Seriously, are any of his sonnets readable?
For tortured rhyme, one only needs to look at:
Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea, But sad mortality o'ersways their power, How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea, Whose action is no stronger than a flower?
His plays are fine as far as poetry goes. As drama, only Othello makes the cut. Hamlet makes me want to tear my hair out, while only Troilus and Cressida is a play for all time.
And let' be clear - anyone can write beautiful poetry without the irritating constraints of standardised grammar or spelling. And by creating words as one goes along.
He did create some memorable characters and some great poetry, but so have others.
The veneration from Shakespeare, I contend, comes from the recency of Britain's cultural dominance.
When Britain's star rose in the 19th and 20th centuries, the earliest credible writer (Chaucer - ha ha ha, Spenser's body of work was more modest, and let's be realistic - the Faerie Queene doesn't compare to the Commedia) in the English language was put on a pedestal as a way to claim cultural equality with Italy.
The remarkable fact is that the best writing in English - any genre - came after the 19th century and accelerated in the 20th as English became the new Latin.
(11-29-2016, 08:34 PM)Achebe Wrote: His plays are fine as far as poetry goes. As drama, only Othello makes the cut. Hamlet makes me want to tear my hair out, while only Troilus and Cressida is a play for all time.
Lol.
To wit: once no one loved Hamlet, few loved Troilus, and all loved his comedies, particularly things like the Taming and the Merchant. Then people started gushing over Hamlet, Henry V, Julius Caesar, while editing King Lear to be less depressing. Then Zeffirelli came along, Luhrmann -- and intellectuals like us prefer Troilus over everything he ever wrote. That is to say, if this discussion is to continue, you'll first have to cop to the fact that when you say "the best writing in English - any genre - came after the 19th century and accelerated in the 20th", you're being absolutely, 100% biased, ignoring the fact that Shakespeare's English isn't even the same English as ours, such that of course it's gonna be the stuff closest to our language that we love, and that not merely the taste but even the ways of thinking in literature change with the ages. I'm sure Britain's late cultural dominance played a part in his popularity, but so too with Greek and Latin literature in Antiquity, or French literature in the Middle Ages, or Italian literature in the "Renaissance"....that is to say, it's a non-factor, when considering quality. Ad hominem, or rather ad historiam, if you will.
His long poems are better than the sonnets. The rape of lucrece, Venus and Adonis... Shakespeare never intended to publish his sonnets..someone else did after he croaked, yet the sonnets are remembered more..maybe something to do with attention spans..
Well, they're not horrible and they do kind of transcend time in that they're fairly universal subjects, but they're not spectacular insights into the human condition as the purists will have us believe. The sonnets are basically just famous because people can remember 14 lines pretty easily and figure that quoting Shakespeare is a good way to impress pseudo-intellectuals and maybe get laid. There are much better sonnets than Willy's -- a good many written around the same time that he was writing, too, and using the same rhyme scheme but for some reason morons and Wikipedia think that he was the first one to use it so they call it a Shakespearean sonnet. Wankers.
He could write, though. For me, his appeal is in his understanding of character rather than his fairly ordinary and sometimes (mostly) ludicrous plots. And some of his best poetry is in the plays, especially some of the soliloquies -- Hamlet's isn't crap, despite how bloody annoying Hamlet as a character really is, although frankly if you look at some of the spoilt rich kids these days then you can put Hamlet's sulking into perspective. Lady Macbeth's is pretty exceptional. Romeo and Juliet sounds kind of pretty but it's just icky when you think about a couple of middle-schoolers getting married just so they can get down, then being so emo as to kill themselves.
So -- I do like Shakespeare, and quite a lot, but not for his Hallmark shite.
(11-29-2016, 09:45 PM)RiverNotch Wrote: That is to say, if this discussion is to continue, you'll first have to cop to the fact that when you say "the best writing in English - any genre - came after the 19th century and accelerated in the 20th", you're being absolutely, 100% biased, ignoring the fact that Shakespeare's English isn't even the same English as ours,
Shakespeare wrote in a more contorted, convoluted style than his contemporaries and immediate predecessors. It's easier to read Marlowe and Spenser than Shakespeare.
Quote:such that of course it's gonna be the stuff closest to our language that we love, and that not merely the taste but even the ways of thinking in literature change with the ages
Tastes change, but not as much as you're claiming. Keats died in 1820 or 21...and very few poems are around that compare to 'Ode to Psyche'. Similarly, the first two books of 'Paradise Lost' have not lost their power. Think similarly about the Commedia, the Illiad, and the Mahabharata. And Romeo and Juliet or Antony and Cleopatra - these are not loved less today.
Shakespeare was a great poet, and measured by output the most pre-eminent of the English writers. But not the Newton of literature as he's made out to be.
Quote:I'm sure Britain's late cultural dominance played a part in his popularity, but so too with Greek and Latin literature in Antiquity, or French literature in the Middle Ages, or Italian literature in the "Renaissance"....that is to say, it's a non-factor, when considering quality. Ad hominem, or rather ad historiam, if you will.
The point was that when Britain rose to power in the 1800s, the empire builders looked as far back as they credibly could, to legitimise their claims of cultural superiority (antiquity legitimises), instead of saying 'hang on, this shit that Byron's written is god's balls'.
There's an inherent bias in reading English speaking critics rate Shakespeare, as their own reading is for the most part, only in English.
This whole thread was sparked by an article that I read on the 'Guardian' about why Will is Shakespeer-less.
(11-30-2016, 04:18 AM)Leanne Wrote: Romeo and Juliet sounds kind of pretty but it's just icky when you think about a couple of middle-schoolers getting married just so they can get down, then being so emo as to kill themselves.
I actually love R&J - not for the play, but the poetry. I remember reading this when I was 12, and falling in love with words. Of course, as I was 12, I thought it was good riddance to the drama when the lovers killed themselves (perhaps still do...)
Nor that is not the lark, whose notes do beat The vaulty heaven so high above our heads.
(11-30-2016, 04:49 AM)shemthepenman Wrote: still pisses on anything the americans or australians were writing at the time. . . oh no wait a minute, you lot didn't exist before we invented you.
The aborigines have been around in Australia for 40,000 years. They do have songs, but rather simple ones, passed down through the oral route. Might just edge out Will's sonnets, but in truth can't go beyond Act 1 Sc 1 of Henry VI....
(11-30-2016, 05:11 AM)Leanne Wrote: Are you kidding? Spenser is FUCKING AWFUL! So tortured and with his tongue quite firmly rimming the Queen.
Exhortations of Irish genocide notwithstanding, I'd do him in for the bloody Alexandrines alone.
From memory, Canto III of the Faerie Queene:-
But if in liuing colore and right hue your selfe you couet to see pictured who can do it rightly or more true than that sweete verse with nectared sprinkled in which a gracious servant pictured his Cynthai, his heauen's fairest light? that with his melting sweetnesse rauished and with the wonder of her beams bright my senses are lulled in slomber of delight.
Isn't the 'slomber of delight' louelie?
It's tempting to say that he's remembered for a refrain, but it's more than that. The Faeirie Queene is lyrical. And a long rhyming poem in English is a feat, given how rhyme poor the language is.
He did preside over certain unfortunates in his estate, but in the long run it's things like that that made the Irish people strong and able to massacre in turn, the natives of New Holland, for their water view quarter acre blocks?
I keep hearing about how rhyme poor English is. Funny, that didn't stop a good number of cantos from Byron and his backdoor brethren.
Yay, it's lyrical! That's like the bare minimum requirement.
And the Irish weren't leading the massacres, they were just following behind where they could plant their potatoes in the bloody soil, just like they did at home.
William Shakespeare, like Emily Dickinson, didn't care too much about technique or even bother proofreading his work. I know they thought about and learned about it and saw it pulled off well in others. But it seems to me they were more interested in the dramatic and emotional intensity of literature than they were in tinkering around with the vehicle. They just rode the thing. Most people can't, or'd rather not try doing that for fear of looking foolish. I'm pretty sure Emily Dickinson felt foolish much of the time, if you were to have seen her and asked her. There are both too many tinkerers and too many that don't even know how to ride.
There is something to be said for 'quantity'. The anthologized 'greats' tend often to have formidable oeuvres, even if they might be best known for one formidable 'Moby Dick'. We aren't 'schooled' in too many one-hit-wonders, though I've no doubt folks could forage up more than a few. A couple points pertaining to poetry follow from this presumptuous observation: First, I'm unsure there exists a corpus of 'absolute criteria' for what constitutes 'great' poetry; if you can throw enough mud at the proverbial brick wall without becoming discouraged or starving to death, then you might be on to something; secondly, 'yesterday' (to poach from Auden) constitutes the ineluctable tool kit of 'to-day'--use, abuse, revise as you wish those whose oeuvres have withstood the test of time, but ignore them (either deliberately or out of ignorance of them) at your own risk. I might add, if you 'know' them and think you are 'deliberately' ignoring them, then, Willy-nilly, they are shaping your work and you owe them a debt. Perhaps this thread is an installment.
Enjoyed reading this thread... could write endlessly on this topic, but would only succeed in boring people and further confusing myself as to my opinion of "The Bard". So will add only a few thoughts and hopefully the discussion will continue! Think the standard of writing, critique and involvement on this site is awesome- but I'd welcome a lot more threads of this ilk as there are clearly a lot of knowledgeable contributors but not much in terms of literary discussion.
So, firstly I feel that his professionalism as a playwright no doubt diminished the quality of his work. I see him as a very, very competent professional, I don't see him an artist. The sheer level of his productivity strongly suggests that he wrote mostly for practical reasons rather than writing for writing's sake or through uncontrollable emotion, bar maybe the sonnets, which I'll come to. Agree with the idea he didn't proofread much. Probably had theatre people for that.
I consider the English history plays, in the majority, as his weakest work in terms of writing (bar perhaps Henry V and Falstaff moments!)- which ties in with the professionalism idea as plays about known monarchs would sell tickets so might have been simplified or rushed. Notice also chronology- later in his career he abandons the Eng history stuff for stronger, more experimental plays, when we can assume he was already very firmly established.
Going with this, the plays had to have universal appeal and simplicity to appeal to the Elizabethan pit. Even the seated may not have been amazingly educated. School children in 2016 understand his work- as did the base audience in his time. Yet he managed to coin endless clever metaphoric phrases and sayings still used today, which shows talented and incisive writing as I feel this takes some doing!
Then, there is some fantastic poetry throughout the plays (Seven ages of man?) and too many great bits of theatre and great characters to mention (Iago, Malvolio, Lady Mac, Falstaff, Viola, Emilia, Shylock, Feste). And largely great execution of theatrically relevant characters, action leading main characters. I think as a play, Twelfth Night is near perfect in composition.
Sonnets however... not a big fan. A lot of words for the same universal and obvious sentiments, felt by many other writers who portrayed them far more beautifully. Perhaps the man was better writing practically than emotionally! Remember forcing myself to read them all as a student... in naive expectation of receiving some enlightenment once I'd navigated all of them. Bored me half to death, just thought 116 was beautiful.
Will stop here- this reads largely as a defence compared to previous posts- and was semi intended to- I just feel when taking into account the purpose of his work, the time, the longevity of it and the effect then and now it's hard not to appreciate. Perhaps if he had written one play with the intention of creating the ultimate, perfect and effective piece of art he'd have combined the good bits across his works into one and proven something more substantial to critics.
Also don't see how English speaking critics can rate Shakespeare any differently to non- as they will be comparing him to other writings that they have read in, well, English!
(12-05-2016, 12:27 PM)rollingbrianjones Wrote: Also don't see how English speaking critics can rate Shakespeare any differently to non- as they will be comparing him to other writings that they have read in, well, English!
Not all of them. A number of them were well read in other European languages - not a fantastic achievement, seeing how similar the Romance and Germanic languages are within their respective families, but certainly better educated than the retro rock worshipping monoglots of the Facebook generation.
Monoglots, hah, fantastic choice of word, mentally saving that one.
Yeah- I do get this point- but as a tardy person who only speaks one language, I always feel I don't grasp or appreciate the full value of translated work, let alone feeling apt to compare it to works originally written in another language.
Going back to your original post, the tortured rhyme example is spot on w/ the sonnets, throughout my studies I had many painful arguments with other students and professors about the base rubbishness of 95% of them! As I see it, as good an example as you picked, there are so many average parts of those sonnets that you could have also used, hah.
Massively disagree with your initial comment- that Othello is the only play that makes the cut dramatically (you then praise Troilus so assume you have seen a good production of that, and also surely in terms of dramatic critique the acting and direction can more or less make or break any adequate script?). As I mentioned in my lengthier reply, I could discuss this all year- but I feel that surely the fact that so many of his plays have remained successful over 400 years (in terms of number of performances and tickets sold, audiences still enjoying them, and in the recent modern age films of them produced ) suggests that saying only Othello makes the cut is a little ludicrous! When I read Hamlet, bar Ophelia's delicate madness, I thought it was shite. But the Brannagh production was watchable.
It's actually been a good few years since I read or watched live or caught a film or a Shakey play- definitely going to catch a few on cartoon hd and watch with a harsher, more critical eye!
(12-06-2016, 10:35 AM)rollingbrianjones Wrote: Monoglots, hah, fantastic choice of word, mentally saving that one.
Yeah- I do get this point- but as a tardy person who only speaks one language, I always feel I don't grasp or appreciate the full value of translated work, let alone feeling apt to compare it to works originally written in another language.
Going back to your original post, the tortured rhyme example is spot on w/ the sonnets, throughout my studies I had many painful arguments with other students and professors about the base rubbishness of 95% of them! As I see it, as good an example as you picked, there are so many average parts of those sonnets that you could have also used, hah.
Massively disagree with your initial comment- that Othello is the only play that makes the cut dramatically (you then praise Troilus so assume you have seen a good production of that, and also surely in terms of dramatic critique the acting and direction can more or less make or break any adequate script?). As I mentioned in my lengthier reply, I could discuss this all year- but I feel that surely the fact that so many of his plays have remained successful over 400 years (in terms of number of performances and tickets sold, audiences still enjoying them, and in the recent modern age films of them produced ) suggests that saying only Othello makes the cut is a little ludicrous! When I read Hamlet, bar Ophelia's delicate madness, I thought it was shite. But the Brannagh production was watchable.
It's actually been a good few years since I read or watched live or caught a film or a Shakey play- definitely going to catch a few on cartoon hd and watch with a harsher, more critical eye!
RBJ
Tortured rhyme?
I still don't think it's fair to compare poetry of four hundred years ago to poetry of today, especially stuff so esteemed (imperialism be damned!) -- at least on a level that goes beyond the personal. The constant changes in literature and language make it inevitable that any value judgments away from personal opinion or workshopping end up sounding like ripe old foolishness or ripe old snobbery, and so far this doesn't sound like personal opinion. (but on the other hand, Shakespeare is as peerless as a hawk-eyed falcon -- that is to say, it ain't good to say the inverse, too. And there may have been an admittance to opinion that I have missed, or perhaps it's a key assumption....)
(12-06-2016, 11:10 AM)just mercedes Wrote: Our local community is staging The Tempest this week. Much more entertaining than, say, Waiting for Godot.
I love Waiting For Godot... the play, not the action itself, that's a bit frustrating. But I also love The Tempest. And Calamity Jane. Yeah, maybe I'm just a stage tragic.
