Just how good is Shakespeare?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Hi, I am just interested to hear what others think about Shakespeare’s status as a writer. How would he compare with the great writers from other cultures in particular, and who are they?

I think it is safe to say that from an English viewpoint he is generally regarded as the best writer in English by most academics, though some think his status has been somewhat inflated by the English literary canon.

It is probably save to say that the best writers/poets can be traced back to ancient Greece or to the Latin writers such as Ovid, but as ever I am interested in the thoughts of others.

Thanks.

[jgweed]

Shakespeare:literature::Beethoven:music

[stlukesguild]

Just how good is Shakespeare?
Hi, I am just interested to hear what others think about Shakespeare’s status as a writer. How would he compare with the great writers from other cultures in particular, and who are they?

I think it is safe to say that from an English viewpoint he is generally regarded as the best writer in English by most academics, though some think his status has been somewhat inflated by the English literary canon.

It is probably save to say that the best writers/poets can be traced back to ancient Greece or to the Latin writers such as Ovid...

Simply put... with all that I have read... he is simply the greatest author I have yet come upon. His use and inventiveness of language is magnificent. His invention and development of character is unmatched. There are authors that may match him... or even surpass him... in one or more elements, but none approach his breadth. If forced to live with only one writer for a year... or for life... I would have no second doubts who my choice would be. Who compares with Shakespeare... most favorably? Homer, perhaps Sophocles and Aeschylus would had more survived, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Chaucer, Milton, Montaigne... I'm tempted to say Victor Hugo, Virgil, the Bible, Proust, and of course Dante. Is it safe to say that the best writers/poets can be traced back to the ancient "classical" world? Certainly many of the best have roots in that heritage, but many of the best come from any number of cultures and eras; Blake, Keats, Holderlin, Baudelaire, Tolstoy, Dante, Cervantes, Proust, Whitman, Dickinson, Rilke, Ferdowsi, Li Po, Lady Murasaki, J.L. Borges, Samuel Beckett... can all hold their own with the finest of any time or place.

[stlukesguild]

Not Beethoven... Bach.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Simply put... with all that I have read... he is simply the greatest author I have yet come upon. His use and inventiveness of language is magnificent. His invention and development of character is unmatched. There are authors that may match him... or even surpass him... in one or more elements, but none approach his breadth. If forced to live with only one writer for a year... or for life... I would have no second doubts who my choice would be. Who compares with Shakespeare... most favorably? Homer, perhaps Sophocles and Aeschylus would had more survived, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Chaucer, Milton, Montaigne... I'm tempted to say Victor Hugo, Virgil, the Bible, Proust, and of course Dante. Is it safe to say that the best writers/poets can be traced back to the ancient "classical" world? Certainly many of the best have roots in that heritage, but many of the best come from any number of cultures and eras; Blake, Keats, Holderlin, Baudelaire, Tolstoy, Dante, Cervantes, Proust, Whitman, Dickinson, Rilke, Ferdowsi, Li Po, Lady Murasaki, J.L. Borges, Samuel Beckett... can all hold their own with the finest of any time or place.

Thanks for you thoughts on this, reading that was interesting especially with you highlighting the names in comparison to Shakespeare. Maybe I should have worded the title of this thread differently because this is the sort of thing I was interested in, cultural comparisons of "the greats" and not just Shakespeare himself? Still it doesn't matter I suppose, I just wanted to hear as many people's opinions on this matter and it being moved may not help that.

Edit: I see you have already started such a thread, great.

I am a big fan of Shakespeare too, (isn't every reader, or nearly all?) I particular enjoy Shakespeare's use of language, for me he builds so much into so little, word choice, expression is done with ease and sincerity, and each play has its own integrity that stands up well to literary criticism. The philosophy inherent in the works of Macbeth and Hamlet seems so developed and comes with a deep understanding of human nature that just feels somehow real and genuine, if you know what I mean? I have read the majority of his works, though I have not read all of his histories as yet, I think Shakespeare appears to be more developed in his tragedies above all else.

All of the other writers you mentioned I have read or at least touched upon (big fan of Keats) apart from "Rilke, Ferdowsi, Li Po, Lady Murasaki, J.L. Borges, Sophocles and Aeschylus," though funnily enough I have a collected Sophocles in my hand now that I was about to read, (Elektra, Philoktetes, Oidipous?) so I might just dip into that along with a nice cup of tea and listen to the rain outside.

John.

Oh, and I love the Twain quotation.

[MorpheusSandman]

Not Beethoven... Bach.

Not Beethoven or Bach... Mozart

[Virgil]

Not Beethoven or Bach or Mozart...Verdi

[Jozanny]

Sorry, I have to chime in for Debussy; he is like Measure For Measure.

[Charles Darnay]

How good is Shakespeare? (holds arms as far apart as possible) THIS GOOD! (Sorry I had to do that when I saw the title!)

And..... Not: Beethoven, Bach, Mozart or Debussy but Vivaldi!

(Of course I say this as I listen to Mozart's clarinet concerto, one of the best pieces ever written (clarinet player's bias))

[Equality72521]

How good is Shakespeare?

Fan-freaking-tastic!!!


And: Mozart...my preferred choice

[JBI]

Not Beethoven... Bach.

Nah, Alexander Pope is far more like Bach.
If anyone, it would be Wagner, who seems to have drawn heavily from Shakespeare.
If I were to compare Beethoven to a poet, or writer, I would place him with Leopardi, as they both have a certain feel, brought about by their illnesses (Beethoven being deaf, Leopardi suffering from spinal collapse and turning into a hunchback).

[stlukesguild]

Of course I was comparing Shakespeare to Bach solely in terms of stature... although Bach might be better compared with the Bible in that, as Aaron Copeland phrased it, he is to music as God is to religion. Seriously, I don't know who to compare him with. His sheer output alone is phenomenal. He has more essential works to his name than Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert combined. In nearly every form that he worked he took that form to an unsurpassed level. Beethoven achieves something equal with the Symphony, the piano sonata, the string quartet... and arguably the piano concerto. Bach achieves this in the fugue, the toccata, the passacaglia, the concerti grossi, the works for solo cello, the work for solo violin, the prelude and fugue, the cantata, the oratorio, etc... Mozart... and maybe even Schubert might have equaled him had they not died so young but as much as I love them... Bach is God.

I have always thought of Rembrandt as the closest authentic artistic counterpart to Shakespeare as certainly he is the master of invented human characters. While Michelangelo is unquestionably the greater artist, he does not speak so much of the individual human as of humanity... and the longing for the ideal or the super-human. Vivaldi?! I do love him... but Stravinsky had a point when he noted that he only wrote the same concerto over and over and over. Wagner and Shakespeare? I don't see it. He is far to centered on the extremes of theatricality... and the super-human. With Debussy I imagine no one so much as Paul Verlaine. Honestly... in some ways I can see a connection between Beethoven and Shakespeare. Both display an incredible dichotomy... a contrast between the comic... even the vulgar or "low" and the most sublime grandeur and the most exquisite sensitivity and beauty. But all these comparisons are rather silly... aren't they?

Yet Bach is still God.

[stlukesguild]

... Mozart's clarinet concerto, one of the best pieces ever written...

Along with Mozart's clarinet quintet.

What bach could have done with the clarinet...

[Charles Darnay]

... Mozart's clarinet concerto, one of the best pieces ever written...

Along with Mozart's clarinet quintet.

What bach could have done with the clarinet...

indeed, although he did some fantastic things with the oboe.

[kiki1982]

Well, if we are talking about composers here I'll have to have my say...

Although I like a lot of works of Bach and Mozart, I also believe that a lot of them are serial work. Both Bach and Mozart were employed to write music to suit the purpose of something. Mozart was encouraged by his father to write music. The more the merrier so to say. Beethoven became a composer because his father had the desire to make him a second Mozart. Unfortunately Beethoven was too modern, unconventional and too wild to be employed, so he became a composer in his own right. He did write requests, but was still unconventional. That's why I think he is brilliant and that's why he is on my avatar. The pieces he wrote were written by the man Beethoven because they were needed by the man Beethoven, not because they were needed by his mecenas. When he wrote the adagio of his Moonlight Sonate, he was deeply sad because his marriage proposal to the contessa Giuglietta Giucardi had been rejected. You can feel that so much. I never had that feeling with Bach nor Mozart. Some things they wrote can make me feel happy, but it stops there. Beethoven has been the only one, together with Albinoni, who was able to make me feel sadness with a piece of music, and even made me cry when there was no reason apart from music.
Both Mozart and Bach are sometimes predictable, whereas Beethoven seems to add something new. Beethoven was deaf when he composed most of his music and for me that adds to the magic. Although 'the greatest' is not really findable because it is a question of taste.
Debussy I don't care for, although I have tried. I just don't like impressionist music, like I like impressionist painting. No hard word about him or people who like that music, it is just not my thing, like my recorder teacher noticed at the first impressionist piece she tried with me.

Now to Shakespeare, I believe he wrote about the universal human being. And his pieces are a very good mix of exciting plot and deep meaning and therefore they are appeling to everyone without dissapointing either party.
I don't think he was a machine, because he doesn't become really predictable, although he does use deceit, the bad guy etc. etc. But probably that's how people are... And a lot of his ideas have been taken over since, as some of his vocabulary. I woudln't call him 'the greatest ever' because a lot of great ones came after him and before, but even in world literature he taught other writers something.