Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.
Printable View
Hmm, I just thought of this: Nobody in their right mind could call any of Dostoyevsky's works boring I can tell you that :nod: That's how I see it.
He is neither one of the greatest playwrights ever nor one of the worst.
Is that a fact? How did you come about excluding him from the ranks of the "greatest playwrights ever"? Certainly he is not equal to Shakespeare or Aeschylus, Sophocles, or Euripides. Perhaps he pales before Moliere, Marlowe, Goethe, and Calderón de la Barca and Lope de Vega (although I'll largely have to take the last two on reputation... good translations being slim to no-existent)... but how many other rank before him? Miguel de Unamuno? Jean Genet? Jean Anouilh? Carlo Goldini? Friedrich Schiller? Bertholt Brecht? Friedrich Durrenmatt? Max Frisch? A term like "greatest" is vague. Do we assume that being one of "the greatest playwrights of all time" is limited to only the top 3?... 5?... 10?... Where is the cut-off point? Personally I would count him as one of the great writers... one of the absolute central figures of the latter half of the 20th century.
How Beckett ever won the Nobel Prize for Literature is beyond me.
As is a good deal of modern and contemporary poetry by your own admission. Perhaps you shouldn't brag about it.:D
I don't know why your quoting me because I never argued to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I love every one of Beckett's plays. He's definitely one of the best playwrights, though as SL says he would be somewhere after Shakespeare, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Racine, Calderón, Seneca, Ibsen. He does sort of hover around that Brecht, O'Neill, Strindberg level though, while being above folks like Williams, Jonson, Webster, Wilde, Shaw, Albee, Miller; all able men.
Ack!!! How could I forget Ibsen... not to mention Checkoff and Strindberg. Seneca, on the other hand...? Well I've never been as enamored of the Romans as you... excepting Virgil, Ovid, Horace and a few others... Of course I was thinking of you as I intentionally left Racine off the list. I might note, however, that I've decided to give him another shot, and I purchased the Cairncross translations of Iphigenia, Phadrea, and Athaliah.
Consider me a nut then Daniel. I find Dostoyevsky incredibly dull. :brow:Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Lol, you are offically commited :smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
I found Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre incredibly dull in parts. I think it might be because I just didn't empathise with the existential philosophy. I do, however, like the quote in my signature, which is from Nausea.
I'd have to say Walden. My dad loved it, but I just couldn't get past the first chapter. Maybe I should try it again in a few years.
For all you Shakespeare and Jane Eyre haters out there... try cheating! I read sparknotes for all the Shakespeare plays I read in college, and it seriously helped me out. Once I had a good grasp of the plot, I was able to sit back and let his verse just wash over me; it was beautiful. Also, if you want to read Bronte, Austen, or Dickens, but aren't sure if you can wade through all that wordy prose, try watching the movie first. Once you no longer need to stare at a page for an hour trying to unravel who does what when, the descriptions flow better and become more beautiful. My rule of thumb is, it's not cheating if you do sit down and read the book at some point.
someone else here said that Doestoevsky saved his life or changed it, "the Brohters Karamozov did that for me. His argument on Christ seemed like he taken it from me, yet he wrote that long before I was alive. That thread of common humanity is gripping.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielBenoit
Don't exaggerate... Shakespeare I can understand that some people get confused at, but Brontë? Austen? It takes a little bit of getting used to, that's all. If one does not have the stamina to do that, then what's the point in reading anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Katy North
Dickens though, I can come in with you, but it's mainly because he repeats himself.
Although, watching the movie, I wouldn't. You never know what they have changed or you have to pick the darling ones of the fans, like the 90s Austens. And then too there are minor changes that don't matter to the fans because the overall result was so good, but which aren't in the book and then you are exposed (depends for what you are trying to cheat of course). As for most of the later ones... There are very few that don't take an awful liberty with the original work, both in message and plot... Better read sparknotes then or a bunch of other articles. It will improve your understanding at any rate (and maybe you'll understand more than the average reader).
It is true that Austen is very readable, though personally I found Dickens easier :). I think I just liked his characters better. I was just shocked at how many people disliked Austen that I had to throw out there that there were some movies that might make the reader appreciate the book better.
With movies you do need to find the right movie to go with the book. I will say that watching the gorgeous A&E version of Pride and Prejudice (which is remarkably close to the book) turned me on to Jane Austen in the first place, but there are some horribly bad movies that aren't even close to the books.
And when I said "cheating" I said it tongue in cheek... I was actually recommending sparknotes and movies as a TOOL. In my opinion, if you have the time and energy to read sparknotes and/or watch the movie, AS WELL AS reading the book, you're a pretty good student/reader :).
Those at San Quentin would not have agreed with the criticisms of Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot on this thread. I personally think his work is brilliant. It is BRILLIANT. I do not enjoy the novels written by him though I try returning to them each year. In fact, I am due another attempt any day soon. But the plays...
The book I found most tedious almost to the point of tears: I apologise, but The Bible, (King James Version), slots perfectly into this category for me. It wasn't long after a reading of this fantasy-adventure novel that I became an atheist!
You and me both, wlz... I just didn't want to inspire a debate of epic proportions, being a newbie and all. But now that you've said it, I'll join in!
Many times I have told myself, I MUST read the Bible, at least to see what all the hype is about! However, after tearing several of the ultra thin pages because I drooled on them while nodding off, I decided I'd go get my revelations from Dostoevsky and Shakespeare instead.
And all in all, I think atheism is pretty cool. You get to believe in dinosaurs and sleep in on Sunday :D.
To me indeed James Joyce 'Ulysses. I loved the book and still I do love it given its majestic prose. The fact that it has always been best-rated yet though I made several efforts to read it I have to stop.
Everything of this book is beautiful,yet I cannot understand it and therefore I find it boring