Can someone explain to me why Shakespeare is considered Great?

[triplesick]

Sincere question. I don't doubt that he is. My favorite writer, Flaubert, once praised Tolstoy be saying he was on par with Shakespeare. This surprised me, because Madame Bovary struck me as being, to some degree, a rebellion against crowd-pleasing foolishness like "Romeo and Juliet." (By 'crowd-pleasing foolishness,' of course, I mean to illustrate my reaction to it, not to firmly condemn it.)

One thing that might be the problem: I've never read Hamlet. Will reading it answer my question for me?

Some other things that might help in the diagnosis:
--after Flaubert, my favorites are (in no order) Tolstoy, Celine, Henry James, Nabokov, Lermontov.
--i tend to prioritize substance over aesthetics, but only in a sine qua non sense. in a work in find meaningful, i pay close attention to aesthetics; if i find the ideas on which it is built to be false, i have no interest in its aesthetic achievements.
--atheist and a bit cynical.

[JBI]

Read him and decide for yourself if he is great or not. If you can't see the genius there, then why should we bother showing it to you?

[mayneverhave]

Hamlet is most likely more cynical than you.

[Drkshadow03]

Because Harold Bloom said so, of course!

[islandclimber]

what does your list of favourite writers have to do with whether you could see the greatness in Shakespeare or not? Is your list far beyond Shakespeare? Celine? Lermontov? Honestly "A Hero of our Time" pales in comparison to any number of Shakespeare works, some examples: Macbeth, King Lear, Richard III, Hamlet, and this is disregarding comedy...

and how are the ideas behind the work of Shakespeare false? they are just part of social commentary on the human condition, and I would say much broader in scope, and deeper in depth than even a writer such as Tolstoy, who limited his persepective almost entirely to aristocratic early 19th century Russia...

by the way, good answer DrkShadow! ;) of course Harold Bloom's word is infallible, he is the Pope of literature!!!

[JBI]

what does your list of favourite writers have to do with whether you could see the greatness in Shakespeare or not? Is your list far beyond Shakespeare? Celine? Lermontov? Honestly "A Hero of our Time" pales in comparison to any number of Shakespeare works, some examples: Macbeth, King Lear, Richard III, Hamlet, and this is disregarding comedy...

and how are the ideas behind the work of Shakespeare false? they are just part of social commentary on the human condition, and I would say much broader in scope, and deeper in depth than even a writer such as Tolstoy, who limited his persepective almost entirely to aristocratic early 19th century Russia...

by the way, good answer DrkShadow! ;) of course Harold Bloom's word is infallible, he is the Pope of literature!!!

That's interpretation - Shakespeare merely meant, it would seem, to amuse his audience - whether there is a deep insight or not is irrelevant - that is mere interpretation - the greatness of Shakespeare isn't decided by academics telling people he is great, by him being seen and admired (the most preformed playwright so people are watching). The actual valuing of Shakespeare has nothing to do with the academy though - the academy just assumes he is great, because, well, they read him and made their minds up - only Harold Bloom and mediocre critics obsessed with "Defending the Western Canon" or whatever from an evil enemy, or school room teachers trying to get bored kids to pay attention, would bother making these claims -

The poster already says he likes some good authors - no need to play the better worse game, just let him read the texts and decide for himself.

[triplesick]

Thank you JBI. I like your perspective that greatness is in the eye of the beholder. Permit me, however, to inquire further. You are saying that Shakespeare is not treasured for the "message" or "meaning" his plays, but that the pleasure in Shakespeare is in the raw, direct amusement/entertainment? I can believe this, but if this is true, what makes him Great rather than great? Is it just that it's really old? Is he considered to be more amusing/entertaining than any other playwright, before or since? Thank you for your insight.

Thank the others of you for your replies as well, I suppose, but it was a real question, not an arbitrary slandering. Restated, my request is this: can you explain to me what makes Shakespeare one of the greats? Your personal opinion or otherwise.

(though I am not above bickering. for one,


If you can't see the genius there, then why should we bother showing it to you?

BECAUSE I ASKED YOU TO. Jeez. wanna fight?

for two, i listed my favorite writers as an indication of what i enjoy, thinking perhaps you would say, "aha, you don't get shakespeare because you only like things that are ____!" I didn't say anything about Lermontov being better than Shakespeare...wtf?

for three, i didn't accuse shakespeare's ideas of being false. wtf? i was just trying to communicate, generally, the way i approach a book, so perhaps you could say, "aha! you don't get shakespeare because you are approaching him from the wrong angle!")

[Mathor]

JBI was being very sincere in his response. Read Hamlet (my personal favorite). If it does not move you in any way than I am afraid you will never like Shakespeare. That is not to say you do not appreciate good literature, but it just means you are in the small percentile of people who do not see Shakespeare's greatness.

[LitNetIsGreat]

You don't even need to read a full play to see his genius, you could just flick through at random and find something of great worth there. I am just reading Coriolanus, it is one of a few that I have not read, and within the first few pages I wonder why I bother reading anything other than Shakespeare!

What makes Shakespeare one of the greats?

For me it is the language and character and the prevailing philosophy which runs through his work which shows a deep understanding of life, and, what it means to be human, the folly and faults of man, the underlying motivations etc. Really, apart from character, you don't even have to look passed the sonnets to see these things shine through in the text. For me also it is how Shakespeare manages to convey so much in so little words - effortlessly, with simple word choice he expresses so much. This is without talking about the dramatic nature of the work, the perfect sense of timing, the balance between light and dark, comic and tragic within any given play, the sense of humour conveyed, the beautiful imagery evoked, the substance of any given character, the external elements - the minor references to words which together add comment to the main theme/s of any given work, the perfect control of tone, etc, etc... above all it is just the feeling I get when I sit down to read the words, I just know I am in the presence of a master of language there is no real need to explain it, the sense and worldly wisdom is just there conveyed within the words on the page.

[wessexgirl]

You don't even need to read a full play to see his genius, you could just flick through at random and find something of great worth there. I am just reading Coriolanus, it is one of a few that I have not read, and within the first few pages I wonder why I bother read anything other than Shakespeare!

What makes Shakespeare one of the greats?

For me it is the language and character and the prevailing philosophy which runs through his work which shows a deep understanding of life, and, what it means to be human, the folly and faults of man, the underlying motivations etc. Really, apart from character, you don't even have to look passed the sonnets to see these things shine through in the text. For me also it is how Shakespeare manages to convey so much in so little words - effortlessly, with simple word choice he expresses so much. This is without talking about the dramatic nature of the work, the perfect sense of timing, the balance between light and dark, comic and tragic within any given play, the sense of humour conveyed, the beautiful imagery evoked, the substance of any given character, the external elements - the minor references to words which together add comment to the main theme/s of any given work, the perfect control of tone, etc, etc... above all it is just the feeling I get when I sit down to read the words, I just know I am in the presence of a master of language there is no real need to explain it, the sense and worldly wisdom is just there conveyed within the words on the page.

Ditto :thumbs_up.

I would urge you to read as much as you can, and watch the productions in the theatre, if you can, or on screen. I'm sure you will see what Neely means. By the way, welcome to the site. We aren't all as brusque.

[mal4mac]

What's wrong with crowd pleasing foolishness?

Shakespeare is a lot more than that of course, but if you look through blinkers of ignorance for foolishness you might find only that and miss the rest. Keep on reading, you might eventually 'get it'. When your head explodes in pure aesthetic pleasure and cognitive apotheosis after reading one of of Prospero's speeches (in context) you will be there...

By the way, it's not only Harold Bloom who says Shakespeare is the greatest, most other great critics and writers say the same. One exception is Tolstoy. Maybe Tolstoy couldn't handle knowing he was great (which he is) but just not quite the greatest...

[DanielBenoit]

Everything that Neely said.

I strongly urge you to read Hamlet, maybe not first, but definitley read it. I will envy the experience you will have.

To see if you like Shakespeare or not, read some of his Sonnets. Then try out one of the plays, Macbeth is great for an inroduction to his tragedy, also it's his shortest. A Midsummer's Nights Dream is probably in my opinion his best comedy and is just a delight.

[JCamilo]

It is not that crowd pleasing foolishness is more important than the deeper meanings behind his texts, it is that was his primary intention and how he got famous. Yeah, Shakespeare is enterteiment. It is Harold Bloom that make him be the next prophet and we that take seriously his texts.
Anyways, Tolstoy is not the only critic that attacked Shakespeare in a way or another. All Unanimity is dumb. Shakespeare is important in Drama, but even in areas he did not worked, such as Novels, he gave his contribution. Even with the list of writers you posted, Nabokov and James own a lot of Shakespeare.
Another thing, aesthetics is substance. Still baffles me when someone suggests that aesthetics is just meaningless beauty. A field of philosophy is not substance? There is of course those who confund effects with style, but that is a mistake even from aesthetical point of view. And aesthetics is not only that, when we get on giants like Shakespeare, Nabokov, Tolstoy theme and style are body and soul. That is probally what make them great.
About Cynical and atheism... some suggest that Shakespeare could be one, altough that is irrelevant. As Cynical, pay attention to Romeo and Juliet. How it is a loving little thing at the begining, opthimistic and all. The rythim of the play is fast paced, lightly, and almost everything is basead on something that went wrong, like a Comedy of Errors, then pay attention to the sunden change of the tone, Romeo darkening, the idea of the poison, the fact they kill each other for mistakes that we find in a Brother Marx comedy, how it may also be a critic to youth harshness in love, yet the saddest story ever told... I doubt someone can not say that Shakespeare is a cynical critical that is far superior to, lets say, James, because he is also richer in emotions.

[Paulclem]

Milk of human kindness (Macbeth)


Mum's the word

Rhyme nor reason

Eat drink and be merry

Sound and fury (Macbeth)

This mortal coil (Hamlet)

Love is blind (Merchant of Venice)

Fool's paradise (Romeo and Juliet)

Break the ice (The Taming of the Shrew)

The above phrases are a random selection of idioms from Shakespeares plays that you can view at the two links below. Quite simply he contributed more to the English language than any other writer. These are all used today in ordinary speech, books, films and politician's speeches. You may have been using a Shakespearian phrase all your life. How many writers can you say that about? This is before you begin to take the excellent posts about his sonnets and plays into consideration.

Here are the links. I don't think their lists are exhaustive, but just an example.

http://www.pathguy.com/shakeswo.htm

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/phrases-sayings-shakespeare.html

[Homers_child]

The first plays I read of Shakespeare were Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar. And I thought they were well-written and clever. I thought R&J was beautiful and JC had good speeches but I didn't really understand what the hype was about either.

That was before I'd read Hamlet and Macbeth. Then it hit me like a brick wall. The way he wrote those characters with their faults and everything... the man really did understand human nature. Since then, I've read Othello, Much Ado About Nothing and currently reading Richard III for the first time. Which the latter has really caught my attention. But so far, Hamlet is the one that really captured my heart and every time I read it I can't help but fawn over every line and scene. The characters have such depth.

I mean, everyone always fawns over Hamlet. I hope you don't have super expectations so that it doesn't fulfill them. But it's everyone's favorite for a reason. And you may need to read it a few times. I didn't fully appreciate it on the first read, I missed a lot. ;)

But like others said, he really influenced the English language as well.

[Paulclem]

When you consider his background too - a glovemakers son educated at the local Stratford-Upon-Avon school in latin - his only experience of great theatre likely to have been in the city of Coventry, which was renowned for its Mystery Plays, and the theatrical entertainments put on for Quen Elizabeth I at nearby Kenilworth castle, before his emigration to London.

It often seems that Shakespeae is elitist because his works are promoted, discussed and written about in acaemic circles, but he was not an academic. He wasn't wealthy, at least when he was writing the plays, and he hadn't been to University. He was basically earning his crust when he wrote the plays. He was an ordinary man with an extraordinary talent.

[Paulclem]

Sorry re-wrote post again in error.

[WiseCookie]

You don't even need to read a full play to see his genius, you could just flick through at random and find something of great worth there. I am just reading Coriolanus, it is one of a few that I have not read, and within the first few pages I wonder why I bother reading anything other than Shakespeare!

What makes Shakespeare one of the greats?

For me it is the language and character and the prevailing philosophy which runs through his work which shows a deep understanding of life, and, what it means to be human, the folly and faults of man, the underlying motivations etc. Really, apart from character, you don't even have to look passed the sonnets to see these things shine through in the text. For me also it is how Shakespeare manages to convey so much in so little words - effortlessly, with simple word choice he expresses so much. This is without talking about the dramatic nature of the work, the perfect sense of timing, the balance between light and dark, comic and tragic within any given play, the sense of humour conveyed, the beautiful imagery evoked, the substance of any given character, the external elements - the minor references to words which together add comment to the main theme/s of any given work, the perfect control of tone, etc, etc... above all it is just the feeling I get when I sit down to read the words, I just know I am in the presence of a master of language there is no real need to explain it, the sense and worldly wisdom is just there conveyed within the words on the page.

This states quite well why Shakespeare is great. I just wanted to add that although everyone is saying you need to read the plays, I would also suggest that you either see a live performance or rent one of the movie adaptations. After all, these are plays, not novels. They are (or were, originally) meant to be experienced acted out on stage. I love to read and study the plays, don't get me wrong, but to see it acted out takes it to a new level of understanding and appreciation. Plus, it's fun.

[Paulclem]

I would also suggest that you either see a live performance or rent one of the movie adaptations.

Definately. It helps with the comprehension of 16th century language, and is how it was originally intended to be enjoyed.

[March Hare]

Because Harold Bloom said so, of course!

:lol: I commend your pithy retort.

OP, it takes a while to appreciate Shakespeare. There is a language barrier to overcome as well as the dramatic format. But once you get into the flow after reading a few plays and a few over again I think you'll find him quite to your satisfaction.

[catatonic]

It's all about the 'turn of phrase' when speaking of Shakespeare, the very thing Flaubert made his religion.

You're right to think Hamlet exemplifies Shakespeare's art, but I would be wary of extrapolating life lessons from Hamlet's philosophical musings. Revenge is the cause after all.