The "I Hate Shakespeare" Thread.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I suspect that some of it is the typical resistance to things that are seen as elitist, but mostly because they don't like Shakespeare.

I suspect that it is a typical resistance to things which are perceived as elitist yes, but I think it has nothing to do with disliking Shakespeare. "The masses" haven't even tried it. Most fingers are burnt at school with the incorrect delivery of Shakespeare, tests where the student pass or fails Shakespeare with a big red cross age 12 is no way to approach the study of anything, let alone high literature. So schools and the National Curriculum are to blame in many respects.

Then of course you already have the ideology that Shakespeare is "too hard" "not for them" "for the upper classes" before they have even opened the book. You are battling against the myth to start with. Gather this together with the sort of fast-paced consumer culture we have in the western world today, when if something is not instant it is disregarded, and the ongoing behavioural problems in schools (with class sizes in excess of 30+) and you have a massive up-hill struggle from the start. The average school student is not likely to come out of Comprehensive school (aged 16) with a very good impression of Shakespeare.

On top of this you have the fact that most young people are not mature, or well read enough, to appreciate Shakespeare at this age, there are exceptions, but the average 13, 14, 15 year old is not developed enough to appreciated anything other than the basics of Shakespeare (and others) at this age. They are just not ready for it. So overall school does not help and the fact of general maturity are there in the beginning as initial barriers. There are ways to improve this and I sure there are schools that do a very good job of teaching Shakespeare, but many don't, for the majority of people this is the impression they take on board about Shakespeare for the rest of their lives.

Then you have the cultural attachment to Shakespeare and the stigma of the theatre. For eons the theatre has been seen as a upper and middle class leisure pursuit, initially the cost probably made this a reality. I had a friend who wanted to take her boyfriend to the theatre to see Shakespeare (I had done a good job of corrupting her) and he was genuinely worried about when to laugh. I swear this is true, such is the social stigma that seems to be attached to the theatre. Shakespeare of course becomes part of this world of theatre and so people attach this image directly to Shakespeare. The stigma is contagious.

Dangerous ground: Then we have the media. How many advertisements have you seen on TV recently for car insurance? Sports drinks? Cars? Cleaning liquids? etc, etc, How many advertising or promoting reading Shakespeare? The point is absurd to even type it, to even think it. Such is the political system that to enrich the individual by reading Shakespeare does not make money within the system and I'll leave you to fill in the blanks...

How likely is it that the average "non-reader" will suddenly decide to pick up Shakespeare out of the blue all considered? Not likely at all. I am sure there are many other reasons why "the masses" don't read Shakespeare but there are no reasons why "the masses" couldn't read Shakespeare.

I'll let you know when I'm coming the other way.

No way, you own me a drink after making me type all this.

Edit after reading JBI's earlier post: Yes, the masses generally don't read (I don't consider the Sun reading) so why would you expect them to start with Shakespeare?

[Virgil]

Why is it that the makeup of Shakespeare fans is largely limited to academia and people of high-decile groups? Why don't the hoi polloi read and attend Shakespeare?

I think JBI addresses this below which I've quoted and I'm in partial agreement with him. But the other point I wish to make is that in his day Shakespeare was loved by educated and uneducated, rich and commoner. His popularity spanned the entire spectrum of society. He was not seen as hoi polloi or academic. In fact his greatest playwright rival, Ben Jonson, was considered much more of an academic and looked down on the sort of pop things that Shakespeare was putting out.

Once one gets over the language barrier I have always found Shakespeare to be very accessable and down to earth. He doesn't play literary games like say James Joyce does in modern lit. The academic and hoi polloi label can certainly be put on Joyce, and Shakespeare, though he sprinkles educated crumbs here and there, is really writing for the common man.

If it's a myth that Shakespeare is for the elite, where does the myth come from?

I've never heard he is elite. But what author that is not in contemporary times not considered elite? The average person I bet does not read anything over 20 years old. Perhaps it's because it's five hundred years old and so has gained an aura about him.

Shakespeare historically was well liked by both commoner and aristocrat. The reason it is mostly upper class people who like him today, can be for a few reasons. 1) detachment from language, which means he is harder to understand, and subsequently, b) because there is a strong correlation between education and income (money, class). Name one classic author who is generally better liked by the lower classes - it is hard to do. Even someone like Milton Acorn, the Canadian People's Poet only exists within academic and can-lit enthusiast circles today, despite his goal of "speaking to the people" and his socialist agenda.

I certainly agree with your point 1) whole heartedly. And I've kind of elaborated a little above, but the language difference from today and five hundred years ago is a stumbling point. I once took my wife to a showing of MacBeth and she had not read the play and was completely confused and just didn't like it. But give her some revenge and ambition novel full of murders and she will suck it down. As to point b) I don't think there is a correlation. First, I know well off people who have no interest in literature or Shakespeare. That one is well off does not necessarily follow that one likes Shakespeare. Second I know plenty of non rich people such as teachers, students, struggling artists (some of which are right here on lit net ) that love and adore Shakespeare. I bet some are engaged in this very discussion. I don't think finacial status correlates to Shakespeare appreciation.

[The Atheist]

I think JBI addresses this below which I've quoted and I'm in partial agreement with him.

Same here, cultures change, and he may have been left behind a little.

Once one gets over the language barrier I have always found Shakespeare to be very accessable and down to earth. He doesn't play literary games like say James Joyce does in modern lit. The academic and hoi polloi label can certainly be put on Joyce, and Shakespeare, though he sprinkles educated crumbs here and there, is really writing for the common man.

I think you've got the hoi polloi back to front here - the hoi polloi are the masses. But I get your drift.

I've never heard he is elite. But what author that is not in contemporary times not considered elite? The average person I bet does not read anything over 20 years old. Perhaps it's because it's five hundred years old and so has gained an aura about him.

Yet the same thing hasn't happened to Swift. Maybe it's because Gulliver's Travels is mistakenly seen as a kids' book?

First, I know well off people who have no interest in literature or Shakespeare.

YEs, but that's taking the cause and effect the wrong way - I don't think rich people follow Shakespeare so much as people who follow Shakespeare being more likely to come from the rich group.

Or academia, which is a different group and as you note, not necessarily well off.

Interesting point which has just occurred to me - I wonder how many of the rich ones who do go to Shakespeare plays do it to be seen more than they do it for enjoyment? I see a possible parallel with ballet, where many people go to the ballet because it's the thing to do. Now, I know ballet quite well because my wife is a former top-level dancer who goes to performances because she loves it. She is constantly having to stifle giggles caused by hearing people around her make comments which gives away their real feelings on the art form. Then they trumpet their attendance to show how culturally-aware they are - even though they wouldn't know an Arabesque from a kick in the pants, or have any idea of what they're actually watching. I'll admit that ballet is a little harder to understand than Shakespeare.

[Virgil]

I think you've got the hoi polloi back to front here - the hoi polloi are the masses. But I get your drift.

Oh geez, you're abslutely right. Sorry about that. I hope my comment still makes sense.

Yet the same thing hasn't happened to Swift. Maybe it's because Gulliver's Travels is mistakenly seen as a kids' book?

Yes I would agree with that.

YEs, but that's taking the cause and effect the wrong way - I don't think rich people follow Shakespeare so much as people who follow Shakespeare being more likely to come from the rich group.

I guess I don't really know that many rich people. I would think there may be a slight bias toward Shakespeare from rich people like there may be from those that go to classical concerts and ballet as you mention. But I think it has to do with education and more specifically the type of education. None of the engineers I work with would ever mention Shakespeare or literature in general, and yet many of them have Masters degrees. Yet a teacher involved in the Liberal Arts is very likely to enjoy Shakespeare.

Or academia, which is a different group and as you note, not necessarily well off.

Interesting point which has just occurred to me - I wonder how many of the rich ones who do go to Shakespeare plays do it to be seen more than they do it for enjoyment? I see a possible parallel with ballet, where many people go to the ballet because it's the thing to do. Now, I know ballet quite well because my wife is a former top-level dancer who goes to performances because she loves it. She is constantly having to stifle giggles caused by hearing people around her make comments which gives away their real feelings on the art form. Then they trumpet their attendance to show how culturally-aware they are - even though they wouldn't know an Arabesque from a kick in the pants, or have any idea of what they're actually watching. I'll admit that ballet is a little harder to understand than Shakespeare.

I bet that's true for Shakespeare too. But even in New York City, which is a very large city, I hardly ever see a Shakespeare production. You have to really look for them. I know it's different in England, but that's a special case.

[stlukesguild]

I have stayed out of this discussion until now largely because it is inane. It matters not to me whether someone loves Shakespeare of hates him (their loss, not mine). On the other hand, to state that Shakespeare is greatly overrated is far removed from declaring a personal dislike... ambivalence... or indifference to him. Personally, James Joyce has never really clicked for me. I like certain passages and sections well enough... and I even love a great number of writers indebted to him... but he has never seduced me in the same manner as Proust... Kafka... Beckett... Faulkner... Borges... etc... I understand, however, that there is a difference between my personal opinion and an objective statement that Shakespeare sucks or Shakespeare is overrated.

Seriously, such a declaration is as idiotic as a proclamation that "Mozart sucks!" or "Michelangelo is overrated!" It completely undermines the merit the opinions of the person making such statement, rather than even making the least dent in the reputation of Shakespeare, Mozart, or Michelangelo. As Neely suggests, I somewhat find myself distrusting the person who makes such statements. I either feel that they haven't the least concept about aesthetic merit in literature... or they are simply going out of their way to create the illusion of themselves as some independent thinker... willing to attack the the elitist snobs of academia. Considering Atheist's posts in any number of other threads and forums, I greatly suspect the latter. Nothing like provoking simply for the sake of provocation. While we are here, why not start a thread about whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays attributed to one Shakespeare of Stratford?

As much as I am certain that there is no writer of whom I have read who comes near to surpassing Shakespeare, I do not think he is above criticism... nor do I think that he has not been equaled in certain aspects by other writers. The charge of antisemitism, however, is a non-issue. Because the single well-known Jewish character in Shakespeare is less-than-heroic this makes the author antisemitic. What is forgotten is that these are characters. Shakespeare is to be found in all of them... and in none. It is interesting that JBI... who is Jewish... has been making the greatest defense against the charge of antisemitism. One would assume he might know it when he sees it... but I guess others see better. And what of the greatest "bardoletor": Harold Bloom? Bloom admits that he cringes at Shylock... but refuses accept a single character as proof of antisemitism. But even if the charges were true... so what?

I don't look to artists to reinforce my own beliefs or prejudices. I don't look to artists expecting a proper expression of the proper accepted values. I look to artists seeking a dialog with a brilliant and unique mind... with whom I may not always agree. Caravaggio pandered pedophile homoerotic images to high ranking members of the Catholic clergy who had a penchant for such. This in no way undermines him as an artist. He still stands as the most innovative artist of the 17th century... in spite of the fact that I may have thought him a proper jerk in person. Mozart, Beethoven, and Michelangelo... by all accounts... were right proper a$$holes. Undoubtedly they also held views about women and non-Europeans that I would find unacceptable today. This has nothing to do with their merits as artists. We judge a work of art based upon how well... how originally... how powerfully... how persuasively the artist has used his or her medium... merging it with the subject matter... even if we disagree or dislike what he or she conveys.

As for the topic of Shakespeare's lack of originality... such claims make it clear that there is something lacking in the understanding of just what amounts to creativity. The painter Vermeer almost always worked from direct observation... looking at a pre-existent subject matter. Paul Klee largely invented all of his imagery from imagination. This does not make Vermeer unoriginal by comparison. The art... the originality lies in how the artist interprets the subject. Shakespeare commonly began with an existing narrative: historical, mythological, literary. The art lay in the reinterpretation... in restructuring the tale to stress various layers of motivation... to focus upon the character... to focus upon the drama and the language. The Biblical writers, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton... almost every major writer prior to the novel built upon earlier narratives... often passed down for generations. The novel offers a new twist... but it no more inherently supersedes the older epics, dramas, and romances than does abstraction supersede "realism" in art.

As for the notion that Shakespeare is outdated because his work was never meant to be read... nonsense. The work is far too complex in any number of passages not to demand reading. Yes... it was written for the theater and not written down. In part this was out of necessity, in order to protect the text from plagiarism in an era prior to any notion of copyright. Like many works of theater, the texts were also fluid... open to change by the author in response to suggestions of actors and in response to audience reaction. The reality is that Shakespeare wrote in a genre that lacked any degree of respect as literature... rather as if he we a screenwriter for television today. What is amazing is that the texts were saved and were published not long after Shakespeare's death.

The reality is that Shakespeare is in no way overrated by the very fact that there is no possible other to replace him that can be as universally agreed upon. Here at litnet... with our excess of young readers... we have Dostoevsky as a possible rival... yet in reality there are but few serious critics that would place him above Tolstoy... let alone above Shakespeare. I would argue that Dante's comedia surpasses any single work of Shakespeare... but I as much as I love him, I don't think he quite matches the bard. The notion has been thrown around that Shakespeare is outdated... sorry, but that is the thinking of a simpleton. Who has replaced him? James Joyce? Proust?, Faulkner? Tolkein? I can think of no one in the last 100 years that comes close to his depth and range and brilliance of language and character. Proust perhaps come closest... but that would be arguable... and therein (again) lies the problem (stated above): there is no possible other that might be largely agreed upon... and certainly no other with his impact upon subsequent literature and art in general. The reality is that Shakespeare is in no way outdated. Great art never becomes outdated; The Bible, Homer, Aeschylus, Shakespeare... all continue to speak to us centuries later because the goal of art is not merely to engage someone with shared values, shared beliefs, and a shared culture... it is also to engage with the strongest thinkers from diverse backgrounds, beliefs, values, etc... and still be able to recognize certain common human values.

[The Atheist]

I understand, however, that there is a difference between my personal opinion and an objective statement that Shakespeare sucks or Shakespeare is overrated.

Very good, and I see that you have at least tried to answer some of the criticisms I've made.

Seriously, such a declaration is as idiotic as a proclamation that "Mozart sucks!" or "Michelangelo is overrated!" It completely undermines the merit the opinions of the person making such statement, rather than even making the least dent in the reputation of Shakespeare, Mozart, or Michelangelo.

Not if it's founded in reality, which I think my objections are.

Nothing like provoking simply for the sake of provocation. While we are here, why not start a thread about whether Shakespeare actually wrote the plays attributed to one Shakespeare of Stratford?

I've admitted to an element of that, along with admission that thread title isn't entirely correct, but the reason I started the thread was the scorn brought down in another thread upon someone who doesn't like Shakespeare. The accusation there was that youth and ignorance led to the dislike, but in my case, the former is not an argument, while I'll happily defend myself against charges of ignorance.

As much as I am certain that there is no writer of whom I have read who comes near to surpassing Shakespeare, I do not think he is above criticism...

Goodo, I hope to see some then.

...nor do I think that he has not been equaled in certain aspects by other writers. The charge of antisemitism, however, is a non-issue. Because the single well-known Jewish character in Shakespeare is less-than-heroic this makes the author antisemitic.

You've obviously misread the discussion on the subject so far, but I'm happy to let it drop as there are other, more important issues. Orwell wrote plenty of stuff which I consider offensively anti-semitic as well.

What is forgotten is that these are characters. Shakespeare is to be found in all of them... and in none. It is interesting that JBI... who is Jewish... has been making the greatest defense against the charge of antisemitism.

Yet Darkshadow, also Jewish, said:

The depiction of the character is clearly anti-Semitic, and Shakespeare clearly imbibes the anti-Semitism of his times, but I think Shakespeare's skill and interest in character and human beings cannot help but humanize and soften the character, which simultaneously creates moments where it critiques that very same anti-Semitism, despite the fact that he himself is engaging in it.

...so it certainly isn't just me.

But enough on that one and let's move to literary criticism.

Mozart, Beethoven, and Michelangelo... by all accounts... were right proper a$$holes. Undoubtedly they also held views about women and non-Europeans that I would find unacceptable today.

They would only be analogous if their work displayed bigotry. Not too many people read Beethoven's memoirs.

As for the topic of Shakespeare's lack of originality... such claims make it clear that there is something lacking in the understanding of just what amounts to creativity.

Patronising and wrong.

The painter Vermeer almost always worked from direct observation... looking at a pre-existent subject matter. Paul Klee largely invented all of his imagery from imagination. This does not make Vermeer unoriginal by comparison. The art... the originality lies in how the artist interprets the subject.

Art and literature can be analogous, but not in this regard.

Shakespeare commonly began with an existing narrative: historical, mythological, literary. The art lay in the reinterpretation... in restructuring the tale to stress various layers of motivation... to focus upon the character... to focus upon the drama and the language. The Biblical writers, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton... almost every major writer prior to the novel built upon earlier narratives... often passed down for generations. The novel offers a new twist... but it no more inherently supersedes the older epics, dramas, and romances than does abstraction supersede "realism" in art.

Great assertions, but they fall flat with Julius Caesar, which I notice you've conveniently ignored criticism of.

Originality is achievable by inserting truth into fiction. I see you are happy to mistrust people because they don't rate Shakespeare, yet you give him a free pass on lacking originality because he tells stories better than others. That's marvellous, but I'd prefer someone who can think up a story as well as deal with whatever subject he thinks fit.

As for the notion that Shakespeare is outdated because his work was never meant to be read... nonsense.

I don't think anyone's said that, have they? Certainly not me, so I won't argue against it.

The work is far too complex in any number of passages not to demand reading. Yes... it was written for the theater and not written down. In part this was out of necessity, in order to protect the text from plagiarism in an era prior to any notion of copyright.

Hang on a minute, you've just contradicted yourself! A paragraph back, you were saying that plagiarism wasn't relevant, but now you have Shakespeare worried about it. Which one is it? If he was that much better than others, nobody could copy him, could they?

Like many works of theater, the texts were also fluid... open to change by the author in response to suggestions of actors and in response to audience reaction.

Bingo!

This is a very good point, and it also negates the idea of Shakespeare's greatness. What if his plays were very ordinary, but re-writes with appropriate criticism from actors and authors of the day made them what we now see? In that regard Shakespeare could be just the greatest copy-writer ever.

The reality is that Shakespeare wrote in a genre that lacked any degree of respect as literature... rather as if he we a screenwriter for television today. What is amazing is that the texts were saved and were published not long after Shakespeare's death.

I don't think that's the case, as my understanding is that, at that time, writing plays was the best way to get a message out because most people were illiterate. I'll stand to be corrected here as my English history goes back to school days.

The length of time confers little authority; the christian bible, the Torah and the Quran have all survived far longer than Billy and they're rubbish - I've read them. Also of a similar age, Plato, although in Plato's case, I would just shoot him. And I've read all of his work as well.

The reality is that Shakespeare is in no way overrated by the very fact that there is no possible other to replace him that can be as universally agreed upon.

This makes no sense at all. Who demands that there needs to be a single author at the top? What's so wrong with having a group of authors at the top?

Here at litnet... with our excess of young readers... we have Dostoevsky as a possible rival...

Oh god, I hope not.

...yet in reality there are but few serious critics that would place him above Tolstoy... let alone above Shakespeare. I would argue that Dante's comedia surpasses any single work of Shakespeare... but I as much as I love him, I don't think he quite matches the bard. The notion has been thrown around that Shakespeare is outdated... sorry, but that is the thinking of a simpleton.

Are you calling me a simpleton? I'd defend that quite strongly and am happy to match intellects with anyone, anytime.

I must say that other than casting aspersions, you aren't doing a great job of defending against charges of his outdatedness. Romeo and Juliet is a classic example. To me, it's childish in its treatment of two lovers and utterly irrelevant to 2009. You just can't get more out of date than thinking that teenage suicide is a good idea.

Now, before anyone jumps on their high horse, I know what the play is about and why it's written as it is, but it does glorify suicide in the eyes of young readers. If that's not a description of outdatedness, I don't know what would be.

Who has replaced him? James Joyce? Proust?, Faulkner? Tolkein?

Again with the replacement - why does he need replacing? But if we have to, I'd be quite happy with Orwell.

Or Ben Elton.

The reality is that Shakespeare is in no way outdated. Great art never becomes outdated; The Bible, Homer, Aeschylus, Shakespeare... all continue to speak to us centuries later because the goal of art is not merely to engage someone with shared values, shared beliefs, and a shared culture... it is also to engage with the strongest thinkers from diverse backgrounds, beliefs, values, etc... and still be able to recognize certain common human values.

I'm glad you have the bible in there, because that's so outdated even the religionistas have to change it to suit their doctrine. Saying something cannot become outdated because of artistic merit seems entirely facile to me. The Origin of Species is outdated, A Modest Proposal is horribly outdated, Das Kapital likewise, and I doubt you'd argue those works.

Times do change.

[stlukesguild]

The work is far too complex in any number of passages not to demand reading. Yes... it was written for the theater and not written down. In part this was out of necessity, in order to protect the text from plagiarism in an era prior to any notion of copyright.

Atheist- Hang on a minute, you've just contradicted yourself! A paragraph back, you were saying that plagiarism wasn't relevant, but now you have Shakespeare worried about it. Which one is it? If he was that much better than others, nobody could copy him, could they?


I haven't contradicted myself at all. In an era before copyright there was nothing to stop a rival performing company from performing Shakespeare's play... word for word... were they able to get a copy of it. Nor was there anything to prevent someone from publishing the same... had publication of plays been at all thought of at the time. There is a huge difference between plagiarism and constructing a new work upon a preexisting story. The Aeneid is deeply indebted to Homer's two great epics (and Homer's work was certainly constructed upon tales and myths even older). J.L Borges is commonly accepted as one of the most important and "original" writers of the twentieth century... commonly credited with inspiring the entire Latin American literary Renaissance and the particular genre, Magic Realism. In spite of this, nearly every story he tells was constructed upon pre-existing literature... narratives... histories... characters. The invention of new narratives is but one aspect of literature. There are any number of writers who are marvelous at weaving new narratives... yet remain mediocre writers.

[JBI]

Honestly, read Northrop Frye - no story is really as unique as you are pretending. The novel itself, is fiction, and for the most part in English, excluding early works, an imitation of reality, up until the modernist movement, where for the most part, in the early stages anyway, it became an impression of reality. The story itself, and the plot construction is pointless. Read Pandosto and compare it to Shakespeare's "The Winter's tale", and tell me Shakespeare is bad for copying. The texts cannot compare - Pandosto, for the most part, owes its existence today to Shakespeare, as it simply is not a very good text, but had an idea for plot, which Shakespeare borrowed, or stole, and made marvelous.

As for reading and seeing Shakespeare - in truth, seeing Shakespeare is great - I have done so, and this summer, since I will be here, I will be making a trip to Stratford Ontario to the annual Shakespeare festival (which is also putting on Racine's Phedre which I hope to see as well). Titus Adronicus, I would say does not work for reading, but as Frye remarked, when put on a stage, it is actually quite successful. Hamlet on the other hand, I think, benefits more from reading. Still, it all depends on actors - Laurence Oliver may have been great, and Christopher Plumber is fantastic, yet some highschool yups probably would botch the thing. King Lear for one was thought to be unperformable for the longest time. But beyond that, I think a balance of the two, perhaps more reading, as it fits schedules more, but still an exposure to the staging is in order.


As for me being a Jew, therefore a better judge, many other people who have commented are Jewish, so I will not suppose I have a "keener eye" to spotting it. I will say though, that I think the text is more ambiguous than either side wishes to admit (even myself), and one must leave it at that. And despite that, the play is very well thought out, and has some of the most beautiful lines.


Even accessible novels can contain inherent racial, or other prejudices. I, for instance, wrote an essay in first year about islamophobia and sexism in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (which I supported masterfully, and received great marks for), but I wouldn't go so far as to accuse the book of being overrated on those grounds. I merely say that I don't like the book because I find the style clunky, and the diction too repetitive and poor to sustain the high-mimetic tone that Shelley was trying to produce. That kind of criticism gets somewhere - either the objective proof of an idea, without a value attachment, as is the preferred method of criticism, or a value criticism on certain features, or the work as a whole, but not a shouting of "I hate Shakespeare" or "Shakespeare sucks".

The reputation of Shakespeare is a mixed blessing - on one hand it adds to exposure, but on the other hand it creates too much of a name, in which people invoke without understanding, and deem it good without knowing it to be good. That is, I think, the reason Frye spent his career trying to get away from finally making value judgments on texts. Such stuff doesn't really do anything in the long run - the fact that you are criticizing a text which is 400 years old says enough about the worth of the text. If people don't think it should be canonized anymore, they will just stop reading it, or write about certain aspects which they didn't like, not go out and say "it is better than this because". Bloom's approach to criticism in his later works is impractical. It pretends that criticism is about valuing texts, when really it is about understanding texts.

[stlukesguild]

Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
Mozart, Beethoven, and Michelangelo... by all accounts... were right proper a$$holes. Undoubtedly they also held views about women and non-Europeans that I would find unacceptable today.

They would only be analogous if their work displayed bigotry. Not too many people read Beethoven's memoirs.


Michelangelo created works in which the notion was clearly conveyed... contrary to Protestant beliefs... and certainly contrary to any non-Christian beliefs... that salvation could only come only through the Roman Catholic Church. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven (among others) all set Biblical texts to music (Masses, cantatas, etc...). Any number of these convey a spiritual view that might be taken as antisemitic (Bach's Passions, for example, in which the Passion of Christ is staged... including the Jewish Pharisee's condemnation of Christ)... or contrary to any other faith. Caravaggio has any number of early works with a homoerotic edge given to figures certainly not yet of maturity. Almost every male artist in the whole of art history has painted nude women in a manner that leads many feminists to suggest that they are objectifying women in a sexist manner. Jacques Louis David portrayed Napoleon as a grand hero... while Goya represents the atrocities being carried out by his troops in Spain. Leni Riefenstahl created a number of the most innovative films... especially in terms of various special effects... in spite of the fact that these same films were created as propaganda for the Third Reich. The fact is that all of these problematic elements of art may be criticized... but it does not undermine the success of the work of art as a work of art. Morality and aesthetics are two distinct fields.

As for the topic of Shakespeare's lack of originality... such claims make it clear that there is something lacking in the understanding of just what amounts to creativity.

Patronising and wrong.

Patronizing... perhaps... but no less than your assertion that it is wrong... simply because you say its so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
The painter Vermeer almost always worked from direct observation... looking at a pre-existent subject matter. Paul Klee largely invented all of his imagery from imagination. This does not make Vermeer unoriginal by comparison. The art... the originality lies in how the artist interprets the subject.

Art and literature can be analogous, but not in this regard.

Again... you saying something doesn't make it so. An analogy is not invalid simply because it does not support your thesis. The fact that a great deal of visual art of the greatest merit and "originality" is based upon pre-existing imagery (either in nature or in other works of art... often literature) is no mean leap away from the reality that a great deal of literature... I would almost venture to say most of it prior to the 19th and twentieth century and the rise of the novel... is based upon prior narratives... prior characters. Add to this... non-fiction. What matters is what the writer does with his or her materials. Any number of writers may begin with the same narrative... or the same facts... how these are given form is what matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
Shakespeare commonly began with an existing narrative: historical, mythological, literary. The art lay in the reinterpretation... in restructuring the tale to stress various layers of motivation... to focus upon the character... to focus upon the drama and the language. The Biblical writers, Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton... almost every major writer prior to the novel built upon earlier narratives... often passed down for generations. The novel offers a new twist... but it no more inherently supersedes the older epics, dramas, and romances than does abstraction supersede "realism" in art.

Great assertions, but they fall flat with Julius Caesar, which I notice you've conveniently ignored criticism of.

You choose but one example. So the history of Julius Ceasar as written by ? supersedes the form... the drama... the language used by Shakespeare?

Originality is achievable by inserting truth into fiction. I see you are happy to mistrust people because they don't rate Shakespeare, yet you give him a free pass on lacking originality because he tells stories better than others.

That's marvellous, but I'd prefer someone who can think up a story as well as deal with whatever subject he thinks fit.

And that is but a prejudice on your part. It completely negates the whole of non-fiction as literature and a vast majority of literary history... because you like an original story teller. I hear Harry Potter has some clever plot twists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
As for the notion that Shakespeare is outdated because his work was never meant to be read... nonsense.

I don't think anyone's said that, have they? Certainly not me, so I won't argue against it.

Actually it was stated... several times... but I won't belabor the fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
Like many works of theater, the texts were also fluid... open to change by the author in response to suggestions of actors and in response to audience reaction.

Bingo!

This is a very good point, and it also negates the idea of Shakespeare's greatness. What if his plays were very ordinary, but re-writes with appropriate criticism from actors and authors of the day made them what we now see? In that regard Shakespeare could be just the greatest copy-writer ever.

How does that make him a copy-writer? Not unless you are laboring under some romantic notion of the artist as sole self-expressive creator... holed up in a garret somewhere waiting for inspiration to strike. Artists have long responded to outside suggestions and pressures. Think of Yeats and T.S. Eliot under the editorial and critical eye of Ezra Pound. Think of artists under the watchful eye of a clerical theologian dictating the proper colors for the Virgin Mary or rightful attitude for Mary Magdalene. Think of the endless playwrights and composers who rewrote plays and symphonies and operas as a result of criticism (from audiences, critics, peers, etc...) Think of the input of cinematographers and actors etc... upon film... surely the closest analogy to theater. Dr. Strangelove remains Stanley Kubrick's creation in spite of the input from Peter Sellars or George C. Scott... because ultimately he makes the final decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
The reality is that Shakespeare wrote in a genre that lacked any degree of respect as literature... rather as if he we a screenwriter for television today. What is amazing is that the texts were saved and were published not long after Shakespeare's death.

I don't think that's the case, as my understanding is that, at that time, writing plays was the best way to get a message out because most people were illiterate. I'll stand to be corrected here as my English history goes back to school days.

Yes... the best way to reach the masses... but how much respect was afforded to their opinions? He was competing with bear-baiting for God's sake! Theater was in no way thought of as worthy of the name of literature. Shakespeare would publish his poems... but not the plays. Ben Jonson's move to publish his own plays was seen as audacious... and in the long run, the way to go. Plays during the time of Shakespeare were considered as literature about as much as the novel during the time of Pope, Gay, and Swift was taken a a serious art form.

The length of time confers little authority; the christian bible, the Torah and the Quran have all survived far longer than Billy and they're rubbish - I've read them. Also of a similar age, Plato, although in Plato's case, I would just shoot him. And I've read all of his work as well.

The fact that a work survives a certain length of time... and continues to speak to future generations of writers, poets, critics, and literature lovers is what lends the work merit... if not "authority". The fact that you dismiss the Bible, Torah, Qur'an and Plato all at one fell swoop pretty much clarifies just where you stand in terms of literature and just how much merit should be afforded your opinions...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
The reality is that Shakespeare is in no way overrated by the very fact that there is no possible other to replace him that can be as universally agreed upon.

This makes no sense at all. Who demands that there needs to be a single author at the top? What's so wrong with having a group of authors at the top?

So you are suggesting that Shakespeare could only be surpassed were we to combine the efforts of several writers? That sort of undermines your assertion, doesn't it? If Shakespeare is overrated, it should be quite easy to suggest an alternative that could be commonly agreed upon who surpasses him as a writer.

I must say that other than casting aspersions, you aren't doing a great job of defending against charges of his outdatedness. Romeo and Juliet is a classic example. To me, it's childish in its treatment of two lovers and utterly irrelevant to 2009. You just can't get more out of date than thinking that teenage suicide is a good idea.

Is that really what Romeo and Juliet promotes? Or is it actually a drama (and admittedly not his greatest) in which there is a conflict between teenage love (or infatuation as the case may be) and parental politics. Surely we no longer ever witness the situation in which parents of warring factions find their children going against their wishes. We never see teenagers going against their parents' wishes with the choices they make in terms of "love". And teen suicide... completely a thing of the past, right?

Now, before anyone jumps on their high horse, I know what the play is about and why it's written as it is, but it does glorify suicide in the eyes of young readers. If that's not a description of outdatedness, I don't know what would be.

The fact that it is seen as glorifying suicide in the eyes of some less than astute reader is completely irrelevant. We have teens shooting up schools or killing their parents because the latest heavy metal or rap CD told 'em to do so. The fact that someone can twist a work of art into a justification for doing something horrible has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of that work of art... and everything to do with the individual.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
The reality is that Shakespeare is in no way outdated. Great art never becomes outdated; The Bible, Homer, Aeschylus, Shakespeare... all continue to speak to us centuries later because the goal of art is not merely to engage someone with shared values, shared beliefs, and a shared culture... it is also to engage with the strongest thinkers from diverse backgrounds, beliefs, values, etc... and still be able to recognize certain common human values.

I'm glad you have the bible in there, because that's so outdated even the religionistas have to change it to suit their doctrine. Saying something cannot become outdated because of artistic merit seems entirely facile to me. The Origin of Species is outdated, A Modest Proposal is horribly outdated, Das Kapital likewise, and I doubt you'd argue those works.

Times do change.

Times change... and new works of art are created that deal with this... this does not negate the value of the best of the past. That is unless your measure of a work of art is based upon how well it reinforces your own experiences, your own values, your own belief system. Personally, I don't need art to do that for me, nor am I afraid of admitting that someone with whom I may greatly disagree remains a brilliant individual. Those who need art to reinforce their own experiences...their own values... their own beliefs would seem to be far more bigoted than Shakespeare ever was, for they fear anything that goes against their own thoughts.

As for the Bible... what has the reinterpretations and arguments of various religious sects to do with the work as literature? Origin of the Species and Das Kapital? Not exactly great literature. More like science and social science (or economics). I don't know that they were ever read as great literature. As science and social science they certainly have become outdated... but science evolves in a manner unlike art. The average graduate student in physics knows far more about the way the universe functions than Newton ever knew. The average medical student knows more about anatomy that the greatest Venetian anatomist of the 17th century. No one today, can outdraw or out sculpt Michelangelo. This is not to say a greater artist may not eventually come along... not to suggest an inherent superiority to the past... any more than a superiority of the modern (as you seem to infer).

By the way... A Modest Proposal most certainly remains a marvelous piece of writing... an absolutely wicked piece of satire. Or perhaps you missed that aspect?

[stlukesguild]

JBI... I certainly agree that Shakespeare benefits from both being seen in performance... and reading. There are aspects that resonated far greater when I first saw them performed... but of course there are aspects that demand the closer attention of reading.

the fact that you are criticizing a text which is 400 years old says enough about the worth of the text. If people don't think it should be canonized anymore, they will just stop reading it

Of course this is the ultimate defense of Shakespeare... or any writer. Such was largely the reason I stayed out of this fray for so long... that, combined with a certain exasperation with these continual nonsensical postings about "Your 5 Greatest Writers", "Shakespeare Sucks", "Dostoevsky is Great" without the least attempt to actually discuss the individual works.

[The Atheist]

I merely say that I don't like the book because I find the style clunky, and the diction too repetitive and poor to sustain the high-mimetic tone that Shelley was trying to produce. That kind of criticism gets somewhere - either the objective proof of an idea, without a value attachment, as is the preferred method of criticism, or a value criticism on certain features, or the work as a whole, but not a shouting of "I hate Shakespeare" or "Shakespeare sucks".

I note that I've explained the title as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and I have provided critisisms. Pretty sure nobody's said "Shakespeare sucks" so far.

Michelangelo created works in which the notion was clearly conveyed... contrary to Protestant beliefs... and certainly contrary to any non-Christian beliefs... that salvation could only come only through the Roman Catholic Church. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven (among others) all set Biblical texts to music (Masses, cantatas, etc...). Any number of these convey a spiritual view that might be taken as antisemitic (Bach's Passions, for example, in which the Passion of Christ is staged... including the Jewish Pharisee's condemnation of Christ)... or contrary to any other faith.

No use to me at all, sorry. I'm an atheist and have no regard for whether doctrine was right or wrong in anyone's eyes. A better one would be A C Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies - support of which doesn't reflect on his writing.

I don't agree with the assessment of anti-semitism by default, either.

Morality and aesthetics are two distinct fields.

I know, and I'm not conflating them. I'm not sure why you're even on this tack.

[Patronizing... perhaps... but no less than your assertion that it is wrong... simply because you say its so.

You're getting mixed up - I'm saying your assertion that ignorance is to blame doesn't work in my case. It's not a comment on Shakespeare at all.

Again... you saying something doesn't make it so. An analogy is not invalid simply because it does not support your thesis.

Quite right, and I'm not expecting that to be the case. It's wrong because you're comparing two completely different forms of expression and they just aren't analogous. Painting and writing are not the same, they conform to completely different rules and while there's an element of the beholder in literature, it's the only element in art. Art can conists of a blank canvas and have meaning, but a blank page in a book says nothing.

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;665527]

You choose but one example. So the history of Julius Ceasar as written by ? supersedes the form... the drama... the language used by Shakespeare?

I've used one example because we got stuck in anti-semitism and I'll use one example at a time, and I note you haven't answered the criticism.

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is a pale imitation of the original Latin and he adds nothing to the original story. In fact, when compared to the Latin - which I have no idea who the author was - Shakespeare detracts from the story with spurious lines and passages.

I'll happily bring other examples once JC and R&J have been dealt with.

Actually it was stated... several times... but I won't belabor the fact.

It may have been stated, but since it wasn't stated by me, I'll leave it for whoever did to defend.

How does that make him a copy-writer? Not unless you are laboring under some romantic notion of the artist as sole self-expressive creator... holed up in a garret somewhere waiting for inspiration to strike. Artists have long responded to outside suggestions and pressures.

No, you're miles off track. Horror fiction is maybe the best example. The difference is taking a broad outline and turning it into a different story. With Julius Caesar and Macbeth, I believe the stories are less than the original. I can't say that with certainty for Macbeth, but if the original plot has as many holes as Shakespeare's version, I'd be very surprised.

Think of artists under the watchful eye of a clerical theologian dictating the proper colors for the Virgin Mary or rightful attitude for Mary Magdalene.

What is your point here? How many pictures of the alleged virgin are classed as masterpieces in the way Shapeaspeare's works are?

The fact that a work survives a certain length of time... and continues to speak to future generations of writers, poets, critics, and literature lovers is what lends the work merit... if not "authority". The fact that you dismiss the Bible, Torah, Qur'an and Plato all at one fell swoop pretty much clarifies just where you stand in terms of literature and just how much merit should be afforded your opinions...

Oh, please. Tell me what literary merit there is in any biblical or religious text.

The bible and quran are ridiculous bodies of work with no coherence or style. They are both utter garbage and only exist because of the churches based upon them. Nobody in their right mind would call the bible an important literary piece. It is disjointed, contradictory and stupid. Have you read Revelation? How does that rambling have merit?

Plato is different and I can see a case made for merit in his work. I just happen to think his premises are wrong. When they were written, they were useful, and even 200 years ago, they were still relevant to the world. Not any more.

So please do follow up on this, because your defence of religious texts is quite astonishing in a literary sense.

Also, as an aside, the quran is probably the most anti-semitic work ever written; including Mein Kampf

So you are suggesting that Shakespeare could only be surpassed were we to combine the efforts of several writers?

No, I think he's been surpassed by many authors. You were asking who would take Shakespeare's place and I'm simply saying nobody should. Art doesn't have one, music doesn't have one... why do you insist that writing should have one author alone at the top?

That sort of undermines your assertion, doesn't it? If Shakespeare is overrated, it should be quite easy to suggest an alternative that could be commonly agreed upon who surpasses him as a writer.

You obviously mistook my point, because I've already named two authors I truly believe are better. Would you like some more?

Is that really what Romeo and Juliet promotes? Or is it actually a drama (and admittedly not his greatest) in which there is a conflict between teenage love (or infatuation as the case may be) and parental politics. Surely we no longer ever witness the situation in which parents of warring factions find their children going against their wishes. We never see teenagers going against their parents' wishes with the choices they make in terms of "love". And teen suicide... completely a thing of the past, right?

Your use of emoticons seems to reflect your continuing inability to deal with the subject adequately.

Please read what I actually said about the play, not what you think I said.

Suicide is a major problem. Which is what I did say.

The fact that it is seen as glorifying suicide in the eyes of some less than astute reader is completely irrelevant.

Wow, I hope you don't have kids - this is an awful attitude.

We have teens shooting up schools or killing their parents because the latest heavy metal or rap CD told 'em to do so. The fact that someone can twist a work of art into a justification for doing something horrible has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of that work of art... and everything to do with the individual.

Ah, a good, old-fashioned tu quoque argument. Cute. Kids die, ho hum.

Personally, I don't need art to do that for me, nor am I afraid of admitting that someone with whom I may greatly disagree remains a brilliant individual.

I'm really beginning to think you aren't reading my posts at all. You're coming out with things I haven't said, and now you've shown that you completely missed my several comments that I wouldn't cancel Shakespeare and that I do consider him one of the giants.

I just don't think he is "The one and only" and I certainly think he is an anachronism in the 21st century.

Why attack positions I don't hold and haven't promoted?

As for the Bible... what has the reinterpretations and arguments of various religious sects to do with the work as literature? Origin of the Species and Das Kapital? Not exactly great literature. More like science and social science (or economics). I don't know that they were ever read as great literature.

Nor is the bible - see above. The Origin of Species and Das Kapital are entirely analopgous with religious texts, although at least The Origin of Species is almost right.

By the way... A Modest Proposal most certainly remains a marvelous piece of writing... an absolutely wicked piece of satire. Or perhaps you missed that aspect?

What an odd question. I called it a marvellous piece of writing, and one of the best examples of satire ever written and you ask if I missed something?

I don't know whether you're deliberately mis-interpreting what I say, but it should be quite plain that A Modest Proposal has no relevance whatsoever to 21st century audiences, and anyone who is ignorant of the times it was written in will have no idea what it's about.

Such was largely the reason I stayed out of this fray for so long... that, combined with a certain exasperation with these continual nonsensical postings about "Your 5 Greatest Writers", "Shakespeare Sucks", "Dostoevsky is Great" without the least attempt to actually discuss the individual works.

Well, if you're going to continue in this vein, I won't bother continuing with it myself. You're constructing a strawman of what you think people have said.

I'm quite sure the only time "Shakespeare sucks" has been made in this thread has come from your keyboard, and that's now several occasions you've said it. Hey, maybe you're excellent at refuting ignorant criticism like that, because you keep bringing ti up while avoiding the points I'm making.

Well played.

[JBI]

Honestly, instead of trying to pin down Shakespeare as something, offer proof of why he is something:

GLOUCESTER
Unmanner'd dog! stand thou, when I command:
Advance thy halbert higher than my breast,
Or, by Saint Paul, I'll strike thee to my foot,
And spurn upon thee, beggar, for thy boldness.

LADY ANNE
What, do you tremble? are you all afraid?
Alas, I blame you not; for you are mortal,
And mortal eyes cannot endure the devil.
Avaunt, thou dreadful minister of hell!
Thou hadst but power over his mortal body,
His soul thou canst not have; therefore be gone.

GLOUCESTER
Sweet saint, for charity, be not so curst.

LADY ANNE
Foul devil, for God's sake, hence, and trouble us not;
For thou hast made the happy earth thy hell,
Fill'd it with cursing cries and deep exclaims.
If thou delight to view thy heinous deeds,
Behold this pattern of thy butcheries.
O, gentlemen, see, see! dead Henry's wounds
Open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh!
Blush, Blush, thou lump of foul deformity;
For 'tis thy presence that exhales this blood
From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;
Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural,
Provokes this deluge most unnatural.
O God, which this blood madest, revenge his death!
O earth, which this blood drink'st revenge his death!
Either heaven with lightning strike the
murderer dead,
Or earth, gape open wide and eat him quick,
As thou dost swallow up this good king's blood
Which his hell-govern'd arm hath butchered!

GLOUCESTER
Lady, you know no rules of charity,
Which renders good for bad, blessings for curses.

LADY ANNE
Villain, thou know'st no law of God nor man:
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.

GLOUCESTER
But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

LADY ANNE
O wonderful, when devils tell the truth!

GLOUCESTER
More wonderful, when angels are so angry.
Vouchsafe, divine perfection of a woman,
Of these supposed-evils, to give me leave,
By circumstance, but to acquit myself.

LADY ANNE
Vouchsafe, defused infection of a man,
For these known evils, but to give me leave,
By circumstance, to curse thy cursed self.

GLOUCESTER
Fairer than tongue can name thee, let me have
Some patient leisure to excuse myself.

LADY ANNE
Fouler than heart can think thee, thou canst make
No excuse current, but to hang thyself.

GLOUCESTER
By such despair, I should accuse myself.

LADY ANNE
And, by despairing, shouldst thou stand excused;
For doing worthy vengeance on thyself,
Which didst unworthy slaughter upon others.

GLOUCESTER
Say that I slew them not?

LADY ANNE
Why, then they are not dead:
But dead they are, and devilish slave, by thee.

GLOUCESTER
I did not kill your husband.

LADY ANNE
Why, then he is alive.

GLOUCESTER
Nay, he is dead; and slain by Edward's hand.

LADY ANNE
In thy foul throat thou liest: Queen Margaret saw
Thy murderous falchion smoking in his blood;
The which thou once didst bend against her breast,
But that thy brothers beat aside the point.

GLOUCESTER
I was provoked by her slanderous tongue,
which laid their guilt upon my guiltless shoulders.

LADY ANNE
Thou wast provoked by thy bloody mind.
Which never dreamt on aught but butcheries:
Didst thou not kill this king?

GLOUCESTER
I grant ye.

LADY ANNE
Dost grant me, hedgehog? then, God grant me too
Thou mayst be damned for that wicked deed!
O, he was gentle, mild, and virtuous!

GLOUCESTER
The fitter for the King of heaven, that hath him.

LADY ANNE
He is in heaven, where thou shalt never come.

GLOUCESTER
Let him thank me, that holp to send him thither;
For he was fitter for that place than earth.

LADY ANNE
And thou unfit for any place but hell.

GLOUCESTER
Yes, one place else, if you will hear me name it.

LADY ANNE
Some dungeon.

GLOUCESTER
Your bed-chamber.

LADY ANNE
I'll rest betide the chamber where thou liest!

GLOUCESTER
So will it, madam till I lie with you.

LADY ANNE
I hope so.

GLOUCESTER
I know so. But, gentle Lady Anne,
To leave this keen encounter of our wits,
And fall somewhat into a slower method,
Is not the causer of the timeless deaths
Of these Plantagenets, Henry and Edward,
As blameful as the executioner?

LADY ANNE
Thou art the cause, and most accursed effect.

GLOUCESTER
Your beauty was the cause of that effect;
Your beauty: which did haunt me in my sleep
To undertake the death of all the world,
So I might live one hour in your sweet bosom.

LADY ANNE
If I thought that, I tell thee, homicide,
These nails should rend that beauty from my cheeks.

GLOUCESTER
These eyes could never endure sweet beauty's wreck;
You should not blemish it, if I stood by:
As all the world is cheered by the sun,
So I by that; it is my day, my life.

LADY ANNE
Black night o'ershade thy day, and death thy life!

GLOUCESTER
Curse not thyself, fair creature thou art both.

LADY ANNE
I would I were, to be revenged on thee.

GLOUCESTER
It is a quarrel most unnatural,
To be revenged on him that loveth you.

LADY ANNE
It is a quarrel just and reasonable,
To be revenged on him that slew my husband.

GLOUCESTER
He that bereft thee, lady, of thy husband,
Did it to help thee to a better husband.

LADY ANNE
His better doth not breathe upon the earth.

GLOUCESTER
He lives that loves thee better than he could.

LADY ANNE
Name him.

GLOUCESTER
Plantagenet.

LADY ANNE
Why, that was he.

GLOUCESTER
The selfsame name, but one of better nature.

LADY ANNE
Where is he?

GLOUCESTER
Here.

She spitteth at him

Why dost thou spit at me?

LADY ANNE
Would it were mortal poison, for thy sake!

GLOUCESTER
Never came poison from so sweet a place.

LADY ANNE
Never hung poison on a fouler toad.
Out of my sight! thou dost infect my eyes.

GLOUCESTER
Thine eyes, sweet lady, have infected mine.

LADY ANNE
Would they were basilisks, to strike thee dead!

GLOUCESTER
I would they were, that I might die at once;
For now they kill me with a living death.
Those eyes of thine from mine have drawn salt tears,
Shamed their aspect with store of childish drops:
These eyes that never shed remorseful tear,
No, when my father York and Edward wept,
To hear the piteous moan that Rutland made
When black-faced Clifford shook his sword at him;
Nor when thy warlike father, like a child,
Told the sad story of my father's death,
And twenty times made pause to sob and weep,
That all the standers-by had wet their cheeks
Like trees bedash'd with rain: in that sad time
My manly eyes did scorn an humble tear;
And what these sorrows could not thence exhale,
Thy beauty hath, and made them blind with weeping.
I never sued to friend nor enemy;
My tongue could never learn sweet smoothing word;
But now thy beauty is proposed my fee,
My proud heart sues, and prompts my tongue to speak.

She looks scornfully at him

Teach not thy lips such scorn, for they were made
For kissing, lady, not for such contempt.
If thy revengeful heart cannot forgive,
Lo, here I lend thee this sharp-pointed sword;
Which if thou please to hide in this true bosom.
And let the soul forth that adoreth thee,
I lay it naked to the deadly stroke,
And humbly beg the death upon my knee.

He lays his breast open: she offers at it with his sword

Nay, do not pause; for I did kill King Henry,
But 'twas thy beauty that provoked me.
Nay, now dispatch; 'twas I that stabb'd young Edward,
But 'twas thy heavenly face that set me on.

Here she lets fall the sword

Take up the sword again, or take up me.

LADY ANNE
Arise, dissembler: though I wish thy death,
I will not be the executioner.

GLOUCESTER
Then bid me kill myself, and I will do it.

LADY ANNE
I have already.

GLOUCESTER
Tush, that was in thy rage:
Speak it again, and, even with the word,
That hand, which, for thy love, did kill thy love,
Shall, for thy love, kill a far truer love;
To both their deaths thou shalt be accessary.

LADY ANNE
I would I knew thy heart.

GLOUCESTER
'Tis figured in my tongue.

LADY ANNE
I fear me both are false.

GLOUCESTER
Then never man was true.

LADY ANNE
Well, well, put up your sword.

GLOUCESTER
Say, then, my peace is made.

LADY ANNE
That shall you know hereafter.

GLOUCESTER
But shall I live in hope?

LADY ANNE
All men, I hope, live so.

GLOUCESTER
Vouchsafe to wear this ring.

LADY ANNE
To take is not to give.

GLOUCESTER
Look, how this ring encompasseth finger.
Even so thy breast encloseth my poor heart;
Wear both of them, for both of them are thine.
And if thy poor devoted suppliant may
But beg one favour at thy gracious hand,
Thou dost confirm his happiness for ever.

LADY ANNE
What is it?

GLOUCESTER
That it would please thee leave these sad designs
To him that hath more cause to be a mourner,
And presently repair to Crosby Place;
Where, after I have solemnly interr'd
At Chertsey monastery this noble king,
And wet his grave with my repentant tears,
I will with all expedient duty see you:
For divers unknown reasons. I beseech you,
Grant me this boon.

LADY ANNE
With all my heart; and much it joys me too,
To see you are become so penitent.
Tressel and Berkeley, go along with me.

GLOUCESTER
Bid me farewell.

LADY ANNE
'Tis more than you deserve;
But since you teach me how to flatter you,
Imagine I have said farewell already.

Exeunt LADY ANNE, TRESSEL, and BERKELEY

GLOUCESTER
Sirs, take up the corse.

GENTLEMEN
Towards Chertsey, noble lord?

GLOUCESTER
No, to White-Friars; there attend my coining.

Exeunt all but GLOUCESTER

Was ever woman in this humour woo'd?
Was ever woman in this humour won?
I'll have her; but I will not keep her long.

Seriously, no one can write dialogue like that. The drama, the eloquence, the perversion, it's all there. Find passages, and proofs that his plays or poems are not good (and note, to hate them all, one must find proof in them all, sonnets and poems included). Then there may be a discussion. But just saying things idly and accusing goes nowhere.

[stlukesguild]

The bible and quran are ridiculous bodies of work with no coherence or style. They are both utter garbage and only exist because of the churches based upon them. Nobody in their right mind would call the bible an important literary piece.

That about says it all, doesn't it. Every critic and writer... a good many of whom I surmise may actually surpass your intellectual prowess and critical acumen... have embraced these texts even 2000+ years after they were composed... even regardless of their own religious beliefs... but they are idiots, no doubt. You know the more you post the less chance you have of actually persuading anyone. But don't let that stop you. I suppose there are some who believe that he who posts last wins.

You were asking who would take Shakespeare's place and I'm simply saying nobody should. Art doesn't have one, music doesn't have one... why do you insist that writing should have one author alone at the top?

Clearly you are as knowledgeable in music and art as you are in literature. Music has an almost generally accepted triumvirate: Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. Of that three, the majority of critics admit that Bach stands as the greatest. If you ask art historians, art critics, and artists Michelangelo would be the most common response to the question of the greatest artist. Certainly there are rivals in each instance. Mozart or Beethoven... or even Brahms or Wagner as opposed to Bach and Rembrandt, Rubens, Velasquez, Titian... possibly even Picasso as opposed to Michelangelo. Still in every instance there would not be the least suggestion that Michelangelo or Bach were overrated... that they were no longer relevant... that they do not speak to today.

We have teens shooting up schools or killing their parents because the latest heavy metal or rap CD told 'em to do so. The fact that someone can twist a work of art into a justification for doing something horrible has absolutely nothing to do with the merit of that work of art... and everything to do with the individual.

Ah, a good, old-fashioned tu quoque argument. Cute. Kids die, ho hum.

Ah yes... kids die. They were listening to Led Zeppelin. It must be Led Zeppelin's fault. Give me a break.

[Petrarch's Love]

I honestly don't have the time to get into this topic in depth, but the title of the thread caught my eye and I skimmed a bit. I'll quickly say in regard to the topic, that I agree with aetheist's claims that Shakespeare, like any writer/human being is not perfect, and that Shakespeare may not be the only great author out there (I suspect most of us don't secretely venerate him as a god at some homemade bard shrine). He is, however among a fairly small group of the greatest writers in world literature, and there are unique things that he offers that no other writer can (note: this is not a claim that he is greater than all other writers, but that he has unique and irreplaceable talents to offer, just as all of the real greats do). I disagree that Shakespeare has nothing to offer the present age. I don't even understand the logic of saying that the works of an author are no longer of relevance or importance because they are old. Indeed, there are distinct advantages that the study of past literature can offer that contemporary literature cannot, and vice versa. I personally find the negative arguments of this thread pretty boring and don't ultimately see how they're productive. I would be much more interested in hearing who else Atheist and others think belongs up there with Shakespeare in the group of great literary artists, and perhaps discussing the different sorts of contributions these authors made and why or how people have personal preferences for one or the other.

That said in brief, I'm primarily posting because I'm really curious to know what this Latin account of Julius Caesar's life is, that Atheist feels surpasses Shakespeare in literary merit. I ask because I'm relatively familiar with some of the classical accounts of Caesar's life, and I can't figure out what you could be referring to. Shakespeare's primary source for JC, was Plutarch's Lives (it's likely he used North's English translation, but it's possible he consulted the Latin a bit too). While Plutarch provides fairly entertaining prose, he doesn't come close to giving it the kind of dramatic and artistic structure that Shakespeare's play provides, or to using language as powerfully and effectively. Perhaps you have a higher opinion of Plutarch's style than I? Or you have another account of Caesar in mind? I think (hope) I'm safe in assuming you aren't thinking of Caesar's own account of the Gallic Wars? Anyway, I would be interested to know what work you're referring to.

Edit: After posting it just occurred to me that Atheist could be referring to Lucan's Pharsalia, aka De Bello Civili, which does indeed have some pretty fantastic passages. Is that it?

[The Atheist]

That about says it all, doesn't it. Every critic and writer... a good many of whom I surmise may actually surpass your intellectual prowess and critical acumen... have embraced these texts even 2000+ years after they were composed... even regardless of their own religious beliefs... but they are idiots, no doubt. You know the more you post the less chance you have of actually persuading anyone. But don't let that stop you. I suppose there are some who believe that he who posts last wins.

Ah, here come the rolly-eye emoticons again - beats making an argument, I guess.

I asked which literary critics claim the bible or quran is great literature.

No answer.

.... Certainly there are rivals in each instance. Mozart or Beethoven... or even Brahms or Wagner as opposed to Bach and Rembrandt, Rubens, Velasquez, Titian... possibly even Picasso as opposed to Michelangelo...

QED

Edit: After posting it just occurred to me that Atheist could be referring to Lucan's Pharsalia, aka De Bello Civili, which does indeed have some pretty fantastic passages. Is that it?

I think that's the one, but I'm going back into dim memories with it, not something I've looked at for years - but I recall studying both the Latin story and Shakespeare's play conceurrently and thinking what a pale imitation Shakespeare was.