who is the most overrated writer ever?

[seasong]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's no need to argue about it.

[EAP]

Shakespeare is essentially literature in all schools. Now why do you think that would be if Shakespeare wasn't the best?

'Greatness' is relative.There are a variety of factors involved in the choice of books including cost, the instructor's personal whims, trends of the day, the socio-political stance/standing of the institute and a tendency to rely on lists generated by 'critics'. Your arguement, i.e: because shakespeare is taught in most schools, it is great' makes logical thought cry.

Because his works are masterpiceces that combine great prose with deeper meanings and ideas, my friend.

These are probably the most regurgitated phrases in the history of literature. 'But their (your favourite authors) works are masterpeices that combine blah blah blah with blah blah blah' is a meaningless sentence. You can find a deeper meaning in a pile of steaming dog **** if you put your mind to it. Please back your claims and adjectives with solid examples.

The original intent, in any case, was not to discuss the merits of Shakespeare. Your over the top, fanboyish, head-in-the-mud obstinately repetitive defense of Shakespeare only serves to highlight my belief in the over-ratedness of Shakespeare's works.

[Brendan Madley]

Did you also know Shakespeare has sold over 2 billion copies worldwide? 4 times more than the nearest American - Danielle Steel. So he can't be too unenjoyable.

Ah, again getting personal. I am merely saying what the world thinks by the popularity of Shakespeare, the fact critics LOVE HIS WORK and that his work is essential literature at school. (Not essentially, sorry about that, my mistake.)

[EAP]

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?

It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, 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.

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...7221/demon.htm

Did Shakespeare also tackle sexism? equalism? women's rights? gay rights? When Shakespeare talks about equality, is his willing to consider the buggerer, the sodomite or the rugmuncher as an equivalent?

[Brendan Madley]

Shakespeare is not merely taught at school due to cost and "the instructor's personal whims". Such a claim is laughable. Did you happen to know the GOVERNMENT dictates what should be taught? Probably not. The instructor doesn't choose. Shakespeare is chosen because his is masterpieces, popular, well written and with great underlying messages that is one of the reasons that make him so great.

And now that I think of it, the greatest novel ever would have to be either The Pilgrim's Progress or Don Quixote. Both masterpieces.

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

[Scheherazade]

Brendan> Please avoid flooding the thread by multiple posts one after another. If you would like to add any more comments, use the EDIT button which is on the right bottom corner of your posts.

Further posts with personal comments/insults will be deleted with or without any futher notice.

It might be a good idea to start another thread under Shakespeare section to discuss his place in Literature History.

[kilted exile]

It's an isolated incident. There are countless examples which speak against it. I read the particular play a long time ago, however, 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.

Digging around the web a bit, I found this link which cites several incident of a particular type of racism (anti-semitism) in the play.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...7221/demon.htm

Ok, without turning this thread into a discussion of Merchant of Venice. I would say the play is a satire, and shakes is questioning more the prevalent attitude of the time that Jews were somehow inferior. The recognition that it is actually classified as one of his comedies I think suggests that it is a satire. If you wish to continue this start a thread in the MOV section about it.

[Maria L]

Firstly,
I love Kilted's picture

Secondly,
I enjoy Shakespeare's works immensely

but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.

That's my two cents.

[Iago]

Shakesperian Drama (Tragedy in particular) is virtually the basis of the modern dramatic theory. Up until the 1920s-1930s, academics considered Plato as the god of dramatic theory, finding Shakespeare flawed.

but I beleive the only reasons they are put in schools is because of Shakesperian language and the many literary devices put in his writing.

I disagree. Take any given film (ok, NOT "Weekend at Bernie's"--although you can find some Shakesperean elements there too, e.g. the mistaken identity theme) and you'll see that virtually every single one follows a dramatic arch and structure built on the Shakesperean foundations

[Pensive]

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.

I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

But I consider Shakespeare an overrated author because I have always found his works to be extremely boring. Repetition of things again and again. Philosophic but on many places annoying dialogues. For example, all those things Romeo said to Juliet again and again. I have read Romeo and Juliet quite a time ago so I am afraid that I can't quote that passage though I would have loved to.

As for philosophic references, I agree that this man is very crafty but those writers who say things simply, and so more precisely, I personally consider them better. I don't see what's the point of making things up when they can be expressed in a more simple and concise manner. Some people call it an art, or beauty. But I don't see the beauty in reckoning one's brain off just so one can get the meaning behind Shakespeare's oh-so-clever-dialogues.

[Redzeppelin]

Now I must go, but I have enjoyed our little chat on the superiority of Shakespeare.

I already responded to this idea elsewhere. I love Shakespeare too - but he's not the be-all, end-all of literature. His skill lay primarily in a very facile use of language and an astute understanding of human nature/behavior. But most writers have that. We've all figured out that you think he and Joyce (and Joyce - though original - does not deserve to be ranked next to Shakespeare - but again: isn't that just my opinion?) are pretty nifty. So what's next? I'm not really concerned about these so-called experts in world literature and their opinions - American literature is equally brilliant in its own way. Anybody with sufficient knowledge of literature would know that British and American literature are built on different foundations and are concerned with different ideas and intentions. I believe Shakespeare enjoyed a good story - and that he would've gotten a kick out of Mark Twain, enjoyed Steinbeck's descriptive mastery, admired Crane's irony, marvelled at Faulkner's structural innovations, nodded his head at Hemingway's masterful understatement and praised Melville's epic sweep.

Stating that one country's literature is better than another is tantamount to "literary racism." Real lovers of literature don't draw national "color lines." Books are books - the nationality of the author is trivial and true literary scholars don't get caught up in pointless comparisons.

[metal134]

Dan Brown is greatly overated. The only reasons his books sell are because they ar controversial. Before the Da Vinci Code h was unknown, Angels and Demons, Digital Fortress and Deception Point having sold less than 10,000 copies between them. Now they sell because you could say they too are controversial and have recieved exposure.

Ditto on Dan Brown. I kept hearing and kept hearing and kept hearing how spectacular "The DaVinchi Code" was and it turned out to be one of the biggest let downs ever.
I also think Ernest Hemingway is overrated. I enjoy his stories, but his style drives me up the wall. And I'm, so tired of hearing how he was a "master of dialogue". His dialouge, quite frankly, is among the worst I've ever read. I mean, here's a typical Hemingway conversation:

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: Truly?
Robert Jordan: Yes, I will blow up the bridge.
Anselmo: We will help you blow up the bridge.
Robert Jordan: Will you help me blow up the bridge?
Andselmo: We will help you.
Robert Jordan: Alright.

[PeterL]

I agree that just because Shakespeare's plays are written in Middle English or if his works are not relevant to today's society, he shouldn't be called an overrated author.

Shakespeare didn't write in Middle English. If you want to see Middle English, read Chaucer.

[ennison]

Ah and should dialogue be life like then

Anselmo: Will you blow up the bridge Ingles?
Robert Jordan: The ... what .... the who .....
Anselmo: Yes . si Hey turn off that engine .. hey I SAID?
Robert Jordan: Yes turn off that engine I cant hear ... cant hear .
Anselmo: Turn it off hey turn .
Robert Jordan: Anselmo?
Andselmo: Turn it off TURN IT OFF!!.
Robert Jordan: ***** what ***** Anselmo who are you on about.

Gee no wonder Franco won. The Republicans spoke too normally!!!

[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.

I'd be interested to know how you could possibly write an entertaining and thought-provoking play that deals with the subject of racism and not have one or more of the characters act in a racist manner.

You are making the cardinal mistake of confusing Shakespeare with his characters. By the same logic you'd have to call Vladimir Nabokov a paedophile or Bret Easton Ellis a psychopath. The character is not the author!