And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.
Printable View
And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.
There is certainly no American who can match the ability of: Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucher, Scott, Austen, Archer, Doyle, Kipling, Buchyan, Defoe, Woolf, Conrad, Marlowe, Thackeray, Swift, Fielding, Bronte Sisters, Shelley, Stoker, Joyce, Disraeli, Gaskel, Collins, Carroll, Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Potter, Trollpe, Eliot and Hardy to name some British legends.
Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.
The only qualficiation needed to comment about a book or an author is a familiarity with their works.Quote:
Ask anybody qualified on world literature and they will tell you the merits of Shakespeare and Joyce.
For a book to be good, it has to be readable. If you can't even read the book, its impossible to judge the remaining attributes.Quote:
Something great does not neccessarily have to be readable by everybody. It is the prose and depiction of life that is of the true merit.
Sigh.Quote:
And to EAP: Who would you consider then to be superior? There is nobody.
Tolkien
Martin
Poe
Dostoevsky
Murakami
Mieville
MacLeod
Banks
Acroyd
Roy
Rushdie
King
Kay
Helprin
Christie
Orwell
Ishiguro
Bradbury
Clement
Simmons
Dick
Clarke
Le Guin
Matheson
Hardy
Bronte (E)
Buglakov
Manto
Hoeg
Voight
Powers
McCarthy
Bakker
Fowles
Jackson
Enough or do you want more names?
I understand where you are coming from about the way that a book is being judged, but I'm still trying to get over you saying that giants such as Shakespeare and Twain were and are overrated.:bawling:
Shakespeare was one of the most influential play writes of all time. You cannot deny this. Even today, his works are being adapted to movies and Hallmark cards, books and T.V. Sorry. I guess that I'm just having a hard time figuring out how you can call someone overrated when they have influenced world culture as a whole for about 400 years. How is that by the way? How do you defend your statement. The man perfected iambic pentameter for God's sake! And the sonnet! And the classic Petrarchan Sonnet!
So with that, I give you my overrated author: James Joyce. Unreadable drivel indeed. There is a line between s of c and bunches of letters put together. If you want stream of consciousness, read Jabberwockee.
Le'sigh. Ever heard of copyright?Quote:
Why do you think Shakespeare has his own seperate link on this website and on others if he is overated, hence not as good as everybody makes out he is. Because to have such exclusion you have to be brilliant, the best and in a class of your own, which is what Shakespeare is.
No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.
EAP: Observe by everybody. You can't judge it because you can't read it but those of us who have can.
From Wikipedia: William Shakespeare (baptised April 26, 1564 – died April 23, 1616)[1] was an English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, and the world's preeminent dramatist.[
Those who have judged him as the greatest know what to look for: prose, ideas, imagery, ectera, other than pure enjoyment, which is what is implied by you saying any person familiar with the text may judge it properly. No, you couldn't be more wrong.
His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth. This is one of the many things I mean by ideas with the prose.
P.S. That first sentence from my last post was from Wikipedia.
prophitus,
Please realize that influencing cultures does not by itself does not make something deserving of accolodes. Hugo Gernsback's sci-fi efforts kick-started the modern sci-fi genre, yet no body in their right minds would call him a good writer.
Shakespeare's influence and his mastery of English language is undeniable, however, he is not the be-all and end-all of fiction. There's beauty in his works, but they are also boring, verbose, annoying and are based around themes which are largely irrelevent these days. Feminism, racism, classism, global expansion and technological ascendency are some of the key issues faced by our world, and in this day and age, I find the emphasis placed on his works to be over-the-top misguidedness.
I find his characterization to be worthless and very much a product of his era, values and morality included. The less said about the 'plots' the better. Of course, in drama, dialogue is the most important bit, but as I detailed earlier, his dialogue has little emotional value or empathizable characteristic for me.
Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well
Ah, you are saying this from a point of enjoyment of his work. The world he wrote for has gone. Just because we today cannot fully understand the Middle English does not decrease the ability of the work. And also, enjoyment is only one of the factors that makes a great writer. Ideas and prose also come into it; refer to: His plays combine popular appeal with complex characterisation, poetic grandeur and philosophical depth.
Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best? Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.
Repeat that about twenty thousand times and maybe you'll believe it yourself.Quote:
No EAP. None of them are superior in terms of prose or ideas contained in the work. Ask any person qualified on world literature and they will concur with me. I don't hate Mark Twain, don't say he's bad, but slightly overated in terms of the ideas in his novels. That's not to say he couldn't write.
If by aptly you mean according to the mores and trends of his era, then you might be correct. Those values aren't really relevent in today's envoirnment though.Quote:
Just a quick point I think Racism is dealt with quite aptly by Shakes in Merchant of Venice, I'm sure if I thought about it long enough I could find examples of the other themes as well
Masterpieces that are greater pieces of literature than any other literature produced by any others.
Read the "hath not a jew arms" speech it is affirming that all people are equal, is this is not a relevant and desired principle in today's environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
Since no one's convincing anyone else, let's all just agree to disagree. Please. When someone's mind is already made up they're not going to change it.
Ha ha so now you're trying to make me second guess myself. I stand by my claim, and by the way, I didn't write the second quote. Although, when you say that the racism portrayed there isn't really relevent in today's environment, any racism will always be relevant, even if it isn't Christain's and Jews, it still portrays racism in general and as a whole.Too, remember Shakespeare wrote for different times, but the messages in The Merchant of Venice on racism will always be relevant.
To seasong: With no disrespect I am merely pointing out why Shakespeare is regarded as the best ever and how just because it is not enjoyable because it is written in Middle English to him doesn't make it any less of a masterpiece.