12-05-2016, 12:27 PM
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!
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!