Is Shakespeare Over-rated?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 2:33 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Then why is the King

Don't even get me started on King James

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 3:36 pm

Originally posted by Aegis:
He took a chance, and instead of writing comedy like every other writing (Namely people like Marlowe) he stood up and worte a tragedy, something that wasn't widely accepted at that time becuase of the problems in England.

Good post Aegis

But AFAIK both Marlowe andKyd wrote plays that are usually classified as tragedies. Marlowes "Tamburlaine" and "Dido" and Kyd's "Spanish tragedy" to name a few. Personally, I like Marlowe a lot just for writing less romantic plays and portraing the people as driven by power, greed and egoism.

Originally posted by mr Sleep:
 Are you referring to Shakespeares sonnets, or the other authors of the time?

I was referring to Shakespeare's sonnets here, what I meant was I like that particular group of sonnets even though they are technically inferior (in terms of measure and rhyming pattern) to others like Spenser or Sidney.

if we are going to look at impressive literary work read the Bible

I think some parts of the bible are wonderful literature

But have you read the Koran? I have to admit I personally find it more beautiful in terms of language, probably because it's written in a much shorter time span. Unfortunately, I can't read in Arabic, I read an English translation.

IMPO the Romeo & Juliet plot is not that good, what is it about? Two people fall in love and their families oppose it so they kill/get killed by each other, seems almost selfish to me (sorry i forgot the spoiler)

I agree with Sleep, I also think Romeo and Juliet is a banal story. I also think it shown it's a relatively early work (1593-4, IIRC). But when we discuss story lines, remember Shakespeare did not invent a single story himself. It was the practise of the era to use classical motives, write paraphrases and analogies to other's works, etc. Historic motives were popular, but as Fable points out, they were totally inaccurate since they usually were founded on writing made by special "chronicle writers" that was not, like modern history, aimed at describing events in a non-subjective or non-biased way.
Btw, many years ago I amused myself with going back to Shakespeare's sources, like the Hall and Holinshed chronicles, Plutarchos etc, and one thing that struck me was how a simple sentence written by any of them, was transferred into a flowing and lyric dialogue. That, I think, was a great skill of the good old Willy boy.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 3:38 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
Don't even get me started on King James

Now you make me curious, Sleep. Why not? I read it many years ago, and I understand it represents a standardisation of spelling and grammar in the English language. Please enlighten me

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 3:41 pm

I think part of that might have transcneded/descended to SYM

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 3:46 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Now you make me curious, Sleep. Why not? I read it many years ago, and I understand it represents a standardisation of spelling and grammar in the English language. Please enlighten me

I might give you some explanation, just not right now (sorry

)

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 4:01 pm

@Sleep: No problem, I look forward to your explanation another day

I don't really know anything else about the King James's bible than I said above, so it will be intereting.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 4:19 pm

Hello CE, your looking mighty beautiful, tonight.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 4:21 pm

The so-called King James bible dates from 1611, and it's not in Middle English, but a sonorous (some of us would say, ponderous) version of modern English. It was produced by a group of scholars for James, who commissioned it, and particularly wanted it to push certain political agendas he had. It is not completely accurate to the originals, by any means.

Other than that, Darkpoet is right. Shakespeare, Tolkien, Princess Bride, and Star Wars are all overrated. Shakespeare the least, however.

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 4:25 pm

Originally posted by fable:
The so-called King James bible dates from 1611, and it's not in Middle English, but a sonorous (some of us would say, ponderous) version of modern English. It was produced by a group of scholars for James, who commissioned it, and particularly wanted it to push certain political agendas he had. It is not completely accurate to the originals, by any means.

Other than that, Darkpoet is right. Shakespeare, Tolkien, Princess Bride, and Star Wars are all overrated. Shakespeare the least, however.

I was going to say you were also, but I changed my mind.
Buck is over-rated.

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 5:28 pm

You speak sooth Fable. I thought I would try and remember some middle english sayings and post them so here they are....

Arkith Thou Earwashmann?

Coumen hastealey

Gonne-poulder

Herkle non

And my personal favorite term, Methinks

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 5:34 pm

This question is for Fable. How did you become so well versed on the ways of the world? You wouldn't believe how much I have learned by reading your posts. Thank you for educating a poor dolt like me.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 5:54 pm

Hello DP, you look stunningly handsome yourself

@Fable: I have always understood it as if Elizabethan English was modern English. I'm not used to the terms Middle and Old English. Is Anglosaxon English, like G Chaucer and his contemporaries, considered Middle English? Or are the two terms synonymous, or is one a subpart of another?

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 6:15 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Hello DP, you look stunningly handsome yourself

@Fable: I have always understood it as if Elizabethan English was modern English. I'm not used to the terms Middle and Old English. Is Anglosaxon English, like G Chaucer and his contemporaries, considered Middle English? Or are the two terms synonymous, or is one a subpart of another?

If I remember correctly, which I may not, Anglo-Saxon is Old English. However, I'm not too sure that I'm right.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 6:32 pm

Old english is like German, an english speaker won't understand a thing. It was around during the dark ages. Middle English was around during the Middle Ages(!) and modern english started in Shakespear's time.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 6:52 pm

Thorin and Sailor Saturn, thank you. My conclusion: Old English must be the same as Anglosaxon English, since this sounds like Islandic. G Chaucer, must not be a representative of this (sorry for my confusion, it's 3:50 AM here) but of Middle English. Modern English started with the Renaissance.

<Looking for Fable for confirmation whether this is this is correct or not?>

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:02 pm

Originally posted by ThorinOakensfield:
Old english is like German, an english speaker won't understand a thing. It was around during the dark ages. Middle English was around during the Middle Ages(!) and modern english started in Shakespear's time.

Anglo-Saxon is like German because the Saxons came from Germany, or what eventually became Germany anyway. I'm an English speaker who knows very little German, but I have very little trouble reading Anglo-Saxon(or at least I have in the past when I've read it). however, that may be because i'm linguistically inclined... *shrugs*

Vehemence · Post by **Vehemence** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 8:07 pm

Originally posted by Darkpoet:
Fable my friend, this thread might be over-rated.

PrincessBride Over-rated
Star Wars -Over-rated
Tolken -Over-rated.

just to name a few.

*falls out of chair*

Princess Bride over rated???

Star Wars over rated??????

YE GADS MAN!

Methinks you've had enough guinness for one night

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 8:12 pm

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
Anglo-Saxon is like German because the Saxons came from Germany, or what eventually became Germany anyway. I'm an English speaker who knows very little German, but I have very little trouble reading Anglo-Saxon(or at least I have in the past when I've read it). however, that may be because i'm linguistically inclined... *shrugs*

Truth. Old English is like proto-German, a German with extra letters and less involuted syntax. And Chaucer is really towards the end of Middle English--if you listen to him being read while drunk, you can more or less make out what's being said.

The big difference between Middle and Modern English was the arrival of the Normans, sporting French verbs. And lots of luggage.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 8:48 pm

Originally posted by fable:
And Chaucer is really towards the end of Middle English--if you listen to him being read while drunk, you can more or less make out what's being said.

I have never had Chaucer read to me, but a long time ago I read an original spelling version of Canterbury tales, and I had no difficulties at all with understanding that.

I've also read some original spelling Anglosaxon works (like Lazamon's(sp?) King Arthur) and I had even less problems - all the worlds that were not recognisable forms of Modern English words, were older forms of words still used in German or Scandinavian.

I think it would be much harder for me to understand if I heard if spoken, though. Pronounciation tend to change more than spelling over time...

Vehemence · Post by **Vehemence** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 8:53 pm

Chaucer is the kind of person that if Hitler and Chaucer were standing in front of me and I had a gun with two bullets, I'd shoot Chaucer twice!

Sorry, but being taught Chaucer in high school english lit is one of the quickest routes to insanity!