12-23-2016, 01:27 PM
On "laying it on thick" (and trying to ignite/continue a discussion on a huge subject that I've always found fascinating and would be interested to read developed opinions already hinted at)...
Going somewhat against my defence of Shakey's abilities thus far, I think he seemingly "laid it on pretty thick" unavoidably- as a good writer that produced such a volume of material often encompassing unoriginal but compelling stories cannot avoid doing just that... I'm nowhere near a good writer but if I write 20 lines, 4 of them will be top notch! So there is a lot of inconsistency amongst his work, especially arguably the stronger "stories" or factual plays.
Saying this, my appreciation of his surely undoubtable ability is the "thickness" is not indicative of his best work- more the theatrical control and progression, characterisation and poetry through both action and language in what I think are his mostly original stories/plays is (the better comedies? Twelfth Night, Much Ado, Midsummer). If those are not original my apologies for my ignorance and pls correct me and direct to the sources
The language and construction of the better comedies/farces in tandem is fantastic, whilst in the tragedies- despite obvious moments of great language- it is often the action that causes effect rather than the writing (obviously strong action makes better writing easier). Exception of Macbeth which I think is fantastically written, and Ophelia/Iago (obv there are other good characters) who I view as perfectly built characters.
Then away from the vaguely/uncertainly historical tragedies, the definite English histories are to me the most inconsistent plays in terms of written quality, where the overall the story dominates the quality of work/writing (perhaps it's no coincidence that the theatrical audience of the time would have already been familiar with and attracted to those English history tales, encouraging productive laziness on his part?).
This just echoes my earlier opinion reading that back - that he is a talented writer who I don't think can be ever easily dismissed or heavily criticised- mainly as when he writes for the sake of writing what he gives us is beautiful, acute, witty and entertaining. Just as he wrote for theatre, for an audience, for a living- and in such a historically unrivaled quantity, there will of course be a lot of weaker plays and writings.
V. interested to hear some further criticism and hopefully learn something through it, as this is a subject I enjoy and have extensively written about but some time ago, but have not for some time found a active platform of informed critics.
RBJ
Going somewhat against my defence of Shakey's abilities thus far, I think he seemingly "laid it on pretty thick" unavoidably- as a good writer that produced such a volume of material often encompassing unoriginal but compelling stories cannot avoid doing just that... I'm nowhere near a good writer but if I write 20 lines, 4 of them will be top notch! So there is a lot of inconsistency amongst his work, especially arguably the stronger "stories" or factual plays.
Saying this, my appreciation of his surely undoubtable ability is the "thickness" is not indicative of his best work- more the theatrical control and progression, characterisation and poetry through both action and language in what I think are his mostly original stories/plays is (the better comedies? Twelfth Night, Much Ado, Midsummer). If those are not original my apologies for my ignorance and pls correct me and direct to the sources
The language and construction of the better comedies/farces in tandem is fantastic, whilst in the tragedies- despite obvious moments of great language- it is often the action that causes effect rather than the writing (obviously strong action makes better writing easier). Exception of Macbeth which I think is fantastically written, and Ophelia/Iago (obv there are other good characters) who I view as perfectly built characters.
Then away from the vaguely/uncertainly historical tragedies, the definite English histories are to me the most inconsistent plays in terms of written quality, where the overall the story dominates the quality of work/writing (perhaps it's no coincidence that the theatrical audience of the time would have already been familiar with and attracted to those English history tales, encouraging productive laziness on his part?).
This just echoes my earlier opinion reading that back - that he is a talented writer who I don't think can be ever easily dismissed or heavily criticised- mainly as when he writes for the sake of writing what he gives us is beautiful, acute, witty and entertaining. Just as he wrote for theatre, for an audience, for a living- and in such a historically unrivaled quantity, there will of course be a lot of weaker plays and writings.
V. interested to hear some further criticism and hopefully learn something through it, as this is a subject I enjoy and have extensively written about but some time ago, but have not for some time found a active platform of informed critics.
RBJ
RBJ
Man differs more from Man, than Man from Beast~ Rochester
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro~ HST
Man differs more from Man, than Man from Beast~ Rochester
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro~ HST