What's so Great about Shakespeare?!

[WolfLarsen]

I've written a series of cantos based on William Shakespeare's sonnets.
I believe my cantos are better.
Perhaps you too can do better than Shakespeare. Why not?

Canto 1
by Wolf Larsen

From testicles & beautiful creatures we desire a big anus!
That torpedoes beauty into a mighty strawberry!
But the Grand Ripper rips time in half,
And he shall tender space-age testicles to the memory of the holy phalluses of hallelujah!
But blueberry! Constipated tornado hyenas floating on endless eyes,
Screaming flames & happy fools!
Making famines where the abundance of a few is enriched by the poverty of many,
So tie up & sex your foe! Penis delivery systems flying all over the planet!
Art so fresh it's a civil war!
And now hurry up to the telEphOne-spRing-WeStern-HemisPhere-gOng!
Within zipeeeees own bud-smoking-miracles!
And – tender whip-lashes – make loving poetry all over my skin!
Pity adjectives so delirious they can't find a noun to play with! So let this insane-sanity be!
Now eat all the world's doo-doo, by the grave of Superman.

Copyright 2012 by Wolf Larsen



Sonnet I
by William Shakespeare

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decease,
His tender heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes, 5
Feed'st thy light'st flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel.
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament
And only herald to the gaudy spring, 10
Within thine own bud buriest thy content
And, tender churl, makest waste in niggarding.
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee. 14

[manuscript]

methinks improvement beyond my means.

[cafolini]

What's so great about Shakespeare? LMAO

[cacian]

What is so great is that he is what he was and I the rest is personal and a matter of opinions.
I guess if you did not think he was great you would not have aspired to him and try and write sonnets like he did haha.
Or is OP asking something else?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He's back.

[Alexander III]

He's back.

And I am exceedingly happy for it.

[AuntShecky]

I've written a series of cantos based on William Shakespeare's sonnets.
I believe my cantos are better.

If you want us to make a comparison, check back with us in, oh, about 500 years.

[cacian]

He's back.

who is that? hasta la vista?

[DieterM]

"I believe my cantos are better" made me giggle no end. To believe in oneself is a good thing. To say Shakespeare is just ****e, on the other hand, is rather has-been in my eyes. And I just loved the line numbers you left in the original sonnet (attentoin - irony here).
I can't say I enjoyed your attempt. Yet I did enjoy several lines, which is already a good start, isn't it? "Making famines where the abundance of a few is enriched by the poverty of many" is one example; but I really dig "Pity adjectives so delirious they can't find a noun to play with". For the rest, it's a question of taste. Do you mean to shock the reader? To annoy him/her? Or do you go for general "ennui" here? Whatever, I wouldn't say Shakespeare's way better; but I did enjoy his poem more. Anyway, it's always fun to read you. And some of the comments, too (especially Auntie's made me giggle a second time!).

[FenwickS]

Congratulations! you did it!

You are far better than shakespeare!
I don't get what the whole hype around this dead dude is all about!



























That was a NOT joke!

[cacian]

Congratulations! you did it!

You are far better than shakespeare!
I don't get what the whole hype around this dead dude is all about!



























That was a NOT joke!

Fenwick your avatar picture is interesting.
Oh and do not speak too soon for Shakespeare might not have been a dude after all.

[FenwickS]

Fenwick your avatar picture is interesting.
Oh and do not speak too soon for Shakespeare might not have been a dude after all.

My apologies! I shouldn't be so rash about such an ambiguos matter! I should edit my post to say dude\dudess but as for writing these words the point is now moot.

Thanks! The avatar actually is of a french edition of Ivan Gontcharov's Oblomov (one of my favourite fictional characters which I, unfortunetly, identify with exceedingly).

As my username is male and my avatar as well one might think that I am a dude, but I am actually a dudess.

[cacian]

My apologies! I shouldn't be so rash about such an ambiguos matter! I should edit my post to say dude\dudess but as for writing these words the point is now moot.

Thanks! The avatar actually is of a french edition of Ivan Gontcharov's Oblomov (one of my favourite fictional characters which I, unfortunetly, identify with exceedingly).

As my username is male and my avatar as well one might think that I am a dude, but I am actually a dudess.

Hey dudess one would have never guessed. Haha it has a rhyme to it.
About Oblomov have you actually worked what oblomovism is about in the end? It seems according to the texts like it is a condition.
Although on second thoughts I do like the sound of oblivious next to oblomovis. The avatar looks a bit like an oblivious type of personality but in a nice chilled way. They do say the less you know about certain things or people the better off you are.

[stlukesguild]

Fenwick your avatar picture is interesting.
Oh and do not speak too soon for Shakespeare might not have been a dude after all.

Oh please! Not another of Cacian's looney theories!:frown2: I'll file this along-side that of a cross-dressing Julius Caesar killed because he liked dressing in women's clothing (which of course was so vastly different from Roman men's garb...

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/all_greeks_romans/faustina-roman-flora2.jpg

And then there was the crucifixion of Jesus because he looked to feminine with all that long hair.

:frown2:

[Lokasenna]

Hmm. I think I'll stick with Shakespeare for now.

[cacian]

Fenwick your avatar picture is interesting.
Oh and do not speak too soon for Shakespeare might not have been a dude after all.

Oh please! Not another of Cacian's looney theories!:frown2: I'll file this along-side that of a cross-dressing Julius Caesar killed because he liked dressing in women's clothing (which of course was so vastly different from Roman men's garb...

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/all_greeks_romans/faustina-roman-flora2.jpg

And then there was the crucifixion of Jesus because he looked to feminine with all that long hair.

:frown2:

LOL
Nice pictures by the way Stlukes did you do them yourself? I was just hoping to start a portraits sketches thread where members can post their sketches of themselves and others here based on what they imagined they looked like here.
Actually it is in the chat forums under portraits of Litneters. I can't sketch or draw but I hear you do.

[FenwickS]

Hey dudess one would have never guessed. Haha it has a rhyme to it.
About Oblomov have you actually worked what oblomovism is about in the end? It seems according to the texts like it is a condition.
Although on second thoughts I do like the sound of oblivious next to oblomovis. The avatar looks a bit like an oblivious type of personality but in a nice chilled way. They do say the less you know about certain things or people the better off you are.

I do feel like I've got a case of Oblomovitis as his friend Stolz defined it. I wish I had it in the cool-chilled out sort of way as the avatar illustrates, he does seem chillaxed!
But the difference between the positive view of this so called "relaxation", and what I find Oblomovitis to be, is the incapability of change. His inner demon didn't allow him to come out of this frame of mind and do what any logical person would (go travel with Stolz and Olga), which was detrimental to his physical and mental health (which eventually led to his demise).

This is of course a dramatization of what I feel I suffer from (well it is a 19th century Russian novel), but I feel as though I share this internal block that is damaging to my day-to-day life, maybe not in the "slothy" aspect, but in different ways. for the sake of everyone here I shall keep them private between me and Dr. Froyd :)
albeit it is in comparison to Ilya Ilyich, a very minor case.


Do you have a similar\different interpretation of Oblomovitis?

[cacian]

Hi Fenwicks no I do not have much on Oblomovotis because I tend to place characters in their stories not outside it.
I think I have this tendencie to only imagine characters to be always exclusive to their stories and only their stories. I have no idea why.
I kind of get slightly ''genee'' a little with writers who tend to take a heavy hand on some characters and stigmatise them in this way. Obomovitis is taken to a different level of thinking in that it is shown to be the sole fault of the character that he is like he is. There is a kind of void there I can almost feel it that does not justify the whys of this kind of characterisitics.
There is this I quote:
Books The words Oblomovism and Oblomovitis (translations of Russian: обломовщина oblomovshchina) refer to the fatalistic slothfulness that Oblomov exhibits.
Nikolai Dobrolyubov, in his 1859 article "What is Oblomovism?", described the word as an integral part of Russian avos'. Stolz suggests that Oblomov's death was the result of "Oblomovism".

I feel that books that are written to start new kind of stereotypes via words or synonyms creations about cultures not justified enough.
The reason being is that because I am a reader but I am not Russian and so I take it lightely on what the purpose of this character is.
It also makes me think about the underlaying issues of such stories in context with a writer who is himself a Russian.
In other words what do I achieve as a writer from putting my culture down in a story?

I hope this make sense.

[FenwickS]

hmmm.. not sure I completely get you, but of what I think I do get...

Well I'm not sure what my stance about "where characters belong" is, I do believe that by identifying with a character, I do not take it out of it's context (in this case, the book itself), but reflect strong and dominant characteristics of it on myself. As for being human I do think about myself a lot, and, for example, when hearing that a person has gained weight you automatically reflect this information on yourself and ask oneself questions such as "how do I look?" "have I gained weight?". Of course this is a very simplistic and shallow example, and one might even not be conscious that these reflections occur, but when you're faced with characteristics that you see yourself as having (be them in a positive or negative way), there is no doubt in my mind that self-reflection is heightened.

So when you feel that a character in a book\movie\comic\etc. shares these (especially, as in my case, a negative aspect of it) than, not by removing the character, but by relating to it, one can take written contexts and implement them in their daily life.

Actually, thinking of it, I'm sure this is why many people read novels, not only for the pure story-line of them. Books are meant (well maybe meant is a strong word) to make you feel and explore humanity, from without (i.e- Rousseau's Social Contract), and in my case, from within.

About why the author chooses to write what he does, and the impact on the culture he foresees in his writings, I tend not to delve in, for the simple reason that I would rather avoid "spoiling" the book by feeling its existence is rooted out of wrong intentions, and because I do not have a sufficient amount of hours in the day, with my studies at university and the inclination to slothfulness (and we duly return to Oblomovitis, how balanced!).

Of course this is my opinion and my truth, and as we know; in this crazy world many truths co-exist.

Hope you get me!