plays and the rawdy comedy to keep the masses entertained. MacB is a good example of this mixture, looking at the comedic scene with the doorman for example vs MacB's speeches.

Even if Shakespeare didn’t write his own works, as some claim, the man or woman who did write them was a genius.

Not to put too fine a point on it...
:p

Shakespeare is great.
The most amusing thing is hearing arrogant upper class people talking about going to see Shakespeare, when the plays were written for the peasants!

Funny thing is, many of his plays were commissioned by the ruling monarch. Queen Elizabeth I was a big fan.

You do realise that the theatre isn't exactly expensive entertainment don't you? If you mean to imply that only "upper class", ie. rich, people go to see Shakespeare at the theatre these days then you'd be sadly mistaken.

I'm sorry that your school never took you on subsidised school trips to the theatre, or that your parents never took you to open air (perhaps free or v cheap like some I've been to) performances.