Printable View
Zippy,
I remember countless incident of implicit and explicit racism towards Shylock, and keeping in mind the attitudes and philosophy towards races during that era, I am pretty sure Shakespeare wasn't being ironic or sarcastic when he penned them - he was merely channeling the view-points of his own society.
Creating characters that have particular opinions and attitudes does not indicate that the author shared those opinions, but it means that the author was aware of such opinions and put those into the character. If you see of the characters in The Merchant of Venice as prejudiced against Jews, then you can be sure that Shakespeare intended that the audience saw that in the characters, but it does not mean that he shared that prejudice. On the other hand, I would be surprised if Shakespeare did not have feelings against Jews, but I'm not personally acquainted with him,. so I don't know for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by EAP
Why would you be surprised if he 'did not have feelings against Jews'? That's a very double-edged sword you're wielding.
Not a big fan of Romeo and Juliet either, but try reading Hamlet and King Lear. On the other hand you have to think about why the dialogue was written that way, Shakespeare didn't write his plays for people to read them but for people to see them, audiences don't always pay attention to what's going on on the stage, repetition was part of his game. I don't think there's a single character study that comes close to Hamlet and King Lear is one of the most epic tales ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive
Yes, it is a two-edged sword; I realized that while was writing. Anti-Jewish semtiment was the general rule in England in Shakespeare's time. As an author, he certainly was aware of it, but I doubt that he completely evaded that part of his era.Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
I read the play, and all I know is that the repetition left a really bad impression on me. Anyway, a single sentence in the end of a play can be very important. The ending of the story depends on it, and if the audiences are not paying attention to it, they are responsible for it. Same is the case with the whole play. A good play-wright doesn't have to repeat his lines for the sake of it. And I don't think that he meant it as a game. Repetition might have been just his style. Of course, I can be wrong in that but it's my thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark F.
Yes, I haven't read Hamlet and King Lear yet. I might someday try King Lear though. Its story (I read it somewhere) appeals me. :)
I'm going to have to say JD Salinger. I really don't understand why Catcher in the Rye is such a beloved book. It just made me angry at the end because it just Friggin ends!!!!!!!!!!!! I hate that.
Dan Brown. His fame is based purely on the premise of his book rather than the execution of it. There's certainly nothing in the prose. JK Rowlings. The life and times of a prepubescent wizard. Need I say more? Hemmingway. I actually liked his style of prose, but his works fairly drip machismo. I couldn't take it. Ayn Rand. Bitter, bitter woman. The rant that is Atlas Shrugged did not deserve 1100 pages. Also, Robert Jordan -he's like the song that never ends- and Tolkien -there is such a thing as too much detail. We don't need to know the family tree, thanks.
Who said Victor Hugo? How could you? *weeps in a corner* And Hawthorne, his exploration of human nature-- overrated? :bawling:
I agree J.K. Rowling is overrated. I don't like her books. The story is more like a common fairy tale and the characters are boring. Don't even mention reader could solves the problems in the book much before Harry and it becomes really uninteresting to sit there and reading his thoughts while you have already know the main idea. It get me furious. There were some periods while I have reading such things, on my mind was only: "how someone could be so dull?". But that actually is because of the retardation and this kind of retardation is shallow in my opinion. As for the descriptions and so on, there are not very good. I couldn't feel myself a part from this world, not after I became twelve years old. As for the style of writing I don't see something really special. It is true most of the people are attracted by the book, but it is only because the plot. And the mark for the good literature, in my opinion this is the writing style, is not really on good level.
i must agree with Adudaewen that J.D Salinger seems to me to be overrated, but this is based upon the fact that i myself did not enjoy 'Catcher in the Rye' and therefore was unable to see what all the fuss was about. (i am currently studying a module in which i will have to study the book again, perhaps my view will be altered).
i must also agree with papercut that Dan Brown is immensely overrated. 'The Da Vinci Code' sold well because of its own generated hype, if purely based upon his writing style and ability the book would have failed to be as big a success as it was. Having read 'The Da Vinci Code' i decided to read 'Angels and Demons' (recommended by my boyfriend's mother) to see if perhaps Dan Brown was able to write different genres. I was bitterly disappointed to find that the text followed the exact same premise as his previous text, down to kidnappings, murders and code-breaking.
Dan Brown isn't even rated as a good author...everyone is aware that his books are crap.
I tend to like books for what I can get from them. Sometimes its just a good yarn ......so I like Grisham. Sometimes its the thrill of discovering another mind, sometimes something else. There are authors whose works I detest and whose minds as revealed in their works I detest. The great Soviet writer Babel asks a question in one of his stories about whether it is possible to live without enemies and answers that it is not. I agree and detecting ones enemies in literature is a worthwhile exercise. Literature like all things is political and whether we say we like a book for this reason or for that reason it all boils down to the fact that we recognise some attitudes as directly opposed to the way we understand the World and Life. This may sound unusual to young readers but .........there you go ............
I'm so glad to see someone else agree with me, mostly because I was beginnign to think maybe it was just me!!! I am also beginning to think that its just a guy thing that maybe we women can't understand because all of my guy friends just LOVED Catcher in the Rye. Liesl, if your view does alter please explain it to me!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by liesl
No Salinger's novel is not as good as many say but then what book that gets 'cult' status can measure up to the fame thrust upon it. I wonder if it is true that Salinger has a vault full of unpublished manuscripts.
I'm not a great fan but then I don't mind him either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metal134
Heh, I'll actually agree with that, I liked the premise of the book, and I alos liked the story of The Old Man and the Sea but I really think that any of his books that go past 300 pages are too drawn out for his style. Most of For Whom the Bell Tolls was just Robert Jordan walking from place to place. I'd have to say the only two exciting or interesting parts were Pilars description of the execution of the fascists in her town, and the final stand of El Sordo(which was also drawn out a bit).
I can actually deal with drawn out novels and I do enjoy most of them for their descriptiveness, The Tale of Genji, Moby Dick, Don Quixote. But for some reason Hemingways style just doesnt work at all for a book being long.