The "I Hate Shakespeare" Thread.

[The Atheist]

This has been the cause of many literary arguments, the statement being akin to saying "Death to librarians!", but I'm going to say it, because the subject has threatened to derail another thread.

I feel that Billy is over-rated, over-blown and anti-Semitic.

I'll just go and post this thread's link in the other thread while I prepare mmy nuclear-proof shelter for the storm about to descend upon me.

:D

[Zee.]

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40994&page=7

Yes - I was slaughtered.

[Redzeppelin]

This has been the cause of many literary arguments, the statement being akin to saying "Death to librarians!", but I'm going to say it, because the subject has threatened to derail another thread.

I feel that Billy is over-rated, over-blown and anti-Semitic.

I'll just go and post this thread's link in the other thread while I prepare mmy nuclear-proof shelter for the storm about to descend upon me.

:D

People who wish to argue over this post are wasting their time. Authors are like food - everybody's got different taste. Why would anyone come along and tell you you're wrong, since you're fully entitled to see Shakespeare in whatever way pleases you? You're not alone in your criticism. A number of noted writers have taken a position similar to you on Shakespeare.

[JBI]

I won't challenge your sweeping statements, except the antisemitic one - I doubt Shakespeare was anti-Semitic. It has been speculated he never met a Jew in his life, and it can be seen in his plays that Shakespeare never passes judgment on a character. All characters in Shakespeare's mature plays seem to be completely justified within their frame of reference. As such, Shylock is not a villain, merely a character, and a rather minor one at that. We must remember, he doesn't speak too many lines - though all his lines are too the point, and profound - and those which he does speak seem to make him more sympathetic if anything.

Shakespeare never seems to pass judgment on any of his characters - I think that is why he is so enduring - because he doesn't claim to show truths, only drama, and characters - that is probably the reason why he is still the most enduring of all English writers. No matter what tastes come, no matter what politics come, Shakespeare's detachment from his characters, in terms of morals, put him above almost every dramatist, in the sense that there is no answer, there are no notions of right or wrong, there is merely drama.

Really, people should read basic Shakespeare scholarship - especially if they intend to make accusations like anti-antisemitism. Besides which, beloved Dostoevsky was a million times the anti-Semite that even most mainstream anti-Semites were. Look at, for instance, the great William Hazlitt's essay on Shylock, to get a sense of the scope of interpretation of Shakespeare's character.

[stlukesguild]

JBI... you beat me to the punch on Shakespeare and the continual charge of antisemitism... especially in relation to Dostoevsky. I also agree with your assertion as to his "detachment" or lack of judgment... especially on moral grounds... upon his characters. This was certainly the aspect of his work that Tolstoy railed against... that and the fact that he represented the sole figure that he knew he could never surpass on aesthetic terms... so he almost needed to attack him on moral grounds.

[semi-fly]

Can you cite the plays, etc. in which you believe William Shakespeare is being anti-Semitic? I've personally only read a few of his plays (specifically: Hamlet, King Lear, Midsummer Nights Dream, and Romeo & Juliet) and I believe I haven't come across anything considered anti-Semitic.

[Virgil]

Oh Atheist, I'm going to have to disagree. If you compare the level of drama and poetry of his peers in his era, you will see Shakespeare is head and shoulders above them. There never was anything quite like Shakespeare before him and frankly until the novel developed to capture the full psychological fullness of a character, there wasn't anyone to match him for centuries. As to the anti-semitism, the others have made an arguement that he wasn't. Not sure they are considering how anti-semitic Aaron of Titus Andronicus comes across. So Shakespeare was a man of his times. How is one to transcend certain things? No one in my opinion captures humanity as well as Shakespeare in his prime. And not just for one or two plays. There are literally a dozen to 18 plays that are shear masterpieces.

[Zee.]

Straying from the anti - Semitic comments and focusing on opinions and Shakespeare.

I view Shakespeare's work like the people who the plays were originally written for. The plays written to be performed as just that, plays. A means for entertainment. And I personally do not enjoy his work. That being said, perhaps my opinion is more "valid" than the person ripping his work to shreds an analyzing the hell out of it. Because as the core of all of it, tragedy or comedy - they were a source of entertainment.

[JBI]

Yes, but he still is the most preformed dramatist, so clearly someone is entertained by him. Besides, we have a nice collection of poetry, which isn't drama, and is fantastic.

[stlukesguild]

I would also note that while there are certain aspects of Shakespeare's plays that may benefit from live performance, there are others that demand reading.

[The Atheist]

People who wish to argue over this post are wasting their time. Authors are like food - everybody's got different taste.

That's my point exactly. Won't stop them trying, though!


As such, Shylock is not a villain, merely a character, and a rather minor one at that. We must remember, he doesn't speak too many lines - though all his lines are too the point, and profound - and those which he does speak seem to make him more sympathetic if anything.

You must be reading a different Merchant of Venice to the one I read.


I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you,
walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat
with you, drink with you, nor pray with you.


How like a fawning publican he looks!
I hate him for he is a Christian,
But more for that in low simplicity
He lends out money gratis and brings down
The rate of usance here with us in Venice.
If I can catch him once upon the hip,
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
He hates our sacred nation, and he rails,
Even there where merchants most do congregate,
On me, my bargains and my well-won thrift,
Which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribe,
If I forgive him!


Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit
Be nominated for an equal pound
Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken
In what part of your body pleaseth me.


Not on thy sole, but on thy soul, harsh Jew,
Thou makest thy knife keen; but no metal can,
No, not the hangman's axe, bear half the keenness
Of thy sharp envy. Can no prayers pierce thee?


These be the Christian husbands. I have a daughter;
Would any of the stock of Barrabas
Had been her husband rather than a Christian!

Sympathetic? Where?


Shakespeare never seems to pass judgment on any of his characters - I think that is why he is so enduring - because he doesn't claim to show truths, only drama, and characters - that is probably the reason why he is still the most enduring of all English writers. No matter what tastes come, no matter what politics come, Shakespeare's detachment from his characters, in terms of morals, put him above almost every dramatist, in the sense that there is no answer, there are no notions of right or wrong, there is merely drama.

What on earth is this?

Shakespeare's plays, without the messages, are just meaningless bits of verse. The notions of right and wrong are central to his entire works!


Really, people should read basic Shakespeare scholarship - especially if they intend to make accusations like anti-antisemitism.

Patronising, and wrong. The anti-semitism is blatant.


Besides which, beloved Dostoevsky was a million times the anti-Semite that even most mainstream anti-Semites were. Look at, for instance, the great William Hazlitt's essay on Shylock, to get a sense of the scope of interpretation of Shakespeare's character.

Ah, the old tu quoque!

I don't like Dostoevsky either, but his anti-semitism still doesn't give Shakespeare a free pass on it.


Can you cite the plays, etc. in which you believe William Shakespeare is being anti-Semitic? I've personally only read a few of his plays (specifically: Hamlet, King Lear, Midsummer Nights Dream, and Romeo & Juliet) and I believe I haven't come across anything considered anti-Semitic.

See above.


Oh Atheist, I'm going to have to disagree. If you compare the level of drama and poetry of his peers in his era, you will see Shakespeare is head and shoulders above them.

Sure he was. I just don't think that applies any more - there are people far better able to express ideas and ideals to 2009 audiences than Billy S.


There never was anything quite like Shakespeare before him and frankly until the novel developed to capture the full psychological fullness of a character, there wasn't anyone to match him for centuries.

Yep, and he should be rightly revered for that. I don't think that should extend to him having the place he does in Eng Lit in 2009.


As to the anti-semitism, the others have made an arguement that he wasn't. Not sure they are considering how anti-semitic Aaron of Titus Andronicus comes across. So Shakespeare was a man of his times.

Bingo!


How is one to transcend certain things? No one in my opinion captures humanity as well as Shakespeare in his prime. And not just for one or two plays. There are literally a dozen to 18 plays that are shear masterpieces.

Well, I just disgaree here; I find most of his characters shallow and predictable. Take Lady McBeth as an example - she has no character development whatsoever, yet she is described as a foul beast or some such. I see Winnie the Pooh with more development - not to mention consistency!

[JBI]

Out of context, and not showing anything. It shows one character's inability to forgive, and turn the other cheek to a nation who has been abusing them for over a thousand years. Where is the antisemitism. Where does Shakespeare come out and say "I hate Jews" Where? It's an accusation without ground. Shylock is merely one character, and a particularly touching one, whose love for his daughter, and mistreatment, which is metaphorical for his "tribes" mistreatment, has led him to finally seek what he declares a "christian" would do. Where is the antisemitism?

The truth is, we know nothing about Shakespeare, nothing. Everything is assumption - even his Sonnets display a negative reasoning, that is, a reasoning built on "this is not" rather than a "this is". We simply know virtually nothing, and to assume that he was an anti-Semite because you don't particularly like one play is your loss. Shakespeare will prevail, and, ironically, many of the greatest Bardolators have been Jewish. In truth, he is even taught in classrooms within Israel. You seem to be the only one who is ranting, on a thin argument. Shakespeare doesn't judge, because Shakespeare is outside of his works, he is invisible. The Plays follow conventions of drama, but there is no right and wrong. I think Iago's victory is proof enough of that.


But of course, you won't address the most central arguments and quotes against you:



Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.

[JBI]

The Atheist, please properly quote, I know you did it by accident, but I don't wish to have Virgil's excellent comments attributed to me. I don't want to get into the good or bad argument, as I am fed up with good and bad arguments, I merely wish to debate false assumptions, and false-truths.

[The Atheist]

Out of context, and not showing anything. It shows one character's inability to forgive, and turn the other cheek to a nation who has been abusing them for over a thousand years. Where is the antisemitism. Where does Shakespeare come out and say "I hate Jews" Where? It's an accusation without ground. Shylock is merely one character, and a particularly touching one, whose love for his daughter, and mistreatment, which is metaphorical for his "tribes" mistreatment, has led him to finally seek what he declares a "christian" would do. Where is the antisemitism?

Out of context? You want me to quote the entire play, or just link to it? I'd expect readers to be able to place them in context.

Whether or not the antisemitism is intentional, or just the result of ignorance isn't the point - I'm not blaming Shakespeare for his apparent anti-semitism any more than I'd blame Darwin for his racism; he was a product of his world.

The bad news is, that world's several hundred years gone.


We simply know virtually nothing, and to assume that he was an anti-Semite because you don't particularly like one play is your loss.

See above.

As far as not liking it goes, that's just rubbish. I actually think TMOV is one of Billy's best efforts. I'd probably rate it in the top 100 books in English.

Just.

I'm not assuming anything about Shakespeare - I'm telling you what it says.


Shakespeare will prevail, and, ironically, many of the greatest Bardolators have been Jewish. In truth, he is even taught in classrooms within Israel. You seem to be the only one who is ranting, on a thin argument. Shakespeare doesn't judge, because Shakespeare is outside of his works, he is invisible. The Plays follow conventions of drama, but there is no right and wrong. I think Iago's victory is proof enough of that.


But of course, you won't address the most central arguments and quotes against you:

Have you asked the Israeli kids how they see Shakespeare? I'd be interested to know.

As to what arguments I'm avoiding, I have no idea, so please let me know.

The anti-semitism isn't the only reason for my dislike, in fact, it isn't even a major one.


The Atheist, please properly quote, I know you did it by accident, but I don't wish to have Virgil's excellent comments attributed to me.

Sorry, fixed.

[wessexgirl]

I think you're being a little disingenuous here Atheist. Can you honestly tell me that you're not made to feel sympathy for Shylock with that classic speech? How is that being anti-semitic? Those words in the mouth of a great actor should move you immensely. I see it as a plea for tolerance. Shakespeare was telling it how it was, and Shylock's revenge, although brutal, is the act of someone pushed to the edge. You can love or loath Shakespeare as you wish, but please don't try to attack him unjustly.

[mortalterror]

I have to agree with Atheist on this one. The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than. That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair, and it would be like calling Canadians racist because of their unfair immigration policies and what they did to the Native Americans. Most of Canada's wrongdoing is in the past and they didn't act much worse than other powers of their day. Sure, even now their Natives are crowded into reservations, live ten years less than white Canadians, are twice as likely to be unemployed or poorly educated; but isn't the Canada of today a city on a hill, no worse than it's time? I use Canada as an example of modern liberal progress, of political correctness, or success and equality, which it has a well deserved reputation for. Yet, the Catholics in the East still make a third less income than the Protestants in the West, and no non-white minority is more than 4% of the population, in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism. Now, is that progress? If the Canadian's with all their advantages cannot help but be racist, then what hope does the rest of the world, our world have, and what hope did Shakespeare have living without those advantages?

[wessexgirl]

The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than.

Another sweeping generalisation. The fact that we feel sympathy for Shylock, and Othello, does not bear your statement out. I don't know how you can say "Shakespeare was definitely a racist". You, and no-one else knew the man. You have to go by his writing, and Othello is a "flawed hero" in a tragedy, and Shylock is a man driven to extremes by his treatment. If the play was anti-semitic, why are we not more in support of the "victim" and less empathetic to his "tormentor?" Perhaps because the "victim" has been the "tormentor" for so long along with his friends.

[kasie]

I view Shakespeare's work like the people who the plays were originally written for. The plays written to be performed as just that, plays. A means for entertainment. And I personally do not enjoy his work. That being said, perhaps my opinion is more "valid" than the person ripping his work to shreds an analyzing the hell out of it. Because as the core of all of it, tragedy or comedy - they were a source of entertainment.

I wonder how many of the plays you have had the good fortune to see on the stage? A talented cast directed with insight and sensitivity may well change your perception of the Bard, lj (and atheist).

[mortalterror]

Another sweeping generalisation. The fact that we feel sympathy for Shylock, and Othello, does not bear your statement out. I don't know how you can say "Shakespeare was definitely a racist". You, and no-one else knew the man. You have to go by his writing, and Othello is a "flawed hero" in a tragedy, and Shylock is a man driven to extremes by his treatment. If the play was anti-semitic, why are we not more in support of the "victim" and less empathetic to his "tormentor?" Perhaps because the "victim" has been the "tormentor" for so long along with his friends.

I don't feel empathetic towards Shylock. He's obviously a villain, and a schemer like Iago or Aaron and I laugh when he is justly punished, because Merchant is a comedy, not "The Tragedy of Shylock". What's more, it is based on Marlowe's The Jew of Malta which is even more explicitly racist than Merchant. You really have to go out of your way to get your interpretation, and I don't think it's born out by, well... anything.

You make a further mistake in supposing that just because a character can be empathetic, or that his villainous motives are rational or justified, he must therefore be a hero. As for Othello, it can still be racist even portraying the object of that racism as noble. Gunga Din by Rudyard Kipling is a slightly racist poem even though it's a panegyric on a minority.

[Petronius]

I won't say I hate Shakespeare as much as I'm indifferent to him. As an Eastern European, I'm distanced from the cultural environments that his image dominates. As far as Romanian culture goes, shakespearian influences are few, and are either indirect or tardy. Certainly, his acknowledgement arrived in the wake of western political and cultural prevalence, so he was already an effigy of a great power when it came in contact with my own culture.
Seeing how he is not particularly relevant to my own tradition and how, in my experience, the praising of local artists tends to bear more or less striking nationalist tones, I have to agree that the almost religious reverence many people seem to have for Shakespear is a sad exaggeration - and a dangerouse one at that.

The mistake, as I see it, is that he is being judged relatively to his times, and the result is projected in the present. Judging an artist not by how great he is on its own, but how great he is compared to his peers will obviously put older writers in advantage, because competition was different. Today, when everybody has access to education and a drowning sea of information and ever-growing knowledge, it's nigh-impossible to have a singular intelligence distinguish itself above a whole culture - but that doesn't mean a college kid can't be smarter and more creative than Shakespeare was, as an individual - and if some author manages to become widely popular the crtics will be more keen to find flaws than qualities.
It's a sad attitude because culture needs to be alive, not patriarchal praises. I've read someone's comment on this forum, some months back, saying that it's better to stick to 100 years old works, because only survival beyond the author's death can guarantee quality. Such cold contempt for the artist - and the reader, demanding them to acknowledge the dubious quality of no longer searing, dusty old works - I find disheartening and sick. In an art-loving environment, artists deserve and need to be praised during their lives, and to be able to live off their craft with dignity. The canon-cultists deserve Harry Potter - fanboy popularity is the only way a writer gets any respect these days.

The main reason I side with the Atheist on his first two points (I don't care much for anti-semitic charges) is that Shakespeare's (and some other classics') position today is detrimental to the contemporary growth of literature - these unassailable great names are stifling fresh ones.
It's not that Shakespeare is bad, but he's begun to lose his present-day relevance long ago. I think he's earned some rest as much as he earned respect, but his place now is in a teenager's literature curriculum, and not on the throne of "greatest English writer" - a vain title as it is.

The perspective of anyone who can read is just as valid as any other? Does that apply to other discipline's as well? My medical opinions are just as valid as those of my doctor? My opinions on quantum physics are just as relevant as those of Stephen Hawking? In every field there are those who invest a great more in terms of effort, time, experience, etc... It would seem that the opinions of those generally hold more weight. This is not to say that they themselves always agree... nor that at times they are not wrong. In my own field I doubt I am going to consider the opinion of someone with next to no experience in art with the same degree of weight as I might the opinion of another artist or an art critic.

I would also comment on this bit by Stlukesguild from the thread where this discussion originated. There's a stark difference between artists and critics; the latter are not practitioners, but simply professional consumers, and some of their views verge on class or cultural supremacism. Few critics actually become good artists, inspite of their claims of vast technical knowledge.
While I don't deny the use of their role, I think art is widely meant to be experienced without the help (or distraction) of theory and critical texts (or even the dedication of multiple reads), as a free expression of cultural identity or means of entertainment.

[MattG]

This thread reminds me of:

SCENE I. A cavern. In the middle, a boiling cauldron.

Thunder. Enter the three Witches
First Witch
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.

Second Witch
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.

Third Witch
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.

First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Third Witch
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The mistake, as I see it, is that he is being judged relatively to his times, and the result is projected in the present. Judging an artist not by how great he is on its own, but how great he is compared to his peers will obviously put older writers in advantage, because competition was different.


Shakespeare is not a writer who only spoke to his own time, far from it as Ben Jonson famously said.
.................................................. ..........
Not wishing to cause offense but I have always found it somewhat odd when a serious student of literature finds little or no value in Shakespeare. I can't understand it. I once had a tutor at University who was equally uninterested in "Billy"; I made it my duty to avoid the modules she taught in the future. :) :thumbs_up

For any neutral of Shakespeare, or for those who have only read a little of him, flick though the complete works and choose a page at random, there is beauty and magnificence on every page, even out of context of the narrative/story.

[MattG]

For any neutral of Shakespeare, or for those who have only read a little of him, flick though the complete works and choose a page at random, there is beauty and magnificence on every page, even out of context of the narrative/story.

For the record I agree!

To me the magic in his work is in how he underscores man's innate ability to make complex the simplest things, love in particular. His imagery is beautiful and his pen was truly afire. I've never dwelled on some of the things that are at issue in the above posts as I've always written them off as zeitgeist of the time or of the tale.

You all who dislike him certainly have a right to do so, he'll always be near and dear to me though.

[mortalterror]

I'm not sure we can chalk Shakespeare's popularity up to cultural hegemony. I mean, Henrik Ibsen is a well revered modern figure, and who did Norway conquer? I don't think anybody can properly beat Shakespeare hands down, but he has his faults, his weaknesses, like other people. I don't like the way he stands all alone at the top of drama the way he does. I think he ought to be considered in a triad of great authors including Racine and Calderon, the way Homer is compared to Virgil and Milton, or Aeschylus shares space with Euripides and Sophocles. To be sure, he's reached the utmost bounds of human expression, but there are other people who have too.

[Petronius]

Shakespeare is not a writer who only spoke to his own time, far from it as Ben Jonson famously said.

So says one who was himself a man of Shakespeare's age. What gives him more right to talk about the distant future than me who live it, ey? ;)
Your reaction to those who dislike him is a good example of stifling absolutism. Negative reactions are not as ignorant as you may think, they are signs of a desire for something better or something different, which I think is never bad when it comes to culture. Maybe the critic has to be objective, but the genius must have clear preferences. Nabokov had to consider Dostoyevsky mediocre.


I'm not sure we can chalk Shakespeare's popularity up to cultural hegemony. I mean, Henrik Ibsen is a well revered modern figure, and who did Norway conquer?

I never said England conquered any countries in Eastern Europe either, but its influence extended to the far-reaches of the continent centuries after Shakespeare's time, and now western literature is reinforced as english becomes a widely spread second language. Ibsen got his fame outside the borders of Norway. So did writers of Romanian origin, like Eugene Inesco or Eliade who earned a certain status writing in France or the States, but I bet you haven't heard of Caragiale, although he is utterly brilliant in romanian, but I guess a poor candidate for translations.

[kiz_paws]

... That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair, and it would be like calling Canadians racist because of their unfair immigration policies and what they did to the Native Americans. Most of Canada's wrongdoing is in the past and they didn't act much worse than other powers of their day. Sure, even now their Natives are crowded into reservations, live ten years less than white Canadians, are twice as likely to be unemployed or poorly educated; but isn't the Canada of today a city on a hill, no worse than it's time? I use Canada as an example of modern liberal progress, of political correctness, or success and equality, which it has a well deserved reputation for. Yet, the Catholics in the East still make a third less income than the Protestants in the West, and no non-white minority is more than 4% of the population, in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism. Now, is that progress? If the Canadian's with all their advantages cannot help but be racist, then what hope does the rest of the world, our world have, and what hope did Shakespeare have living without those advantages?Ouch. :sick:

Anyhow, back to the "I Hate Shakespeare" thing -- when I hear people discussing this topic in my circles, the most common problem with WHY they dislike Shakespeare is due to the language, if you can believe it. I think that these people are just lazy, because think of all the helps that are available for us, with our modern tongue, to untangle this (beautiful) language. That is what I tell them, anyhow, and to be honest, this is a bit of a feeble reason to dislike someone who was a master of the pen.

Anyhow, thems my thoughts.

[The Atheist]

I think you're being a little disingenuous here Atheist. Can you honestly tell me that you're not made to feel sympathy for Shylock with that classic speech? How is that being anti-semitic?

Well, it wouldn't be a play without it, so I see that as more of a plot develop ment than the anti-semitic rants earlier.

On the basis you're working on, Shakespeare wouldn't have needed to build the anti-semitism first. In those times - as in all times - the Jews were not a popular people, so why play to stereotype first? If your premise of Shakespeare wanting to portray Jews sympathetically rather than Shylock the lender sympathetically, then I think you rubbish his writing skills, because it's unnecessary and weak.

In hindsight, I should have picked a different example - I was going to go with McBeth, but decided on TMOV and we've got stuck in the Jews.

It's plain that it isn't only me, so I'll try to let this angle die off, and it's one of many criticisms I have.

(I have seen Shakespeare on stage with excellent casts.)


I wonder how many of the plays you have had the good fortune to see on the stage? A talented cast directed with insight and sensitivity may well change your perception of the Bard, lj (and atheist).

A few at varying levels of acumen in acting, but including a couple of well-regarded company productions.


I won't say I hate Shakespeare as much as I'm indifferent to him.

That would probably be a more correct position for me, but it makes a lousy thread title.


...In an art-loving environment, artists deserve and need to be praised during their lives, and to be able to live off their craft with dignity. The canon-cultists deserve Harry Potter - fanboy popularity is the only way a writer gets any respect these days.

The main reason I side with the Atheist on his first two points (I don't care much for anti-semitic charges) is that Shakespeare's (and some other classics') position today is detrimental to the contemporary growth of literature - these unassailable great names are stifling fresh ones.
It's not that Shakespeare is bad, but he's begun to lose his present-day relevance long ago. I think he's earned some rest as much as he earned respect, but his place now is in a teenager's literature curriculum, and not on the throne of "greatest English writer" - a vain title as it is.

Extremely well put.


For the record I agree!

To me the magic in his work is in how he underscores man's innate ability to make complex the simplest things, love in particular.

I actually see that as a bad thing, but that's just the materialist in me.


His imagery is beautiful and his pen was truly afire.

Yes, and he introduced a whole new way of writing, bless his heart.

On the other hand, his imagery is outdated and bland. A hawk or a handsaw?


I've never dwelled on some of the things that are at issue in the above posts as I've always written them off as zeitgeist of the time or of the tale.

Try Lady McBeth then.

There's no cultural problem there, just lousy writing.

Julius Caesar?

I'm dredging into things I haven't read for aeons, but there are a couple for you to get on with.


You all who dislike him certainly have a right to do so, he'll always be near and dear to me though.

Hey, you still hold the majority opinion so far!


I'm not sure we can chalk Shakespeare's popularity up to cultural hegemony. I mean, Henrik Ibsen is a well revered modern figure, and who did Norway conquer? I don't think anybody can properly beat Shakespeare hands down, but he has his faults, his weaknesses, like other people. I don't like the way he stands all alone at the top of drama the way he does. I think he ought to be considered in a triad of great authors including Racine and Calderon, the way Homer is compared to Virgil and Milton, or Aeschylus shares space with Euripides and Sophocles. To be sure, he's reached the utmost bounds of human expression, but there are other people who have too.

I'd go along with most of this. I wouldn't agree with your authors, though.

:)

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ouch. :sick:

Anyhow, back to the "I Hate Shakespeare" thing -- when I hear people discussing this topic in my circles, the most common problem with WHY they dislike Shakespeare is due to the language, if you can believe it. I think that these people are just lazy, because think of all the helps that are available for us, with our modern tongue, to untangle this (beautiful) language. That is what I tell them, anyhow, and to be honest, this is a bit of a feeble reason to dislike someone who was a master of the pen.



Yep, that sounds like a typical school students' response to Shakespeare, you are right, it is mostly laziness on their behalf. It is strange that "non-readering" adults feel the same way too, they instantly dismiss something they might have very loosely studied ten or tweny years ago. I have often come across this type of species - sometimes they suggest they might enjoy Shakespeare if it was translated! :lol: and I'm talking about from English to English. :lol: Our school scars stay with us it seems.

[The Atheist]

Anyhow, thems my thoughts.

Cheers.

That's not one of my criticisms, so feel free to cover off Lady McB or Julius Caesar.

Or Shakespeare generally with regard to plagiarism, missing plots, etc.


Our school scars stay with us it seems.

In terms of an argument against elitism - which I hadn't intended using - this is pretty sharp encouragement.

Can we leave that one out and concentrate on the mechanics for a while?

Thanks.

[JBI]

I have to agree with Atheist on this one. The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than. That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair, and it would be like calling Canadians racist because of their unfair immigration policies and what they did to the Native Americans. Most of Canada's wrongdoing is in the past and they didn't act much worse than other powers of their day. Sure, even now their Natives are crowded into reservations, live ten years less than white Canadians, are twice as likely to be unemployed or poorly educated; but isn't the Canada of today a city on a hill, no worse than it's time? I use Canada as an example of modern liberal progress, of political correctness, or success and equality, which it has a well deserved reputation for. Yet, the Catholics in the East still make a third less income than the Protestants in the West, and no non-white minority is more than 4% of the population, in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism. Now, is that progress? If the Canadian's with all their advantages cannot help but be racist, then what hope does the rest of the world, our world have, and what hope did Shakespeare have living without those advantages?

Where's your data from? Some of the things are true, whereas others aren't really, or misinterpreted. I would like to just take the easy proof against you, and say that Chinese-Canadians alone make up over 4.3% of the population, and your data is forgetting that you have grouped all white people together, without sensitivity to their backgrounds, be they Italian, German, Irish, British, Scottish, or Russian. But even so, these are issues, not to mention the fact that the bulk of immigrants entering the country happen to not be British, which you failed to mention. I don't see how any of your evidence suggests a racism in the Canadian immigration system, and I don't know where you get your numbers for "protestants make more than Catholics" as, the most common religion in Quebec, and Ontario, and elsewhere, and that you are looking more over a cultural, and resource divide, being that Alberta has oil coming out of their ears, than at a racist policy. But again, this is off topic, I was just pointing out that your data seems to come from nowhere, and contain gaps and holes, and flat out wrong data. To think we have a divide geographically of protestants in the west, and Catholics in the East is a bit of a joke. In Ontario, Catholicism is the largest religion. In Canada, Catholicism is the largest religion. There are Catholics everywhere, and protestants everywhere, and minorities everywhere. The divides in the U.S. are nothing like the divides in Canada.

But still, I don't think Shakespeare passes any judgment. If anything, his two would-be-"other" characters, Othello and Shylock, are put forward sympathetically. Keep in mind, especially here, Shylock is a minor character, a very minor character, (as you probably know, the merchant in the title refers to Antonio, not Shylock), and yet he has had such effect. Racist or not, he is still a potent character, and by and large, he is far rounder than, lets say Barabas, who he was vaguely modeled after. But to say anything about Shakespeare himself, because of a play, is mere guesswork, to fit an agenda. One could propose that he is a misogynist from a reading of The Taming of the Shrew, yet one could also rework that, and say but hang on - his treatment of women in As You Like It, or in Much Ado About Nothing undermines said theory. We have only one contemporary Jew in the Shakespeare canon, and he seems to be one of the strongest, most powerful characters. The term Anti-semitism doesn't really apply - it is a mere speculation. No one knows how the play was originally preformed. No one knows the true intention of the character. I think, even if you accept Shylock as a "villain" than one can even question the depth of his villainy, and how it is attached to his Judaism. For instance, Macbeth was Catholic, and a villain, yet we aren't running around calling Shakespeare an anti-catholic now are we. It's just convenient to suggest a Jew is only, or perhaps is, a villain because of his Jewishness, but I don't see the connection in the play. There is no proof that there is a genetic disorder - as seen in the character of Jessica - there is no genetic evil, mutation, or anything of the sort. From then on, it becomes a matter of whether or not Shakespeare was interpreting Jewish culture of being bad, for, as it has been shown, usury. That then, is the real debate, whether or not Shakespeare dislikes Jewish culture, of which he knows very little, and comments even less. Shylock may be evil, but is it he being Jewish, or is it the fact that he has been wronged for such a long time? I think a more nuanced reading, even if you want to suppose there is a level of anti-antisemitism is in order. The play is rather ambiguous, which is fitting, given that it is a play, rather than a closet-drama.

[mortalterror]

In hindsight, I should have picked a different example - I was going to go with McBeth, but decided on TMOV and we've got stuck in the Jews.

Not exactly racist, but certainly nationalistic. Shakespeare has few good words for his countrymen in Scotland.

'If that you will France win,
Then with Scotland first begin:'
For once the eagle England being in prey,
To her unguarded nest the weasel Scot
Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,
-Henry V, Act I, sc. ii.

Calling all of Scotland opportunistic weasels might seem inflammatory in today's society. But it's nothing compared to what his contemporary Edmund Spenser wrote in A View of the Present State of Ireland.

"The pamphlet argued that Ireland would never be totally 'pacified' by the English until its indigenous language and customs had been destroyed, if necessary by violence. Spenser recommended scorched earth tactics, such as he had seen used in the Desmond Rebellions, to create famine."
- Wikipedia

Shakespeare's insults seem positively mild in comparison, though they may be said to spring from the same source. This is just the sort of views that they had, completely common and banal. It was a society full of a sort of casual racism and factional bigotry that was just accepted gratis. Genius that he was, I don't think it would have occurred to Shakespeare to treat the subject of race relations or religious orthodoxy ironically, and so you get the usual cast of poisonous cozening Jews, fiendish Muslims, and unfaithful Catholics in his plays as everyone else of his time wrote. Take Christopher Marlowe for example:

BARABAS. As for myself, I walk abroad o' nights,
And kill sick people groaning under walls:
Sometimes I go about and poison wells;
And now and then, to cherish Christian thieves,
I am content to lose some of my crowns,
That I may, walking in my gallery,
See 'em go pinion'd along by my door.
Being young, I studied physic, and began
To practice first upon the Italian;
There I enrich'd the priests with burials,
And always kept the sexton's arms in ure<80>
With digging graves and ringing dead men's knells:
And, after that, was I an engineer,
And in the wars 'twixt France and Germany,
Under pretence of helping Charles the Fifth,
Slew friend and enemy with my stratagems:
Then, after that, was I an usurer,
And with extorting, cozening, forfeiting,
And tricks belonging unto brokery,
I fill'd the gaols with bankrupts in a year,
And with young orphans planted hospitals;
And every moon made some or other mad,
And now and then one hang himself for grief,
Pinning upon his breast a long great scroll
How I with interest tormented him.
But mark how I am blest for plaguing them;--
I have as much coin as will buy the town.
But tell me now, how hast thou spent thy time?

ITHAMORE. Faith, master,
In setting Christian villages on fire,
Chaining of eunuchs, binding galley-slaves.
One time I was an hostler in an inn,
And in the night-time secretly would I steal
To travellers' chambers, and there cut their throats:
Once at Jerusalem, where the pilgrims kneel'd,
I strewed powder on the marble stones,
And therewithal their knees would rankle so,
That I have laugh'd a-good<81> to see the cripples
Go limping home to Christendom on stilts.
-The Jew of Malta, Act II, sc. iii

Here you have both the prototypical evil Jew and the evil Muslim. When Shakespeare re-uses this speech in his own play Titus Andronicus, it's to paint Aaron as your usual black skinned villain:

LUCIUS

Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?

AARON

Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
Even now I curse the day--and yet, I think,
Few come within the compass of my curse,--
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
-Titus Andronicus, Act V, sc. i

I think it's safe to say that racism, and regionalism, and other isms of that ilk, were systemic to all English literature of the time. They are shown either in conversation, or in the various roles given to minorities on the stage, and Shakespeare was not above it.

[Thespian1975]

Dickens created Fagin and had the same criticism.

Shakespeare created many horrible characters. Iago, Edmund, Richard III yet nobody bats an eyelid at those. (How dare he call a King a Misshappen crookback!!!!) They are creations to move the play along and keep people coming to the theatre. His plays were heavily censored so they obviously felt nothing wrong with Shylock.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Or Shakespeare generally with regard to plagiarism, missing plots, etc.

Plagiarism? That's highly anachronistic isn't it? Such a thing never existed in Shakespeare's time, it was an accepted thing to take a classical theme and create your own twist or slant to the story or even to improve upon it - which he almost always, if not always did. That's a weaker argument than the anti-Semitism which was pretty tedious to say the least.

Really, I think you just like to wind people up a bit with all your talk of Shakespeare. :p Maybe you attack Shakespeare in order to try to rattle the foundations of elitism which you perceive exists around the bard? In shooting Shakespeare however you shoot the messenger who spoke to all segments of society.

[mortalterror]

I would like to just take the easy proof against you, and say that Chinese-Canadians alone make up over 4.3% of the population, and your data is forgetting that you have grouped all white people together, without sensitivity to their backgrounds, be they Italian, German, Irish, British, Scottish, or Russian.

Yes, Chinese-Canadians are your largest non-white minority, and they make up 4.3% of the population. I think I mentioned that 4% barrier in my remarks. You are a diverse people of Eastern Europeans, Western Europeans, Northern Europeans, Southern and Central Europeans, as opposed to the U.S. which is 15% Hispanic, 13%African, and 5% Asian, among other things. The frozen north is an endless expanse of white, and then there's the glaciers. The people of Canada are uniformly the color of Moby Dick and Vanilla Ice Cream, differing from the snowflake in that they actually are all the same.

If you want to check my sources, this is one of the site's I used when collecting information about Canada's immigration policy: http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/canada1.html

You used a quote from Henry James when discussing racist American attitudes. I thought you might be interested in a quote that I thought summed up Canadian attitudes.

— I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?
He frowned sternly on the bright air.
— Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.
— Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.
-Ulysses, Ch. 2, James Joyce

You don't have any race problems because you don't have any races. Though that's not entirely true. Toronto is the international base of operations for Canadian hate group The Heritage Front. Then you have some other home grown groups like Canadian Liberty Net as well as the other usual suspects like the KKK and Aryan Nations.


The divides in the U.S. are nothing like the divides in Canada.

Well, you tell me. Is it true you actually had a head tax on Chinese people entering your country?

Consider that Canada is the world's second biggest nation spanning more than 9 million square kilometers, with a combined population slightly larger than the city of Mumbai. You didn't wrestle all that land away from it's original owners with tea and kindness. No, that sort of conquest takes imperialism and systematic oppression, a little genocide if you will, the echoes of which can still be heard from the outskirts of your aboriginal ghettos. "Behind every great fortune is a great crime (Honore de Balzac)."


I think, even if you accept Shylock as a "villain" than one can even question the depth of his villainy, and how it is attached to his Judaism. For instance, Macbeth was Catholic, and a villain, yet we aren't running around calling Shakespeare an anti-catholic now are we.

I think he's definitely anti-Catholic since that wound was still ripe in his day. You have Mary Queen of Scots running around in the north. You have Spain and France aligned against England at the same time. Shakespeare's anti-Catholic bias comes out in little things like the French King's defection to the Pope in King John. Again, it's not quite as blatant as Spenser's Duessa in The Faerie Queene, but Shakespeare was a more subtle writer.

[Petronius]

You are a diverse people of Eastern Europeans, Western Europeans, Northern Europeans, Southern and Central Europeans, as opposed to the U.S. which is 15% Hispanic, 13%African, and 5% Asian, among other things.

Not my discussion but I had to comment because this, and the whole derailing on north american ethnic problems are too funny. It's like... all Europeans (or Africans for the matter) are the same, and differences are only meaningful if visually starking.
Technically, the vast majority of the population in the Americas, especially North America, are former colonists, willing, forceful, free, slave, no matter, and all of them fused into a new culture. There are no meaningful ethnic qualms, save for human stupidity, because there applies the same principle Romans considered when recruiting soldiers from a newly conquered tribe and sending them to distant corners of the empire, therefore severing them from potentially igniting roots.

You don't have drawn out conflicts over land and identity carried out for most of the existance of neighbouring states, leaving behind spread out pockets of ethnic minorities, independant little states of bitter people who speak your own language but want to be different, countries that minutely changed their borders or shifted in and out of existance for a number of years, foreign settlers left behind and the whole tangled mess that results. The only relevant ethnic issues you have are native-americans... and that's not something to pride about as far as my limited knowledge goes, *plus, I had to add, your conflicts with islamic cultures.

[JBI]

Yes Mortal, that site is really impartial - first of all it isn't even footnoted, second of all it isn't even a real, professional website. Seriously, you should know that. And you should also know, that skin heads and violent groups exist everywhere, even amongst minority groups within Canada.

Either way, you pretend like Canadians don't have minority groups. You forget that not all white people are the same. 1/3 of the Canadian population is French Canadian, and close to a million is Italian Canadian, and from there you get all sorts of other minority groups, but you fail to see that. You forget, that we don't have a refined "national identity" so these groups aren't just black and white, as may be the case in the States. But yeah, all white people are the same... right, then why do the French Canadians, or at least a significant portion of them, wish to separate.

And yes, we had a head tax, which I believe you guys did as well (I think though, you simply followed your Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882). But even so, Canada has apologized to its citizens and the world, and although didn't do what would be equal, refunded the money.

[The Atheist]

Plagiarism? That's highly anachronistic isn't it? Such a thing never existed in Shakespeare's time, it was an accepted thing to take a classical theme and create your own twist or slant to the story or even to improve upon it - which he almost always, if not always did. That's a weaker argument than the anti-Semitism which was pretty tedious to say the least.

How on earth is it weak? The weakness is the lack of originality.

Whether or not it was accepted is irrelevant, someone wrote the story in the first place, so how is any kudos possible from merely recounting a tale? I used the example of Julius Caesar, because I think he pales next to the original Latin.


Really, I think you just like to wind people up a bit with all your talk of Shakespeare. :p

There's an element of that, but I do genuinely believe that he's over-rated, irrelevant today and that many of his staunchest supporters overlook glaring problems with his plays.


Maybe you attack Shakespeare in order to try to rattle the foundations of elitism which you perceive exists around the bard? In shooting Shakespeare however you shoot the messenger who spoke to all segments of society.

Nah, I'm leaving elitism out at this stage; I had a dig at that a while back, and while talking about Shakespeare touches on it, it's not one I'm pursuing here. And I don't recommend shooting Shakespeare - he was unquestionably one of the greatest English writers, but I don't see him at the top, or worse still, alone at the top, as many see him.

[Niamh]

— I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?
He frowned sternly on the bright air.
— Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.
— Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.
-Ulysses, Ch. 2, James Joyce


I could not help but laugh at the absurdity of this quote, for my dads family grew up along side the Jewish quarter in inner city dublin! But i'm sure being Joyce, he used this as a point of ignorance and not as a racist remark. (yes i cant believe it! I defended Joyce!)

Anyway can we move away from the ethnicity of Canada and return to the main discussion please which is why some people hate shakespeare. :)
Thank you!
Niamh
Mod.

[LitNetIsGreat]

How on earth is it weak? The weakness is the lack of originality.

Shakespeare, lack of originality?

It's all about the language, the words on the page, the power and energy and philosophy of the characterisation and drama. It is not about where you acquire your original spark from, it never was, but the mastery of the end result. In this Shakespeare's originality was huge.


Whether or not it was accepted is irrelevant, someone wrote the story in the first place, so how is any kudos possible from merely recounting a tale? I used the example of Julius Caesar, because I think he pales next to the original Latin.

I've not read the original Julius Caesar in the original Latin so I'll have to believe you on that one. I will say that Shakespeare does more than "recounting a tale" in his works that have been translated and read and loved in almost every language on earth over the past 400 years. You speak as if he is some bloke in a pub telling fishing stories to his mates.


There's an element of that, but I do genuinely believe that he's over-rated, irrelevant today and that many of his staunchest supporters overlook glaring problems with his plays.

Irrelevant today? :brickwall He's not over-rated, maybe some others are under-rated in comparison, I keep hearing a lot about Racine and so on, but he's not over-rated.


Nah, I'm leaving elitism out at this stage; I had a dig at that a while back, and while talking about Shakespeare touches on it, it's not one I'm pursuing here.

OK, let's leave the big E out of it, but don't forget (as I am sure you haven't) that Shakespeare was loved by the working classes of his time and still is.


And I don't recommend shooting Shakespeare - he was unquestionably one of the greatest English writers, but I don't see him at the top, or worse still, alone at the top, as many see him.

You see I don't understand your comment here in conjunction with the "irrelevant today" tag. Maybe you would like to see Ben Elton sitting at the top alongside him? ;)

I am all for exploring the forgotten or overlooked masters of the past, or even for seeking out potential contemporary classics, but I'm not going to forget or ignore the more obvious masters sitting there right before my eyes on the top of my bookshelf.

[The Atheist]

Shakespeare, lack of originality?

We've already covered that many of his plays were copies of other people's stroies. Better copies, maybe, but his originality rating isn't that high. Especially when I compare him to Swift, say.


It's all about the language, the words on the page, the power and energy and philosophy of the characterisation and drama. It is not about where you acquire your original spark from, it never was, but the mastery of the end result. In this Shakespeare's originality was huge.

Yep, on that basis, I can agree. I just don't rate it as highly as some.


I've not read the original Julius Caesar in the original Latin so I'll have to believe you on that one. I will say that Shakespeare does more than "recounting a tale" in his works that have been translated and read and loved in almost every language on earth over the past 400 years. You speak as if he is some bloke in a pub telling fishing stories to his mates.

Isn't that exactly what it is? Storytelling evolved, just like every other human endeavour, and I'd guarantee the first stories were just that - around a campfire, although maybe defence against sabre-tooth cats rather than swapping whoppers.


Irrelevant today? :brickwall He's not over-rated, maybe some others are under-rated in comparison, I keep hearing a lot about Racine and so on, but he's not over-rated.

Well, you won't hear about Racine from me, but I have to stick with over-rated. I just don't believe he stands ahead of many other authors. When I compare the all-round skills, the method of delivery and the message, I don't see Shakespeare as any better than many others - and not as good as some.

It isn't his fault that he's irrelevant today, times change. Swift isn't all that relevant today, and while I doubt another satirical piece will ever approach the brilliance of A Modest Proposal, I wouldn't recommend anyone not aware of the political background reading it, because they just won't get it.


OK, let's leave the big E out of it, but don't forget (as I am sure you haven't) that Shakespeare was loved by the working classes of his time and still is.

Are you sure about the current situation?

I'd like to see some figures on how many working class families either read or go to the theatre for Shakespeare compared to the higher decile groups. I know from personal experience that tickets to Shakespeare plays sell best in affluent areas, so while I acknowledge that they started out as everyman's theatre, those days are long gone.


You see I don't understand your comment here in conjunction with the "irrelevant today" tag. Maybe you would like to see Ben Elton sitting at the top alongside him? ;)

Oh, come on! You expect me to allow him to reach that kind of lofty height?

:D


I am all for exploring the forgotten or overlooked masters of the past, or even for seeking out potential contemporary classics, but I'm not going to forget or ignore the more obvious masters sitting there right before my eyes on the top of my bookshelf.

No, and I agree with that. I said I wouldn't dispense with him, that's impossible, but I'd certainly reduce the emphasis on his work by an order of magnitude.

[kiz_paws]

The people of Canada are uniformly the color of Moby Dick and Vanilla Ice Cream, differing from the snowflake in that they actually are all the same...Wow.

Anyhow, I won't rebuttal any of this, it makes me wonder at times what the 'outside world' thinks of us, so yeah, this is one man's (woman's?) opinion ... the source questionable, but anyhoo, let us take the Mod's advice and get on with the original intention of this thread and hash out the why's and why nots of hating The Bard...

**tears some hair out**

[andave_ya]

Oh, good. Now I don't have to feel bad about not liking the Bard.

I've read five of his best-known plays and would only reread Macbeth. Though for the sake of knowledge I intend to read King Lear and the Merchant of Venice.

I signed up for the Sonnet-a-Day and have nearly all of them unread in my inbox.

[JBI]

Honestly guys, just rent Looking for Richard with/by Al Pacino. That seems to explain everything - the fact that people who read Shakespeare either pretend, or misread. Really though, if one studies, reads properly, that is, with a good teacher, one picks up on stuff. If one reads looking for "literary devices" than of course they won't like it. In general, most people don't particularly like what they study for school.

[Drkshadow03]

So let me get this straight, we have a play where a Jewish character practices the stereotypical job of usury, whether historically accurate or not, displays many other stereotypical Jewish qualities of greediness (after all, why must a usurer necessarily be greedy?), demands his pound of flesh instead of payment even when he finally has the opportunity to do otherwise thus practically demonizing the character, finally repents offering us sympathetic moments only when he's screwed, which ends with him being forced to become a Christian in the end. . . And no one, but The Atheist, can see that this might come off as remotely anti-Semitic . . . not only do I find that sad, but I find that downright disturbing.

On the other hand, I agree with JBI that Shakespeare does depict Shylock in a sympathetic light at times, where you could read it in part as a critique of Christian treatment of Jews.

I personally think the best and most accurate reading combines both A and B. I cannot see why it must be one or the other; and that's always been my personal feeling while reading the play as both Jew and critic. It also reflects how I was taught the play in undergrad. 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.

[Virgil]

I have to agree with Atheist on this one. The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than. That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair,
I tend to agree. That one speech by Shylock in the play is the sole means of our pity. But everything else in the play ridicules him extensively and cruely. Though to be honest I feel the label of anti-semitism and racist are too strong words. These are characters in a story. I'm not aware of Shakespeare physically doing harm in anyway to a real life person. Attitudes are prejudice, but racism is doing something harmful to a living person. At least that's how I regard it. As to your Canadian comments, such analogies are best left not made. You can't compare people and attitudes of a different era and place.


Another sweeping generalisation. The fact that we feel sympathy for Shylock, and Othello, does not bear your statement out. I don't know how you can say "Shakespeare was definitely a racist". You, and no-one else knew the man. You have to go by his writing, and Othello is a "flawed hero" in a tragedy, and Shylock is a man driven to extremes by his treatment. If the play was anti-semitic, why are we not more in support of the "victim" and less empathetic to his "tormentor?" Perhaps because the "victim" has been the "tormentor" for so long along with his friends.
You can read my comments above to Mortal on racism. But Shylock was not a flawed hero, or a hero of any kind. He was the villain of a comedy, the person who was ridiculed. You can compare him to the character Jaques of As You Like It. He too is made the butt of ridicule. It seems that in certain comedies Shakespeare needed an outsider type to hold up as a contrast to the lead characters. Both Jaques (the puritan) and Shylock (the Jew) serve as characters to feel contempt for, and yet both have their human side we pity. I think Shakespeare wants them to not just be stock characters, but realistic characters to accentuate the ridicule. In short I don't think Shakespeare is sincere in that speech he gives Shylock. It's the only sympathetic moment he gives him.


I could not help but laugh at the absurdity of this quote, for my dads family grew up along side the Jewish quarter in inner city dublin! But i'm sure being Joyce, he used this as a point of ignorance and not as a racist remark. (yes i cant believe it! I defended Joyce!)

Anyway can we move away from the ethnicity of Canada and return to the main discussion please which is why some people hate shakespeare. :)
Thank you!
Niamh
Mod.
You are absolutely correct. That is not Joyce's attitude but the prejudiced character of Deasy, which not by accident almost sounds like Sleazy.


I think he's definitely anti-Catholic since that wound was still ripe in his day. You have Mary Queen of Scots running around in the north. You have Spain and France aligned against England at the same time. Shakespeare's anti-Catholic bias comes out in little things like the French King's defection to the Pope in King John. Again, it's not quite as blatant as Spenser's Duessa in The Faerie Queene, but Shakespeare was a more subtle writer.
Actually I have seen published argument that Shakespeare was himself Jewish and another that he may have been a hold over Catholic. I have sensed a sort of Catholic senstivity in places (can't recall them off the top of my head) but as I've thought about it over the years, he probably wasn't. The similarity between Roman Catholicism and High Anglican is almost indistiguishable, other than allegence to the Pope.

[JBI]

But there is still the question, yet unadressed, if Shylock's villainy stems, as shown by Shakespeare, from he being Jewish, that is, a genetic thing, or from something else, mainly provocation. There is nothong to suggest, as I have noted with the Jessica example, that Shakespeare implied a genetic barbarism, yet how then can he be antisemitic? Because Shylock loses, and he is the only minority, or visible (that is, physically) on stage?

You'd get more calling Charlotte Bronte a racist. She at least burns the Creole woman alive in what Frye called Tyrannical Teleology. Shakespeare merely has him humiliated, for no other reason than that the crowd wished him so, showing a layer of irony, given that the judges at Shylock's trial resemble the attitude of the audience, and seeing Shylock fall provides the same emotion, or even more so, given that we know Portia is there hiding, and really tricking him. Either way, really, no one can be certain with Shakespeare, as we know virtually nothing of use about him. And beyond that, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth, As You Like It, Henry IV p1 + p2, etc. more than show his skill as a writer.

He is going nowhere, his reputation is earned because quite clearly, nothing of his time came even close. I do not consider Shakespeare to have written the greatest work of literature - I personally give that title, of all I've read, to Dante, but what I do think is that in general, he was one of the top, if not the top all around writers, and, given what he had to work with, is all the more impressive.

The term overrated itself is kind of stupid - no one is overrated, really, as rating is relative to the opinion, which in itself causes the rating, meaning the term overrated doesn't make much sense, unless one assumes that ones own personal ratings are far superior to consensus, or that the consensus has made a mistake. The term is thrown around, but really means nothing - ratings are there because those who make them believe such are do, thereby making the rating just a rating, and not possibly an overrating, given that it was meant. If one made an argument "Shakespeare is x, or Shakespeare is bad, or Shakespeare's style is terrible, or Shakespeare's..." then we could have a discussion. But a simple internet consensus on whether or not he fits a nonsensical word is a mere waste of time.

[Virgil]

But there is still the question, yet unadressed, if Shylock's villainy stems, as shown by Shakespeare, from he being Jewish, that is, a genetic thing, or from something else, mainly provocation. There is nothong to suggest, as I have noted with the Jessica example, that Shakespeare implied a genetic barbarism, yet how then can he be antisemitic? Because Shylock loses, and he is the only minority, or visible (that is, physically) on stage?

I've heard that case made. To be honest I see nothing that Shakespeare was anything but Christian.

Edit: I miss read your comment. I thought you were saying that Shakespeare was Jewish. Disregard my response here.


You'd get more calling Charlotte Bronte a racist. She at least burns the Creole woman alive in what Frye called Tyrannical Teleology. Shakespeare merely has him humiliated, for no other reason than that the crowd wished him so, showing a layer of irony, given that the judges at Shylock's trial resemble the attitude of the audience, and seeing Shylock fall provides the same emotion, or even more so, given that we know Portia is there hiding, and really tricking him. Either way, really, no one can be certain with Shakespeare, as we know virtually nothing of use about him. And beyond that, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth, As You Like It, Henry IV p1 + p2, etc. more than show his skill as a writer.
I haven't read the play in the last year or so, but it's not just the crowd that ridicules him. Shakespeare endows him with the typical steroetype of Jewish "love of money." Doesn't he choose money over his daughter? I can't quite remember. But his own daughter abandons him.


He is going nowhere, his reputation is earned because quite clearly, nothing of his time came even close. I do not consider Shakespeare to have written the greatest work of literature - I personally give that title, of all I've read, to Dante, but what I do think is that in general, he was one of the top, if not the top all around writers, and, given what he had to work with, is all the more impressive.
On this we completely agree.

[bazarov]

Why is it so hard to accept that someone doesn't like Shakespeare? I don't get that.
Hamlet is really great, Othello is very good, but The Tempest is really bad, and I gave up on Henrik VI. :)

[wessexgirl]

Virgil, I never said Shylock was a "flawed hero", I said that about Othello.

I still maintain that Shakespeare was only "shining a mirror onto his world" with regards to how Jews were treated. I haven't read the play for a long time, but I can remember not being enamoured with Jessica, and her behaviour, or even the rest of the characters. They are not likeable. As I said, if people can't get empathy from Shylock's speech, as to why he is how he is, then they're missing the point.

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

With the references to being kicked and spat upon, and the fact that usury was the only profession open to Jews, which Christians like Bassanio and Antonio have made use of when it suits them, how can those who do, think that Shakespeare is being anti-semitic? I don't feel any sympathy with the rest of the cast. And surely today of all days, Holocaust Memorial Day, that speech should be plastered on walls around the world.

[Nightshade]

I wouldn't use the word anti semitic, mainly because anti semitism differs from anti Judaism ( which is what I think is what you are talking about really) and the general consensus among academic is as far as I can tell that anti semitism with notable exceptions tends to refer to 19th century onwards.

But as to his anti Judaism I don't think you can argue that really. Id go more for the whole he was xenophobic, ethnophobic and what ever fear of someone who is of a different religion is. And its not surprising considering the political goings on of the era, I'm fairy sure I read somewhere once that along with association, with the catholics and the Scots Liz the first had a tendency to chop the heads off people who associated with Jews and Arabs , Muslims and Spaniards. . He would obviously need to reinforce his lack of sympathy to stay in favour with her. And if he was really Marlowe he really really didn't need to get into trouble with the crown again.

I am not the greatest hater or lover of Shakespeare, although admittedly Ive begun to like some aspects of Shakespeare more since Ive stopped having it forced on me. The thing I do hate though is the assumption that all Shakespeare is good because it was written by Shakespeare, or that Shakespeare is great simply because he is widely known read and studied.
And he wasn't original not that it isn't acceptable to turn over already known stories and either fictionise them or retell them, but he didn't pull the stories out of nowhere except for a Midsummer night's dream ( which is probably my least favourite ).

I also think that Shakespeare is meant to be watched not read, that they were never meant to be more than enetertainment, or prehaps occasionally slight political diggs, or even tools. But 'literature' no. I think that there is a whole level of shakepeare lost because its nt preformed in the same conditions as it would ave originlly and I would pay alot of good money to go see shakespeare renacted by an all male,cast with no lighting no modern sound effects. ( ok to clarify before I get myself in trouble concider the irony in As you like it of Rosalind being a boy pretending to be a girl pretending to be a boy roleplaying the part of a girl. Or in othello the line about being 'far more fair than black' or the one about his colour only skin deep, whne in fact he literally was a man with a bit face paint on his face quite literally far more white than black) Im not saying do away with women and non whites in shakespearen plays Im saying I would occasionally like to see shakespare as it would have been!
:nod:

[kiki1982]

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

Yes, that was just what I was thinking when this argument up. That was the most touching moment in that whole play.
Where the Christian who granted his pound of flesh for collateral gets almost punished for his imprudence and pride (wanting to lend when he has no money and is worrying about his ship being lost at sea), the Jew is denied his collateral and the Christian is acquitted on the grounds of a mere sentence in the contract, by a woman of all people...
Indeed, given that Jews were reduced over time by the Christians willingly, to lending them money, the term anti-semitism does not the same meaning as now.
Nevertheless, maybe The Merchant of Venice is rather a sneer towards the Christians than towards the Jew. Because it is the Christian himself who voluntarily puts his flesh and his life on the line and then dares to complain about it and when the Christian then gets saved, this is not enough, but he even takes all the Jew's possessions to take revenge... Then the Jew is forced to convert to Christianity, as if that is a better example, given what just happened... If you ask me, it is not the Jew who is the avaricious one here...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Originally Posted by Neely
OK, let's leave the big E out of it, but don't forget (as I am sure you haven't) that Shakespeare was loved by the working classes of his time and still is.


Originally Posted by Atheist
Are you sure about the current situation?

I'd like to see some figures on how many working class families either read or go to the theatre for Shakespeare compared to the higher decile groups. I know from personal experience that tickets to Shakespeare plays sell best in affluent areas, so while I acknowledge that they started out as everyman's theatre, those days are long gone.

You see this is one of the tragedies of Shakespeare, the fact that he has become to be associated with the middle or upper classes for many reasons. I am not arguing that he isn’t in some respects, but he is still and can be still loved by all segments of society if given the opportunity to do so. This opens up a whole new area of how Shakespeare is studied in school and when is the correct time to do so and so on, which is another matter for another time perhaps. Yes it takes time and dedication to read and understand literature and Shakespeare properly, but class need not be a barrier to this acquisition at all.

The cost of theatre tickets to see Shakespeare in the UK is not that expensive in comparison to other areas, say football matches. You would probably pay around £25/£30 to see the RSA perform Shakespeare in London or Stratford upon Avon, which is about equal to most football matches in the Premier League and Championship. Other productions of Shakespeare can be much cheaper and almost as good, certainly for the layman, so to speak. Cost is not the barrier then in reality here. His plays if bought individually to be read or even as a collection cost about as much as a four-pack of lager. Cost again is not an issue for the working classes (and when I use the term “working classes” I place myself amongst them.) This social stigma and myth which surrounds Shakespeare as floating in the echelons of the “higher orders” is a myth that needs breaking.

[mortalterror]

Virgil, I never said Shylock was a "flawed hero", I said that about Othello.

I still maintain that Shakespeare was only "shining a mirror onto his world" with regards to how Jews were treated. I haven't read the play for a long time, but I can remember not being enamoured with Jessica, and her behaviour, or even the rest of the characters. They are not likeable. As I said, if people can't get empathy from Shylock's speech, as to why he is how he is, then they're missing the point.

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

With the references to being kicked and spat upon, and the fact that usury was the only profession open to Jews, which Christians like Bassanio and Antonio have made use of when it suits them, how can those who do, think that Shakespeare is being anti-semitic? I don't feel any sympathy with the rest of the cast. And surely today of all days, Holocaust Memorial Day, that speech should be plastered on walls around the world.

The characters in any comedy are all models of misbehaviour. You aren't supposed to like and emulate them. They are avaricious, greedy, lustful, spendthrift, violent, and stupid. They get into trouble for the dumbest reasons, and then try to get out of trouble by the dumbest methods. The traditional stick in the mud, the stuffy old dean, the boss, the pompous soldier/cop, the clerk, are all just doing their jobs and being responsible adults. I can see why if you don't realize something is a comedy you would empathize with them and say, "Why are they picking on that poor man?"

You probably sympathize with Olivia's steward Malvolio in Twelfth Night. He's just trying to run a respectable house and is made the butt of jokes, pranks, ridicule, abuse, and in the end is cast out like a scape goat because he cannot find it in himself to join the revels. What was his crime? Nothing in our world, with our rules. But in the comedic world, where things are turned upside down, that stands for justice. We laugh because of the incongruity, because things don't make sense, are not nice, are patently unjust, unreasonable. To do otherwise would be to cry.

To discuss The Merchant of Venice in terms of racism is to give it a very modern interpretation not intended by Shakespeare. The theme is there, but it's a minor theme incidental to the play. We do the same thing when we talk about Huckleberry Finn. It's a comedy and we ought to be discussing the jokes, and did they work, and is the incident where they paint Jim blue effective? How does he parody genre fiction here and there? But we don't talk about that because it doesn't suit our interests. What the modern era is fascinated by is race relations, and it will seize upon any opportunity to do so.

[wessexgirl]

The characters in any comedy are all models of misbehaviour. You aren't supposed to like and emulate them. They are avaricious, greedy, lustful, spendthrift, violent, and stupid. They get into trouble for the dumbest reasons, and then try to get out of trouble by the dumbest methods. The traditional stick in the mud, the stuffy old dean, the boss, the pompous soldier/cop, the clerk, are all just doing their jobs and being responsible adults. I can see why if you don't realize something is a comedy you would empathize with them and say, "Why are they picking on that poor man?"

You probably sympathize with Olivia's steward Malvolio in Twelfth Night. He's just trying to run a respectable house and is made the butt of jokes, pranks, ridicule, abuse, and in the end is cast out like a scape goat because he cannot find it in himself to join the revels. What was his crime? Nothing in our world, with our rules. But in the comedic world, where things are turned upside down, that stands for justice. We laugh because of the incongruity, because things don't make sense, are not nice, are patently unjust, unreasonable. To do otherwise would be to cry.

To discuss The Merchant of Venice in terms of racism is to give it a very modern interpretation not intended by Shakespeare. The theme is there, but it's a minor theme incidental to the play. We do the same thing when we talk about Huckleberry Finn. It's a comedy and we ought to be discussing the jokes, and did they work, and is the incident where they paint Jim blue effective? How does he parody genre fiction here and there? But we don't talk about that because it doesn't suit our interests. What the modern era is fascinated by is race relations, and it will seize upon any opportunity to do so.

The fact that I feel sympathy towards Shylock, and dislike the other characters is important. If Shakespeare is being accused of being anti-semitic, then I think it's fair to defend him by showing how he portrays all of the characters. The skill of the writer is paramount here in making us feel a certain way. If he wanted us to go along with the "anti-semitism", he would let us feel nothing but empathy with Shylock's tormentors, and nothing but revulsion for Shylock. Surely the fact that Shakespeare doesn't do that proves his intentions, and makes it clear he was a more humane person than some are alleging.

[The Atheist]

Yes it takes time and dedication to read and understand literature and Shakespeare properly, but class need not be a barrier to this acquisition at all.

Couple of things in that:

Everyone who reads and understands Shakepeare won't necessarily love him, or even like him.

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?


The cost of theatre tickets to see Shakespeare in the UK is not that expensive in comparison to other areas, say football matches.

Agree; I don't think cost is an issue - the people who buy football tickets probably go to 5 or 6 games a year, but don't see a Shakespeare play once.



This social stigma and myth which surrounds Shakespeare as floating in the echelons of the “higher orders” is a myth that needs breaking.

Is it? I find it hard to see how it's not the case in 2009, and it seems to me that it's been the case for at least a century.

[Janine]

Oh Atheist, I'm going to have to disagree. If you compare the level of drama and poetry of his peers in his era, you will see Shakespeare is head and shoulders above them. There never was anything quite like Shakespeare before him and frankly until the novel developed to capture the full psychological fullness of a character, there wasn't anyone to match him for centuries. As to the anti-semitism, the others have made an arguement that he wasn't. Not sure they are considering how anti-semitic Aaron of Titus Andronicus comes across. So Shakespeare was a man of his times. How is one to transcend certain things? No one in my opinion captures humanity as well as Shakespeare in his prime. And not just for one or two plays. There are literally a dozen to 18 plays that are shear masterpieces.

I totally agree with Virgil on this one. He could not have stated this any better. Thanks, V!. Especially about the masterpieces, I agree whole-heartedly.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Everyone who reads and understands Shakepeare won't necessarily love him, or even like him.

See I find all those people who don't appreciate Shakespeare somewhat odd, I don't really trust them - like the University tutor I have avoided and will continue to do so. I don't see how you can be a true lover of literature and not appreciate Shakespeare on some level at least, I don't care how elitist that may sound, it's how I feel. I simply don't really trust their judgement.


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?

This goes back to the educational systems I suppose which would vary between country, even within each country. It is a big question and not one that can be answered fully in a short paragraph. It probably heads us down the political system path again, which is probably not a wise street to drive down and conversations of mass culture. Why do you think the so called "hoi polloi" don't engage in Shakespeare, even if that is huge a sweeping statement which you are making?


Is it? I find it hard to see how it's not the case in 2009, and it seems to me that it's been the case for at least a century.

I don't quite get what you mean here. I was speaking about the myth that Shakespeare is only for the upper echelons as it were. Intelligent people from all walks of life often tell me that they don't/can't/won't understand Shakespeare despite the fact that they might not have tried for over a decade, if at all. I am speaking generally about "non-readers" in this case, they assume that Shakespeare is not for them. This is the myth that needs breaking. I have seen below average children "get" Shakespeare's language after actually trying, figure that actually reading it instead of whining! I don't know, I'm not out to convert the world here, but whenever people come at me with such nonsense (I can't "get" Shakespeare) I say "why?"

Of course we are not talking about "non-readers" (non-students) attitudes we are talking about well read people not liking Shakespeare, which is, just sort of weird. Cross the street to avoid them. :thumbs_up

[The Atheist]

See I find all those people who don't appreciate Shakespeare somewhat odd, I don't really trust them - like the University tutor I have avoided and will continue to do so. I don't see how you can be a true lover of literature and not appreciate Shakespeare on some level at least, I don't care how elitist that may sound, it's how I feel. I simply don't really trust their judgement.

I find that a bit odd.


Why do you think the so called "hoi polloi" don't engage in Shakespeare, even if that is huge a sweeping statement which you are making?

Yes, it is a sweeping statement, but I think it's largely correct. Why don't they? That's what I asked you!

:D

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 don't quite get what you mean here. I was speaking about the myth that Shakespeare is only for the upper echelons as it were. Intelligent people from all walks of life often tell me that they don't/can't/won't understand Shakespeare despite the fact that they might not have tried for over a decade, if at all. I am speaking generally about "non-readers" in this case, they assume that Shakespeare is not for them. This is the myth that needs breaking. I have seen below average children "get" Shakespeare's language after actually trying, figure that actually reading it instead of whining! I don't know, I'm not out to convert the world here, but whenever people come at me with such nonsense (I can't "get" Shakespeare) I say "why?"

This is a different subject, because people who haven't got what Shakespeare intended have merely missed the point. There's no doubt that it's a lot easier to read a Mills & Boon than Shakespeare, so laziness is going to be a factor.

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


Of course we are not talking about "non-readers" (non-students) attitudes we are talking about well read people not liking Shakespeare, which is, just sort of weird. Cross the street to avoid them. :thumbs_up

:lol::lol:

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

[Niamh]

Nightie i think you made so very good points there!.
Personally i have a respect and an appriciation for Shakespeare. I really do like many of his plays but in truth, i would not say i truely love him, for there are many of his plays that make me cringe! Loves Labour Lost being one of them.
I will not frown at anyone for not liking shakespeare. I can understand why he would not appeal to some, the same way Fantasy or romances dont appeal to all of us. And i definitely think there are more modern dramatists out there that out shine him. Brian Friel for example.

[JBI]

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 think, generally, if one looked, they would find the lower classes probably read less on average. And beyond that, if you look hard enough, you will realize that Shakespeare requires a relatively high amount of knowledge of the English language, and a lot of work.

It's as if you are calling John Clare an Elitist Poet because his biggest fan base is probably in Academia - nonsensical rubbish.

[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. :D 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. :lol: 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?:lol: 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?:lol:

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.:rolleyes:

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...:D

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?:rolleyes:

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...:D

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?:rolleyes:

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.:rolleyes:

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.:rolleyes:

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.

[stlukesguild]

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

No answer.

Seriously... do you know the slightest thing about literature at all? Literary criticism of the Bible exists in such a vast quantity that I doubt even Shakespearean criticism can rival it. Literary Criticism... not religious or theological criticism. Nearly any university in the US... quite probably in the West in general... is certain to offer a course on the Bible as Literature and/or include Biblical texts in any World Literature Survey courses. Among the books which discuss the "great books" and offer suggested essential reading lists, nearly every one includes The Bible or specific Biblical texts. These might include: How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, The Western Canon by Harold Bloom, Great Books by David Denby, The Lifetime Reading Plan by Clifton Fadiman and John S. Major, Good Reading: A Guide for Serious Readers, Waldhorn, Weber, and Zeiger, editors, Choice of Books by Sir John Lubbock, etc... There are any number of contemporary critics of the Bible as literature including Robert Alter, David Rosenberg, and Richard Elliott Friedman. Beyond the realm of the critic, there are endless Modern writers who have been inspired by Biblical texts... something that speaks volumes about their admiration for the Bible as literature. Among these you might include T.S. Eliot, J.L. Borges, Franz Kafka, Rilke, Nikos Kazantzakis, Michail Bulgakov, etc... etc... Add to this the continual literary translations of the Bible and/or Biblical texts: Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses, The David Story, and The Book of Psalms, Stephen Mitchell's Job, Chana and Ariel Bloch's and Robert Graves Song of Songs, David Rosenberg's Poet's Bible and Book of David, and David Curzon's anthology, The Gospels in Our Image, which collects modern and contemporary poems structured upon Biblical texts (which again suggests a certain admiration in the poets) and includes poets such as J.L. Borges, D.H. Lawrence, Marina Tsvetaeva, Wislawa Symborska, William Butler Yeats, Rilke, Primo Levi, T.S. Eliot, Czeslaw Milosz, W.H. Auden, Thomas Disch, Richard Wilbur, Anthony Hecht, W.S. Merwin, Dylan Thomas, Paul Celan, Boris Pasternak, Thomas Hardy, etc... Beyond writers there are endless modern composers, painters, and film-makers who were equally inspired by Biblical literature... even when they themselves were agnostics or atheists. But all of these people are but fools. You... the great iconoclast (wannabe) know so much better. The fact of the matter is that your inability to see any aesthetic merit in the Biblical texts stems from your own admitted hatred of religion (enough so to make it plain in your very screen name) that itself verges on a form of racism.

By the way... its intriguing that you can call me out on the fact that I did not offer a list of critics and others who recognize the Bible as great literature (I simply felt that the claim was somewhat embarrassing and beneath acknowledgment) and yet you make some wild claim about the superiority of some vague Latin text that served as the basis for Julius Ceasar... and was clearly so much better than Shakespeare's book... and yet you cannot even think of what it was? Is this the intellectual acumen at work of which you spoke so confidently?

[The Atheist]

Literary criticism of the Bible exists in such a vast quantity that I doubt even Shakespearean criticism can rival it. Literary Criticism... not religious or theological criticism. Nearly any university in the US... quite probably in the West in general... is certain to offer a course on the Bible as Literature and/or include Biblical texts in any World Literature Survey courses.

Yes, I am fully aware of all of that, but I still don't see any links to anyone who calls the bible or quran "great literature".

It seems to me that you're able to list people who were influenced by the bible, but that's quite pointless, since our entire culture is based upon it.

The book itself is contradictory and absurd.

Let's see what the majority opinion is, since you're so concerned with others' views:

Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1578073,00.html) No bible.

Washington Post (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393328406/ref=nosim/thtote-20) No bible.

100 writers list their top 100 books. (http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/100books/nwgbooks.htm) (Note The Book of Job makes it into the top 100, but not the book which spawned it.

Random House's top 100 and their readers' top 100. (http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html) No bible.

Best 100 novels of all time.com. (http://www.best100novels.com/) No bible, and this list must be fairly authoritative, because it has 1984 at #1.

Esquire's 75 Must-read Books (http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/75-books). No bible.

Harvard Books Staff (http://www.harvard.com/onourshelves/top100.html). No bible.

Check out those lists - I see all the important authors in there, Orwell, Shakespeare, Joyce, Greene, Twain, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Nobel & Pulitzer winners, so the lists can't be all rubbish, yet out of all of that, one lousy passage - a whole 23 pages - makes any of the lists.

There are many, many more, if you care to put your misconceptions aside for a moment and look at the bible objectively.


Among the books which discuss the "great books" and offer suggested essential reading lists, nearly every one includes The Bible or specific Biblical texts.

I just don't believe that is true. See the lists above - I looked, but they don't exist. Those people you claim see the bible as essential reading mean it from a theistic perspective, because nobody so far rates it as a book.


Is this the intellectual acumen at work of which you spoke so confidently?

I am very comfortable with my intellectual acumen at this stage, and not remembering quite which Latin text I had read, going back some 30-odd years, isn't going to make me re-think.

Please feel free to post another wall of text, but I'm over the discussion until you provide links and details of literary critics who will claim the bible, as a book, has literary merit.

[JBI]

Do you check the books you quote? Notice that some of them are time-specific, I.E English only, and twentieth century? Do you read what you google? Did you forget that The bible cannot possibly be on a list of best novels, being that they are *gasp* novels? And nice culture bias there, whose opinion are you really taking into account? For such a devout Orwellian, you forget to search who is putting forward these lists, and forgot to consider potential biases I.E. that most are American, and all are English, and many put out by News Papers which have their own agendas. Seriously, that's why these lists will always fail, besides the point that the bible is not one book, so how can it possibly rank amongst single works like that. Despite that, it continues to be the most read book, so your talk leads to nothing.

No one attempting to seriously approach Western literature has not read the Bible, at least in part. No serious critic does not see the profound effect the text has had. No serious English critic can get anywhere really, without the KJV. If you want critics, I can name you major critics, who you probably have never heard of, though are far better examples of critical consensus than the examples St. Lukes gave.

You virtually cannot understand Western Literature without an understanding of the Bible, because the text is so present, in all our thought, whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, or anything else. It is always present in the west, and a great deal of the east as well. The Koran is like that too - it won't go away - it is so central to the whole Islamic, and even surrounding, literary Canon, that to ignore it is not making an aesthetic statement, but I would argue, making a mild islamophobic statement.

Either way, said opinion will lead nowhere but disenlightenment - I think that is what the pseudo-atheists of the day, those with agendas rather than lacks of conviction forget - Atheism for centuries has been seen as a way to expand ones thought, not to shut ones thought out. If we only read those who agree with us, than what good wold reading be?

[The Atheist]

Do you check the books you quote? Notice that some of them are time-specific, I.E English only, and twentieth century?

Oh, mea culpa; one, just one list is both 20th century and English only. The rest are all the best of all time and as I stated, there are hundreds more available.


No one attempting to seriously approach Western literature has not read the Bible, at least in part. No serious critic does not see the profound effect the text has had.

Come on. It forms the backbone of the religion which has been the world's major one for many centuries and as I said earlier, our entire legal and moral system is built on it, so yes it has had a profound effect on life, including literature.

That doesn't make it good literature and the only people arguing that it does are you and stlukesguild. I'm happy for you to belabour under that misconception, but I do note that your attempted refutation contains no authority beyond your own opinion.


No serious English critic can get anywhere really, without the KJV.

Well said - it proves that you're wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. The KJV is wrong in so many places I can't even count them all. It is recognised by only a few insane sects of the christian church.


If you want critics, I can name you major critics, who you probably have never heard of, though are far better examples of critical consensus than the examples St. Lukes gave.

Please feel free to do so, because that's what I keep being told, but getting no evidence for. Do ensure that the criticism is literary and not theological.

I would agree that the bible is the most important book ever written, because it has influenced society for over 2000 years - if you include the OT, but it's a hopelessly poor book; unless you'd like to argue that a book of myths, untruths, contradictions and bad analogies can be great literature, in which case, Dan Brown is no doubt a legend.


You virtually cannot understand Western Literature without an understanding of the Bible, because the text is so present, in all our thought, whether Christian, Jew, Atheist, or anything else.

Assertion without substance. I don't accept a bar of it.


The Koran is like that too - it won't go away - it is so central to the whole Islamic, and even surrounding, literary Canon, that to ignore it is not making an aesthetic statement, but I would argue, making a mild islamophobic statement.

More assertion without substance, although I'd agree that islamists would see it as islamophobia, which is why the fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie. Most people in the places I go to don't see that as a good thing.


If we only read those who agree with us, than what good wold reading be?

This bit is right - and almost all of atheists I know are highly educated biblical scholars; there's no possibility of showing the ridiculous contradictions and absurdities if you haven't read and udnerstood it.

I look forward to your scholarly links to attempt to show that either the bible or quran is rated as superior literature.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh come on Atheist, give it up man, I don't know what you are tying to accomplish here in the long run - I just think you like writing controversial things on forums. I know a University tutor (one from about nine) who you will get on with well, I can give you her number?

Time to pull out and re-evaluate in the face of the posters here who we can all learn from, me included certainly. Let's not push it too far. :)

[The Atheist]

Oh come on Atheist, give it up man, I don't know what you are tying to accomplish here in the long run.

Well, it started as a simple exercise to show that Shakespeare-love is not universal or even desirable, in many cases.

I'd said about all there was to say on the subject, but some people have started making the laughable claim that the bible is great literature as well.

I'll cheerfully agree to disagree on Shakespeare, but suggestions that the bible has literary merit are just laughable and I won't let that kind of myth be perpetuated. It is rubbish.

Regardless of that, that subject's also done, unless omeone finally comes up with some proof that literature critics see the bible as great literature.

[stlukesguild]

I still don't see any links to anyone who calls the bible or quran "great literature".

What? I need links to prove my point? Any one who has even the least knowledge of literature... which you seemingly purport to have... is aware of the inclusion of Biblical texts among the lists of great books studied in universities... as literature... not as theology... not as history... and discussed by critics and authors.

How to Read a Book
by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren

The Old Testament (no. 2) The New Testament (no. 30)
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtadler.html

The Western Canon
by Harold Bloom
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html#theo

Columbia University Reading List, Contemporary Civilization Course:1991-1992
quoted in David Denby's Great Books
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtcolcc.html

Columbia University Reading List, Literature Humanities Course: 1991-1992
quoted in David Denby's Great Books
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtcollh.html

The Lifetime Reading Plan
by Clifton Fadiman (3rd ed., 1988)
In the opening comments the author states that he did not include the Bible on his list of essential books because: "I have assumed that anyone who would read this book is already familiar with the Bible." The Qur'an is listed.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtfad3.html

Good Reading: A Guide for Serious Readers
Waldhorn, Weber, and Zeiger, editors
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtgood.html

Great Books Index
http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html

Undoubtedly JBI... with his greater experience of literary theory and criticism... can come up with an endless array of other serious academic critics who would clearly agree that The Bible is a great work of literature. Yes it is flawed... as is nearly any epic work of art. Yes it lacks a continuity... as should be expected when texts by dozens of individual writers are collected within a single volume... but it contains an endless array of magnificent poetry and narrative.

And what lists do you offer? Two links to reviews of the same book compiled from a poll of British and American writers... in which the Bible most certainly IS included if you check out the entire list:
http://www.toptenbooks.net/list.html

It merely did not make the top-ten list in this popularity poll.

And your other offerings? Random House Modern Library List is chosen only from modern novels. The Bible isn't a novel, and it was written a bit before before the 20th century. The Best 100 Novels list? Again... the Bible is not a novel. Esquire magazine polls and and a poll of the Harvard Book Store Staff? Yeah... those are on the same level of critical merit as Van Doren, Bloom, and Columbia University. You keep trying... and you keep striking out. But don't let that dissuade you.

I just don't believe that is true. See the lists above - I looked, but they don't exist. Those people you claim see the bible as essential reading mean it from a theistic perspective, because nobody so far rates it as a book.

Ah... personal belief. I thought you were against that sort of thing. Only objective proof. Perhaps you should read some of the critics I have listed... and I'm sure JBI could give you a great number of others... before making your claim that they include the Bible solely from a theistic perspective. You might start with Harold Bloom... I'd suggest The Book of J as a good starting point. Bloom makes it clear that it is as literature, not theology, that he values the Biblical texts... especially as a non-believing Jew.

...if you care to put your misconceptions aside for a moment and look at the bible objectively.

And you are a bastion of objectivity when it comes to the Bible... the Qur'an... or any text sacred to any religion? Personally, I think of myself as an agnostic. I find the certainty of the atheist to be just as disconcerting as the certainty of the true believer.

[stlukesguild]

Well said - it proves that you're wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. The KJV is wrong in so many places I can't even count them all. It is recognised by only a few insane sects of the christian church.

Where do you get this stuff? The KJV is undoubtedly the greatest translation (in English) to date of the entire Bible. There are marvelous translations of individual sections. Chana and Ariel Bloch's Song of Songs, Robert Alter's Five Books of Moses and The Book of Psalms (I'd still want the King James version of the former), Stephen Mitchell's Job, etc... The Psalms may have been the least successful portion of the KJV as it translated the Hebrew poetry into English prose... beautiful English prose, but prose nonetheless. This was recognized early on and resulted in endless tranlations of the various psalms by some of the greatest names in English poetry: Milton, Phillip Sidney, Mary Sidney, Thomas Wyatt, Robert Crashaw, Christopher Smart, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, etc... There have been attempts at more accurate and literal renderings of the original texts... but a great majority fall flat, and far too many are just as inaccurate... in other ways. Some are even embarrassingly bad and unintentionally comic. The King James Version, however, is beautifully written and poetic.

[JBI]

Really, just look at the rhetoric intensity of the new Testament - the language is so artistic - is there no merit in that? Is there no merit in rhetorical power?

You seem to deny merit in mythological power, yet nonetheless, the myths are ever present, and refuse to go away.

Really, for all your bickering about how everything is slosh, you fail to provide proof of any texts you believe to be better. Keep in mind, your opinions deserve the same scrutiny, unless of course you believe your opinions don't count, or are too personal, in which case your case against Shakespeare ceases to count. And of course, you won't quote this, because we are in a written sphere, and one only quotes what they want to, as seen by your half-quoting of me to try and make me seem stupid, which St. Lukes picked up upon. Really, if you are going to use quotes, use the full quote, or the full idea.

Really, read The Great Code by Frye, a critic who will not value the Bible, because he realizes you don't need to - it values itself, it is the Western Canon, I would say even more than Shakespeare. Everyone in the West knows at least some of the stories, everyone can understand at least some of them.

Really, I think it is not us who are biased against the religious texts - giving them special treatment, but you - who are biased into devaluing them simply because you don't believe in them, whereas many authors and critics, I think notably of Robert Frost, an Atheist, Thomas Hardy, an Atheist/Agnostic (it seems blurry), Frederick Nietzsche, a borderline nihilist, amongst others have found beauty in the words, and in the lessons. Why can't you? Is it because you don't believe in the texts? Neither do I, at least, not literally, but there is still a truth on a poetic level, a metaphorical level, a mythical level, which is still so relevant.

[The Atheist]

Ah, at last an attempt, thanks very much!


What? I need links to prove my point? Any one who has even the least knowledge of literature... which you seemingly purport to have... is aware of the inclusion of Biblical texts among the lists of great books studied in universities... as literature... not as theology... not as history... and discussed by critics and authors.

The reason I asked for links is because I like to argue what people are saying rather than what I think they're saying, and one way to be sure is to get it down in black and white. Another good reason is that if you want to prove a point, you get the Googlr going. I showed you mine, you show me yours - that's how discussions work, don't they?

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd understand why I know it's in university studies. It has to be - our civilisation is, after all, largely based upon the premises in it, (as I've already said twice) so showing it as essential reading gives it no more literary worth than a road map.

I'm amazed that you can't grasp that immensely simple concept.

Anyway, on to your lists!


How to Read a Book
by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren

The Old Testament (no. 2) The New Testament (no. 30)
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtadler.html

Mortimer J Adler. Author of How to Think About God. Nice impartial-sounding bloke.

Charles van Doren? Are you kidding me? I trust you don't mean the well-known cheat and fraud bloke, because that would be a really bad idea. A proven intellectual fraud. Surely, I have the wrong guy?


The Western Canon
by Harold Bloom
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtbloom.html#theo

Bloom is not heralded by all, even within the realm of academia. He has frequently been accused of elitism atop openly biased subjective opinion throughout his career and especially in his literary commentary

Not my opinion of him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Bloom#Bloom.27s_influence).

Aside from that, the you show a list of Bloom's which contains thousands of titles. I could probably squeeze it into the top 5000.


Columbia University Reading List, Contemporary Civilization Course:1991-1992

Columbia University Reading List, Literature Humanities Course: 1991-1992
quoted in David Denby's Great Books

See above for university lists.


Clifton Fadiman The Lifetime Reading Plan
by Clifton Fadiman (3rd ed., 1988)
In the opening comments the author states that he did not include the Bible on his list of essential books because: "I have assumed that anyone who would read this book is already familiar with the Bible." The Qur'an is listed.
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtfad3.html

Unfortunately, I know nothing about this man and can only find that he was a TV personality. Still, I'll grant you that you did indeed manage to find one literary critic who included it in his list. Seeing as he's been dead for a while, I can't find out where he described the book as great literature, and given his university background, I imagine it miight not be. His reading list seems to be an eclectic mix of historical rather than literary gems, so he gets the benefit of the doubt at best.

He seems to have a large number of non-literary works in his list, unless you'd like to argue that the likes of the works of Sigmund Freud and An Introduction to Mathematics are literary masterpieces. (God, I hope not, we're stuck on the bible after starting on Shakespeare!)


Good Reading: A Guide for Serious Readers
Waldhorn, Weber, and Zeiger, editors
http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtgood.html

Significant works in literature, history, regional studies, humanities, social sciences, and science.

I'd expect to see the bible in that kind of list. It confers no literary value, however.


Great Books Index
http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html

One of many hundreds. Big deal.


Undoubtedly JBI... with his greater experience of literary theory and criticism... can come up with an endless array of other serious academic critics who would clearly agree that The Bible is a great work of literature.

Well, I hope so, because your list is pretty forlorn.


And what lists do you offer? Two links to reviews of the same book compiled from a poll of British and American writers... in which the Bible most certainly IS included if you check out the entire list:
http://www.toptenbooks.net/list.html

It merely did not make the top-ten list in this popularity poll.

Again, making the top 500 is no mean feat. According to you, it's almost the greatest thing ever, so I'd expect a few people to list it in their top 500.


You keep trying... and you keep striking out. But don't let that dissuade you.

No, I'm pretty happy that there are thousands more for the finding. That the ones I provided weren't perfect was sloppy by me, yes, but I haven't seen any critic who has put his name to the bible being literary genius.


I'd suggest The Book of J as a good starting point. Bloom makes it clear that it is as literature, not theology, that he values the Biblical texts... especially as a non-believing Jew.

Interestingly enough, my mother's family were Blooms. I doubt I'll bother reading the book, but I'll accept your word on it. You have one critic of unknown and disputed value who thinks it's a great book.

I find it more than a little amusing that the last entry on Harry's list is your first link!


And you are a bastion of objectivity when it comes to the Bible... the Qur'an... or any text sacred to any religion?

Surprisingly, I am. I have read some marvellous books on religion and I'd cheerfully rate Aquinas' Summae Thoelogica as a masterpiece of literature, yet I think it's the most palpable rubbish ever put to paper.

See, you're assuming wrongly that I have misconceptions because they're religious texts. I couldn't care less what a book is about, but the quran is a hate-text of no merit whatsoever, while the bible is an imprtant historical document, but one which is appallingly badly written, and has been mis-translated - especially the KJV, which your support of just staggers me. The Anglican Church, which was responsible for the translation hasn't even used it for decades because it's so poor.

Another point on the bible - I talked about Shakespeare's lack of originality; well, his pales into insignificance behind the enormity of outright theft of both proverb and myth that is the christian bible.


Personally, I think of myself as an agnostic. I find the certainty of the atheist to be just as disconcerting as the certainty of the true believer.

Which just goes to show that you have no idea what an atheist is, either. Atheism doesn't deal in certainty of any kind, it is a lack of belief in god.

Nothing else.


Really, just look at the rhetoric intensity of the new Testament - the language is so artistic - is there no merit in that? Is there no merit in rhetorical power?

Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.

Parts of the bible, in particular the NT, aren't too bad at all, and some of the passages are indeed beautiful.

The effect is more than considerably spoiled by the inane and incorrect genealogy, Revelation and the above four horsemen of the resurrection. (Among other bits of drivel.)


You seem to deny merit in mythological power, yet nonetheless, the myths are ever present, and refuse to go away.

Is there a point there?

Lots of myths are persistent.


Really, for all your bickering about how everything is slosh, you fail to provide proof of any texts you believe to be better.

In the case of Shakespeare, that's quite right, although quite how I'd prove he was inferior to Orwell, say, I have no idea. I didn't start the thread to prove Shakespeare was inferior to anyone, I was saying that I think he's outdated and overrated. I've provided reasons why I think that, and most of the criticism hasn't been answered.

In the case of the bible, if you want a vastly superior text, try Aesop's Fables. The morality is clearer, it has wide appeal and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bible will ever do. It doesn't need to resort to subterfuge or blackmail and it doesn't pass the collection plate around on Sundays.

Still, proving it is another thing.


Keep in mind, your opinions deserve the same scrutiny, unless of course you believe your opinions don't count, or are too personal, in which case your case against Shakespeare ceases to count. And of course, you won't quote this, because we are in a written sphere, and one only quotes what they want to, as seen by your half-quoting of me to try and make me seem stupid, which St. Lukes picked up upon. Really, if you are going to use quotes, use the full quote, or the full idea.

I edit quotes for brevity and clarity, not to escape questions. If there's something I haven't answered, please let me know. I'm not trying to make you look stupid, so I don't know why you'd think that.

Hey, and I'm always happy to defend my opinions, that's why I write them and why I always include my personal details in my profile - I stand behind everything I write, from advertisements to essays to posts on the internet.


Really, read The Great Code by Frye, a critic who will not value the Bible, because he realizes you don't need to - it values itself, it is the Western Canon, I would say even more than Shakespeare. Everyone in the West knows at least some of the stories, everyone can understand at least some of them.

Again, you're using it historically, and I've agreed with the historical use for it.


Really, I think it is not us who are biased against the religious texts - giving them special treatment, but you - who are biased into devaluing them simply because you don't believe in them, whereas many authors and critics, I think notably of Robert Frost, an Atheist, Thomas Hardy, an Atheist/Agnostic (it seems blurry), Frederick Nietzsche, a borderline nihilist, amongst others have found beauty in the words, and in the lessons. Why can't you? Is it because you don't believe in the texts? Neither do I, at least, not literally, but there is still a truth on a poetic level, a metaphorical level, a mythical level, which is still so relevant.

As above, to me, the sum of the parts is far more than the whole. Parables and lessons, taken alone, can be great literature, but there are thousands of books out there which have superb messages hidden inside drivel. Even Jackie Collins can make astute and telling observations on human behaviour, but it doesn't make her books worth more than fire-lighters.

Seriously, I don't devalue the bible because it's religious, I devalue it because it's rubbish. Why on earth else are there so many varieties of it? As another example of how I can see the bible without bias, I correspond with the Archbishop of Canterbury (who will tell you that the KJV is flawed, SLG, :)) and I have enormous respect for him as a person. On the subject of god, however, I think he's as mad a hatter. (Also see my comments on Aquinas.)

Lacking belief in god/s doesn't stop me from being objective, even on theological literature.

[The Atheist]

Kee-rist, what a long post.

I will accept no liability for eye damage sustained by anyone mad enough to read it all!

[stlukesguild]

If you actually read what I wrote, you'd understand why I know it's in university studies. It has to be - our civilisation is, after all, largely based upon the premises in it, (as I've already said twice) so showing it as essential reading gives it no more literary worth than a road map.

For an atheist I am struck by the manner in which any dialog with you is like arguing with a true believer. You will find any excuse... however improbable... to negate any fact thrown in your direction. Yes... of course. All the universities and colleges that teach the Bible as part of their studies of literature are only doing so because the society is so infused with the Christian religion. None of the professors or critics value the Bible as Literature... except for certain religious fanatics.

Mortimer J Adler. Author of How to Think About God. Nice impartial-sounding bloke.

The Atheist... Nice impartial-sounding bloke.:rolleyes:

Charles van Doren? Are you kidding me? I trust you don't mean the well-known cheat and fraud bloke, because that would be a really bad idea. A proven intellectual fraud. Surely, I have the wrong guy?

We are all impressed with your mastery of Google search. Yes, Charles van Doren was the critic who was indicted in (gasp!) a committing fraud on a television quiz show. In actuality, he was a brilliant academic who was fed correct answers by producers of a television quiz show because the good-looking brilliant academic son of well-known critic poet and critic Mark van Doren was great for the show's ratings. He made one bad decision which cost him his position at Columbia University. He went on to work as an editor for the Ecyclopedia Britanica (see? I can use Google too.) and currently is a professor at the University of Connecticut. But of course just as you are certain that Shakespeare's negative figure of Shylock completely destroys his entire reputation, one failing by van Doren completely negates his merits as critic, no doubt.

Bloom is not heralded by all, even within the realm of academia. He has frequently been accused of elitism atop openly biased subjective opinion throughout his career and especially in his literary commentary

Give me a break! What critic is universally heralded? Accused of elitism?! Gasp!:eek: Guess what? In case no one has told you ART IS ELITIST. Deal with it. The opinions of Joe the Plumber are completely irrelevant to whether Shakespeare or Mozart or Flavor Flav will last through the centuries.

...you show a list of Bloom's which contains thousands of titles. I could probably squeeze it into the top 5000.

Oh yeah. That must be why he wrote an entire book (The Book of J) devoted to the author of Old Testament narratives... and why he repeatedly places the Bible as the only possible aesthetic rival to Shakespeare... but you couldn't find that on Google. You'd actually have to had read the book.

Great Books Index
http://books.mirror.org/gb.titles.html

One of many hundreds. Big deal.

Again... this is like arguing with a brick wall. Any reason to dismiss the facts... no matter how incredulous it begins to sound.

That the ones I provided weren't perfect was sloppy by me, yes, but I haven't seen any critic who has put his name to the bible being literary genius.

That's largely because you could probably count all the critics you've actually read... and not merely Googled... on one hand... or such must certainly be the consensus when considering your inane comments as to the lack of any serious critic championing the Bible. Add to that the fact the you simply dismiss every candidate put forward as irrelevant... because he or she doesn't suit your argument... and well we once again have a brick wall... and I believe I am tired of talking to a wall.

[JBI]

Honestly, you seem to come off as watered down Orwell and Terry Eagleton, with all the polemics, but without any sense of scholarship. You don't seem to be understanding, or seem to be ignoring, how literary theory or criticism works, functions, or is carried out, in English countries, but also in the world. In truth, you don't seem to understand much of the Bible, or how it relates to literature to begin with.

The fact that you resort to telling people to bring on the "googlr" is quite stupid. Anyone who has any sense of scholarship knows google is for the lazy, and not for the academic. Maybe if you read a little more, instead of trying to be so controversial for the sake of mental masturbation you would appreciate, or at least see the reasons why people appreciate said texts. As it is, you only seem to quote (often misquoting I may add) people, not facts. Giving a list of novels and yelling "see, the Bible isn't on it".

As I have said before, you have no goal other than to hear your own voice. Your discussion goes nowhere, as no one is swayed. Your points go nowhere, as they no one seems to really be buying them but yourself, and the bible's value won't go down because of it, as, like you have said, it is so much our culture. The only real response is as follows.

Really, the only thing your doing is showing some opinions are overrated, not Shakespeare, and not the Bible, and that some people are better judges of literature in general.

You forget to address your own assumptions and beliefs, mainly that criticism is about rating. IT is not about rating, it is about exploring texts - any critic will tell you that, Bloom included. In fact, many critics deliberately shy away from valuing and rating texts, because that is not their job, and is not really the job of such scholarship. You won't find much on Google anyway, as it clearly isn't a credible source for anything scholarly. But you will find countless volumes of Bible criticism, as literature, as fact, as fallacy, as anything. The reason for this, is because it is a very dense book, with many possibilities and interpretations. Everyone who knows literature knows the Bible. To say the Bible is overrated is to ignore the fact that if it is overrated, literature itself is overrated, in which case, what business does one such as yourself have talking on a literature board if they are only here to call anyone who likes it Elitist. All decisions of value are elitist, because they aren't made by the majority of the population, who, ironically, would probably vote the Bible the top book, and for most people, the only book (well, in the Arab world, I think the Koran would win). No atheist critic would ignore the Bible, and most would encourage its reading as aesthetic literature. It certainly beats the alternatives.

[JBI]

Honestly, to put things in perspective - I punched in "The Bible As Literature" into the U of Toronto Catalog, to see what would come out, and I got over 1000 books, many of which (from browsing the front pages) contain titles such as "The Bible as literature" or "reading the Bible as literature" or some other variation. That is, I would note, excluding searches that would provide specific texts of the Bible treated as literature, or other Booleans, such as a study on a particular book, or chapter as literature, or books which simply assume the reader knows they are focused from a literary perspective. The view of The Bible only being read as a religious text is a fallacy to the extreme. The literary perspective has been approached countless times on the Bible.

In truth, there was even this publication amongst the first few pages:


Title
A history of the English Bible as literature /

David Norton.
Imprint
Cambridge, U.K. ; Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Format
Book. xii, 484 p.
Language
English


Not only is the book read as literature, but apparently has a somewhat long history of it being done so as well.

[Logos]

General Mod Note To All:

Please discuss the subject and not each other.

Any further posts not sticking to the subject will be removed.

[The Atheist]

Another ironic point I just thought of, thinking back on some old discussions - the cries of deus ex machina as a criticism of authors who use it, yet here we are championing a book which uses that as its main theme.


For an atheist I am struck by the manner in which any dialog with you is like arguing with a true believer. You will find any excuse... however improbable... to negate any fact thrown in your direction.

No, I just call it as I see it. Lots of the time, that's not popular.


We are all impressed with your mastery of Google search.

hey, you list a load of American critics I've never heard of, what do you expect me to do, go to the library and waste a month reading books I have no interest in whatsoever.

Honestly, the attempted criticism of using Google is pretty weak.


That's largely because you could probably count all the critics you've actually read... and not merely Googled... on one hand... or such must certainly be the consensus when considering your inane comments as to the lack of any serious critic championing the Bible.

More very weak argument, and a bad attempt at an elitist put-down. How many critics I've read is irrelevant, but it will be a lot higher number than you expect.

But as you say, further discourse is pointless from here.


Honestly, you seem to come off as watered down Orwell and Terry Eagleton, with all the polemics, but without any sense of scholarship. You don't seem to be understanding, or seem to be ignoring, how literary theory or criticism works, functions, or is carried out, in English countries, but also in the world. In truth, you don't seem to understand much of the Bible, or how it relates to literature to begin with.

You know, it's funny, but I could aim the same criticism at you. Seriously, I am quite incredulous to find someone championing the bible as a great work of literature and I'd love to ask how it's possible you've ignored so much scholarly criticism of the bible, its inconsistencies, its plagiarism, its immoral teachings and many other bits which make it a shocking piece of writing overall.

But I don't do that kind of thing as it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

We're exchanging opinions, and attempting to gain some kind of moral ascendency by claiming your scholarship is bigger than mine is pretty childish, in my view and I won't bother with it.


The fact that you resort to telling people to bring on the "googlr" is quite stupid. Anyone who has any sense of scholarship knows google is for the lazy, and not for the academic. Maybe if you read a little more, instead of trying to be so controversial for the sake of mental masturbation you would appreciate, or at least see the reasons why people appreciate said texts. As it is, you only seem to quote (often misquoting I may add) people, not facts. Giving a list of novels and yelling "see, the Bible isn't on it".

I'd like you to read this again sometime and ask quite why you're being so defensive that you've resorted to insults instead of arguments.

I noted that my links were imperfect, and offerred to find more if you wanted.


As I have said before, you have no goal other than to hear your own voice. Your discussion goes nowhere, as no one is swayed. Your points go nowhere, as they no one seems to really be buying them but yourself, and the bible's value won't go down because of it, as, like you have said, it is so much our culture. The only real response is as follows.

Really, the only thing your doing is showing some opinions are overrated, not Shakespeare, and not the Bible, and that some people are better judges of literature in general.

You forget to address your own assumptions and beliefs, mainly that criticism is about rating. IT is not about rating, it is about exploring texts - any critic will tell you that, Bloom included. In fact, many critics deliberately shy away from valuing and rating texts, because that is not their job, and is not really the job of such scholarship. You won't find much on Google anyway, as it clearly isn't a credible source for anything scholarly. But you will find countless volumes of Bible criticism, as literature, as fact, as fallacy, as anything. The reason for this, is because it is a very dense book, with many possibilities and interpretations. Everyone who knows literature knows the Bible. To say the Bible is overrated is to ignore the fact that if it is overrated, literature itself is overrated, in which case, what business does one such as yourself have talking on a literature board if they are only here to call anyone who likes it Elitist. All decisions of value are elitist, because they aren't made by the majority of the population, who, ironically, would probably vote the Bible the top book, and for most people, the only book (well, in the Arab world, I think the Koran would win). No atheist critic would ignore the Bible, and most would encourage its reading as aesthetic literature. It certainly beats the alternatives.

I've quoted the above to let you know that I've read it, but I see no comment needed beyond what I've already said.

[kiki1982]

For an atheist I am struck by the manner in which any dialog with you is like arguing with a true believer. You will find any excuse... however improbable... to negate any fact thrown in your direction.

Nah. Fanatics do that. Unfortunately, in their fanaticism, atheists also sometimes go that way.

And he is a fanatic anti-Shakespeare-fan (if that concept is understandable), in that he will go to any lengths to get his point across, even improbable lengths...

But, Atheist, you give us the solution to the whole discussion!


In the case of the bible, if you want a vastly superior text, try Aesop's Fables. The morality is clearer, it has wide appeal and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bible will ever do. It doesn't need to resort to subterfuge or blackmail and it doesn't pass the collection plate around on Sundays.
Still, proving it is another thing.


You do not know how to prove that the Fables of Aesop are better than the Bible, and you argue that Shakespeare is outdated and over-rated. Is that provable? It seems difficult.

Indeed, it is a matter of conception. One might like Aesop's Fables better than the Bible, or Shakespeare, but it is a subjective matter. Thus it is not provable, because our opinions on it are the result of our own wishes and therefore not the same as the opinions of others. The discussion about Shakespeare being better or worse than something else is irrelevant as that depends on your own opinion.

It stands no doubt that the Bible had a lot of influence in literature, yet it stands no doubt either that Shakespeare had a lot of influence in literature (drama) like the Greeks.
If you find it over-rated or outdated you fail to look past the façcade of it, the humanity of Shakespeare's characters. That is his true merit. He explored human nature, not merely in his time, but in the timeless universe. As in the Merchant, he does not explore the Jewishness of the Jew, but rather the humanity of the Jew. That is Shakespeare's merit and that is what you do not see: the timelessness of his characters and the timelessness of human relationships.
The stories of his plays are not timeless, as they feature definite time-set events (the feud between the Montegues and the Capulets, the dowries of Goneril and Regan, the Jew, knaves...), but that is not the base for Shakespeare's plays: they are about timeless human conflicts.

How otherwise could West Side Story draw on Romeo and Juliet?

[The Atheist]

And he is a fanatic anti-Shakespeare-fan (if that concept is understandable), in that he will go to any lengths to get his point across, even improbable lengths...

That's a pretty poor conception of what I've said already in this thread, when I've already made these posts:

I don't recommend shooting Shakespeare - he was unquestionably one of the greatest English writers, but I don't see him at the top, or worse still, alone at the top, as many see him.

I note that I've explained the title as a bit tongue-in-cheek, and I have provided critisisms.

And, this fits for the second time in the same thread:

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.

Is that fanatical?

I think not, but as they say on the internet, YMMV.


You do not know how to prove that the Fables of Aesop are better than the Bible, and you argue that Shakespeare is outdated and over-rated. Is that provable? It seems difficult.

Again, if you'd read what I've said, you would have already that I have stated that nobody can prove anything in aesthetics, and I certainly wouldn't try to.

As far as I can tell, thisis a discussion forum, where people discuss things. Some of the things I like to discuss aren't mainstream, but there no element of proof involved, unless you want to talk mathematics.


The discussion about Shakespeare being better or worse than something else is irrelevant as that depends on your own opinion.

If this were the case, all discussion boards and about 75% of all human discourse could cease right now.


It stands no doubt that the Bible had a lot of influence in literature, yet it stands no doubt either that Shakespeare had a lot of influence in literature (drama) like the Greeks. ...

Like the rest of your post, I don't see anything we haven't already covered, so I can't see any point in revisiting the things you've raised.

For the record, I've already agreed with the bit I've quoted.

[Virgil]

Wow, these posts in this thread are long. I can't read it all, but I must say I am definitely entertained. :lol:

[Virgil]

Oh I just have to post these funny youtube clips by the reduced Shakespeare Company. I think it fits so well to this discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-0FsTVY3Cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-0FsTVY3Cs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQk4Y6Q69u8&feature=related



Credit belongs to Equality who posted them in her blog today:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?b=7327#comment31438

[The Atheist]

Oh I just have to post these funny youtube clips by the reduced Shakespeare Company.

:lol::lol::lol:

Classic! They are funny guys.

Best Macbeth I've yet seen - they managed to get the entire play into about 45 seconds. (And it was funnier than the original.)

Great to see them cover that idiot superstition as well.

I'm going to watch all of their clips now, looks like there are loads of them, and good quality.

Thanks!

[Equality72521]

Their Hamlet is the most fantastic thing ever! They actually hold the record for the fastest ever performance of Hamlet! lol

[Virgil]

I got a real kick out of the Othello rap clip. :lol:

[aBIGsheep]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07ej4zNlhpU

[mortalterror]

Has anybody ever wondered if maybe Homer, the Bible, and Shakespeare are such icons of good writing because they have served as our models for so long? Now, do we think of a good piece of writing as something which has Shakespearean qualities to it? I've heard that the Koran occupies a similar place in the literature of Islam. It is considered unspurpassable in the Arabic language and I am curious to know if that is because they are in fact so good, or if perhaps they are of such paramount importance, are so central to a society's thinking that they warp the thinking about themselves. Do great works of literature change the values we have for appreciating good literature? Do they add to and restructure the vocabulary we use when we talk about what is good and why it should be good?

[The Atheist]

Has anybody ever wondered if maybe Homer, the Bible, and Shakespeare are such icons of good writing because they have served as our models for so long? Now, do we think of a good piece of writing as something which has Shakespearean qualities to it?

I think that's not too far off the mark.


I've heard that the Koran occupies a similar place in the literature of Islam. It is considered unspurpassable in the Arabic language and I am curious to know if that is because they are in fact so good, or if perhaps they are of such paramount importance, are so central to a society's thinking that they warp the thinking about themselves.

That unsurpassable comment has certainly been used previously:


You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter. ... By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?

Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyā ar Rāzī (http://www.crystalinks.com/al-Razi.html) ~865 - 925AD.

[kiki1982]

I am sorry if I do not have time to read 100 replies on the same subject...

I will not go into the nature of discussion, because that is a discussion for a forum on discussion :D... But anyway, there is more in these forums of meaningful discussion than about better or worse.

Why would you call your thread 'I hate Shakespeare', if you find him 'good, but not one of the giants'? Yet you call him over-rated and oldfashioned. Yet, he is good...

But have you thought about the main point I made? That is what you didn't reply to, yet that is what Shakespeare is and that is what this discussion should be about.

But also in my post, you just saw the façade...

[Equality72521]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07ej4zNlhpU

Hahahahaha!
loved it!!!

[The Grand Inqui]

Who cares if he was anti-semetic (which I don't think he was); if we're supposed to be tolerant, enlightened people, we have to tolerate the intolerance of other people. I'm anti Eskimo. I loathe New Zelanders. Big deal. Not liking a specific group doesn't erase everything else that someone has accomplished. . .

[The Atheist]

Who cares if he was anti-semetic (which I don't think he was); if we're supposed to be tolerant, enlightened people, we have to tolerate the intolerance of other people.

That's absurd.

There are laws against hate speech and race hatred in most countries. In Europe, Holocaust deniers are jailed.

One thing we should never tolerate is intolerance.


I loathe New Zelanders.

Be afraid - be very, very afraid.

:D


Big deal. Not liking a specific group doesn't erase everything else that someone has accomplished. . .

What is this supposed to mean? Not liking a group, or being racist, says nothing at all about the accomplishments of any other group. Racism and intolerance speaks to the purveyor, not the subject.

[jocky]

Athiest you are being naughty, and dare I say it, a tad controversial, which is not always a bad thing. Lets face it the Bard has a few faults, in particular, overdoing it with the puns, but racism, never. You know the inherent dangers of identifying the artist with his subject matter. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion, then Shakespeare is a supporter of infanticide, regecide, wife murder, to name but a few. Overrated, perhaps, but I cant go with your racist theory. Still if it gets people thinking then your argument is not a bad thing. :) See you back on the blokes thread. Jocky.

[gbrekken]

I think some of Petrarch's sonnets might be in order now.

I do think you've underestimated the role of figures of speech in what I will call some classic literature: imagine Homer, bible etc. We've lost much in the last 2500 years.

How do I get back to that "thread".

[JBI]

I do think you've underestimated the role of figures of speech in what I will call some classic literature: imagine Homer, bible etc. We've lost much in the last 2500 years.

What about figures of speech? Are we talking in the Quintillian sense of how Shakespeare is rooted more in rennaissance schemes and tropes? It pays reading in that way, no doubt, but to say we've lost them - well maybe people have lost how to use them, but we certainly haven't lost them in formal writing to this date.

[gbrekken]

What about figures of speech? Are we talking in the Quintillian sense of how Shakespeare is rooted more in rennaissance schemes and tropes? It pays reading in that way, no doubt, but to say we've lost them - well maybe people have lost how to use them, but we certainly haven't lost them in formal writing to this date.

You are right. it is the use of them that has fallen into disrepair. "formal writing to this date" does not refer to our understanding of the past, let alone what the language is developing now. You could probable recognize polysyndeton and asyndeton, but do you know why the author used it at that point. The intent must be there for it to be meaningfully received. But if there are no manufacturers of meaning around, then we don't even exist.

[kelby_lake]

Straying from the anti - Semitic comments and focusing on opinions and Shakespeare.

I view Shakespeare's work like the people who the plays were originally written for. The plays written to be performed as just that, plays. A means for entertainment. And I personally do not enjoy his work. That being said, perhaps my opinion is more "valid" than the person ripping his work to shreds an analyzing the hell out of it. Because as the core of all of it, tragedy or comedy - they were a source of entertainment.

? The plays are entertaining. Sure, you need to be familiar with the language but it's like watching a film in French and saying 'Oh, that was boring' just because you didn't understand the language.

Anyway, his work is so varied...I'm sure you like at least one of his plays.

[jocky]

Enjoy :)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=69AvNm!

[Virgil]

Enjoy :)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=69AvNm!

I don't see anything there related to Shakespeare.

[jocky]

I don't see anything there related to Shakespeare.

I know, I am trying to figure out how to post a song and thought I would practice on a dead thread. I take it didn't work then? " How all occasions do inform against me..." Your thick Scottish pal Jocky. :)

[jocky]

Try this; www.youtube.com/69AvNm Clearly that didn't work either. " O that this too too solid flesh would melt, Thaw and resolve itself into a dew ! Virgil, " Thou art a scholar " Could you post the Proclaimers 500 Miles live in Edinburgh to the Blokes thread and tell Mick I saw him and his flag. :)

[MorpheusSandman]

I must say, I just read through this thread in its entirety and it was really quite interesting; more so before it veered off into endless ad hominem, vacuous dismissals and blatant hypocrisy. I may take some time and write up something fairly definitive about my stance on the appraisal of art's value and how it is inextricably tied to various contexts and how rating it from outside that context is really erroneous.

[Lykren]

I think the discussion in this thread has not sufficiently served to reinforce the fact that Shakespeare is celebrated not for his ideals or opinions but simply for the aesthetic beauty of his language - for the wonderment which comes upon us when we read words which seem to evoke something transcendent as though it were a memory of something physical.

For example, this:

Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell:
Ding-dong.
Hark! now I hear them—Ding-dong, bell.

does not need an ideology attached to it to make it into something as miraculous as what it describes. Nor does this

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

lose relevance over time; all humans have felt despair; despair lives within us, and Shakespeare, in the speech above, was able not just to communicate that fact (which would have been unnecessary, as we all know it to be true from birth), but to give us a way of seeing the immortal problem anew, to remind us in such a way that we could never again forget. The stark simplicity and drama of his rhetorical technique here illuminate the fact of despair so well because he combines metaphors which are both tangible and vivid, yet truthfully mimic a confused mind's frantic search for meaning. In this way he gives us both sides of the coin, allowing us to empathize with Macbeth's pain, but also to feel a kind of objectivity, in that he has depicted the pain so well that we seem to be looking at it from the outside.


Hey, I'm over four years too late! Oh well.