Shakespeare

[whitman]

Is Shakespeare the greatest writer in any language?

[togre]

The answer is obvious.

[JCamilo]

and it is no.

[stlukesguild]

and yes.:ciappa:

[Cunninglinguist]

At a certain point it becomes impossible to compare writers by a universal standard, especially across language, medium (e.g. the epic vs. the play) and genre barriers. Moreover, we must ask ourselves in what manner of greatness are we measuring our writers. In terms of influence, the Gospel According to Matthew is "greater" than anything Shakespeare has ever written, though if I were stuck on an island I'd probably opt for Hamlet. In terms of proliferation, Proust, Tolstoy, Dickens, etc. all beat Shakespeare...Eventually one realizes that the question itself is pointless, since, after this point where we cannot compare our writers by a universal standard, it all boils down to preference; and to impose your preference on someone else is just stupid.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'll follow a current trend here on the LitNet forums.

I don't like Shakespeare, therefore he is horrible, and anyone who thinks he is great is a sap who has been duped by clueless academics who don't really know anything anyways.

[Paulclem]

His influence upon the language has been enromous. Not just the words and phrases he has added, but the regard of the language through the plays and sonnets. The economic effects help us in the UK each year. Comparisons are too crude, but he's certainly great.

[Cunninglinguist]

I don't like Shakespeare, therefore he is horrible, and anyone who thinks he is great is a sap who has been duped by clueless academics who don't really know anything anyways.

I guess I've been duped! And I'm not one to quickly jump to defend the academics... In any case, in my experience, if one doesn't like Shakespeare one doesn't understand him. If one likes Shakespeare one still probably doesn't understand him. Admittedly, he is difficult to appreciate in full because he was writing in such a different context, which most readers these days do not want to take the time to understand. But perhaps this is a testament to his greatness yet, for though he wrote in a time with such different conventions we still relate to his works.

[sonnet61]

^I'm quite sure Mutatis was being facetious.

As to the OP, I only know two languages so it's impossible for me to tell. I'm highly reluctant to state anyone as the best much less the best in any language. Then you're drawing from original texts, beauty of words we don't know, etc.

[JBI]

I'll follow a current trend here on the LitNet forums.

I don't like Shakespeare, therefore he is horrible, and anyone who thinks he is great is a sap who has been duped by clueless academics who don't really know anything anyways.

Agreed!

[wessexgirl]

Yes :nod:.

[Babyguile]

Well, of course. I think his influence is unrivalled!

[conartist]

Art is subjective. There can be no definitive 'greatest'; it's just a cheap catchword for undeveloped minds.

And yes!

[Sano]

I tend to view literature as a matter of dialogue. For me, the greatest authors are those who know how to use in a skillful manner what has been done in the past, are paying attention to other skillful authors at their time, and opens the way for mimesis by later, also skillful, authors. Would there be shakespearean sonnets without a petrarch to define the term? I don't think so.

Of course it's clear from my definition that Shakespeare was a great, skilled author. But where does the BEST literature comes from, then? I'd say from the human mind as a whole. :)

[Alexander III]

Is Shakespeare the greatest writer in any language?

Only if you are english or american...original language of composition plays a big part. I have recently met a russian scholar, who is fluent in the language and literature of many countries, and we have had good discussions over some gin and tonics.

Some things I have learnt, in Russia Pushkin is perceived as an equal to Shakespeare. Few english or american writers or scholars would express the sentiment that Pushkin is as good as Shakespeare, but in Russia think us weird or full of "western prejudice" for not truly recognizing the extent of Pushkin genius. And this brings up an interesting question. If a writer or scholar grows up in america or england, not only do contemporaries of his define Shakespeare as the greatest, but the entire tradition of the literatures language defines him as the greatest. In Russia the same thing happens with Pushkin. And the truth is that our culture and language have created a huge bias upon us, for both the russian and the englishmen are correct in their assumptions.

The same also goes for Italy, where the only english writer of the last 150 years to have gained a significant reputation is Oscar Wilde. In fact when people say why not english poesy, the common response is why should we read their great Elizabethan works, for it is we who invented modern wester poesy and they like europe imitated.

I am sure JBI could be able to argue in respects to the Chinese.

[The Ol' Man]

Interesting post, but Mr. Wilde was an Irishman.:nono:

[Alexander III]

Ah woops, but technically during his life time he was part of the UK, so he is not just an irish writer.

[Cunninglinguist]

I tend to view literature as a matter of dialogue. For me, the greatest authors are those who know how to use in a skillful manner what has been done in the past, are paying attention to other skillful authors at their time, and opens the way for mimesis by later, also skillful, authors.

Ostensibly, I'm afraid that this leaves no consideration for an artist's original ideas. In part what makes something like, to use an example I've used all too often, the Divine Comedy so great is its innovation ... compared with the vast, vast majority of Medieval literature, the brevity of the comedy is almost oxymoronic; moreover, if Dante hadn't ever exercised such brevity the Comedy would be of a much lesser quality.


Would there be shakespearean sonnets without a petrarch to define the term? I don't think so.

A man named Giacomo da Lentino invented the sonnet. Unfortunately that's about all he did and about all he's known for.

[prendrelemick]

You have a thought, or a feeling, that's just out of reach, you can't quite put it into words. You open your Shakespere and there it is, plumbed examined and written out for you on the page. It is this insight into the human psyche, and the skill to express it, that puts him on the top of the pile.

[Sano]

Ostensibly, I'm afraid that this leaves no consideration for an artist's original ideas. In part what makes something like, to use an example I've used all too often, the Divine Comedy so great is its innovation ... compared with the vast, vast majority of Medieval literature, the brevity of the comedy is almost oxymoronic; moreover, if Dante hadn't ever exercised such brevity the Comedy would be of a much lesser quality.

I think I should clarify my earlier post; by "skillful use" I meant not only mixing extant material, but also creating something new out of it. If creativity weren't involved of course literature would eventually stagnate, and that obviously didn't happen.


A man named Giacomo da Lentino invented the sonnet. Unfortunately that's about all he did and about all he's known for.

What I meant is that Petrarch was the first to give fame and prestige to the form.

[JBI]

I think I should clarify my earlier post; by "skillful use" I meant not only mixing extant material, but also creating something new out of it. If creativity weren't involved of course literature would eventually stagnate, and that obviously didn't happen.



What I meant is that Petrarch was the first to give fame and prestige to the form.

Third maybe, but even then, it was a well developed form even before, Dante was hardly even the first one, and his are prestigious are they not?

What Petrarch did was create new conventions and rhetorical ideas within the Sonnet form, which gave them a new set of language and ideas - he expanded the form, lets say, and also started the precedent of cyclic formation, as well as a developmental narrative within (there is narrative within all the great renaissance cycles, like Petrarch, and in English, Sidney, Spenser, Shakespeare, etc.).

Generally his contribution seems in developing the game, and the imagery - Dante is way too absorbed in religious devotion, that profane love does not flourish as well, I would say the same with Cavalcanti, and Angeliolieri seems too preoccupied with satire in what remains of him, and doesn't feature the love theme.

Petrarch basically brought Ovid back into the game, and added a whole lot of poetic language and new rhetorical thought - though that pobably was why for 100 years he was known as a great Latin Prosist, but not a poet (vernacular also probably had something to do with it).

[JCamilo]

The problem about arguments such as "there wouldn't be someone without someone" is that we must give credit to their parents first...

[Elyssa]

I have not read Pushkin so I cannot comment on his talent (in addition to that, I do believe that a language barrier will exist; literature, to be best appreciated, must be read in its original language, as there are particular nuances that may be missed in translation). I will argue though that, in the English language, Shakespeare is easily one of the best (if not the best) author, and I do not believe this is solely a matter of individual preference. As another poster commented, those who do not like Shakespeare usually do not understand him, and there is layer upon layer of meaning within his works- he was irrefutably one of the greatest masters of the English language, and an ability to master and manipulate language to such a degree is not a talent possessed by many writers.

Critical to an understanding of Shakespeare is the recognition that nearly all his works (yes, even tragedies such as Hamlet) contain some level of humor, dark though it may be. In addition to this, Macbeth (and Hamlet) are prime examples of his ability to portray the complexities of human psychology, the power of the mind as both a dangerous and beneficial force. My favorite play of Shakespeare's remains The Winter's Tale, in which the writer, at the end of his life and career, contemplates the meaning and power of art itself. He was truly remarkable, and I do believe entirely unique. Other writers in the language may be equal in skill in another area, but Shakespeare is alone in the way he was able to show the power and beauty of language.

[Elyssa]

A quick addition, there are two quotes regarding the experience of reading Shakespeare that, to me, sum up the effect he has:

In Angela's Ashes, Frank McCourt writes that saying Shakespeare "was like having jewels in my mouth"

From: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/author/joseph-knippenberg/page/3/

“I don’t even like poetry,” said Khende Asaad, an International Studies major from Erbil. “But when I hear Shakespeare, I feel like this big door is opening, and something terrible and wonderful is about to happen.”

[joelavine]

I enjoy Pushkin, although I have never read him in translation. I consider Shakespeare the greatest writer I know. I learn more about myself and the world, about truth and the human condition, and about the selection of words and images to render lucid complex ideas, from reading his work than from reading that of any other writer. And then there is the sheer beauty of his language and the things he has to tell us. There are countless writers I cherish but none I find more transporting. Clearly no other dramatist in any language can match him.

[joelavine]

whoops, what I meant to say is that I have only read Pushkin in translation.

[Elyssa]

Joelavine: I completely agree. Shakespeare's genius lay well beyond simple creativity of plot, his skill with language remains unmatched, and though some writers do, like him, show incredible manipulation of words and meanings (I consider Moliere in the original French to be quite brilliant in his own right), I have never found another writer who, as you said, enables you to learn more of yourself and the world from the mere reading of their works. I learned to read using Shakespeare, and as I got older I believe he taught me to 'read the world' as well.

[ShoutGrace]

Agree that the question is difficult to answer; I wouldn't say it is meaningless, I just think people are very cavalier about asking it and don't define terms with much rigor.

Shakespeare is ennobling, enlightening, challenging, engaging, frustrating, rewarding, fun, and ... sometimes even a joy to read. I'm leaving it at that in my head for now. :)

[jajdude]

His influence upon the language has been enormous.

Indeed. It has been said somewhere that we often use things he said without even knowing it. And I can't think of a more famous writer. Kids in Asia know his name.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I don’t know if Shakespeare was the greatest writer in the world - I haven’t read all the writers in the world – but he’s definitely up there in my opinion. His play Hamlet (http://www.shmoop.com/hamlet/) is a perfect example of this. It shows us how astounding his ability to write comedy, tragedy, historical fiction, romance, horror, poetry is, especially since he manages to write every genre in the span of a single play. But what really gets me is the way he understands the human psyche, the way he traces psychological and emotional upheaval, the way his characters are relatable, believable because they are complex, flawed and portrayed in shades of grays rather than black and white. The only problem with Shakespeare is that since it was written a while ago, it can seem inaccessible and even dated. This is why I tell people that there’s no shame in using help from resources like Shmoop to decode and translate the language. Anybody who says they instantly and completely understood Shakespeare the first time they read it isn’t being completely honest; we’ve all had help with it at some points of time in our lives and have appreciated the work more because of it.

An even better way to go about reading Shakespeare for those who are relatively new to him is just to read a decent text with notes or annotations. The Arden editions for example are just great.

Shakespeare still remains the best thing I have read personally. His understanding of what it means to be human is highly perceptive to say the least. The sheer number of consistant works means that he is hard to beat, in English, for my money anyway.