Is Shakespeare Over-rated?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 8:39 am

It looked like the Eminem topic was going to move away from religious issues and onto Shakespeare. I ask you, why open a new, unrelated wing to the old store when we can put in another storefront?

So here it is, your chance to shoot bolts and arrows at the soaring Bird of Avon. Or not; do you think Sweet Will is the best thing to ever hit the English language?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 8:44 am

Well - as for the best thing to hit the english language - I wouldn't know.
Actually I don't know much about Shakespears life.

But I must say that most of the plays I've read (and seen acted and/or as movies) I have liked, and not because they were shakespearian(sp?

) but because I found the story good and/or funny etc.

I like Shakespeare

Recoba · Post by **Recoba** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 9:13 am

In my humble opinion, he is. He has to be studied at English schools and some of his works are dull, like most on the G.C.S.E. (16 year old exams) list. Sitting through a Midsummers Night's Dream was really boring, as nothing exciting happens at all. A couple of his plays are o.k., such as the Scottish Play (Macbeth). I liked Shakespeare in Love though. Give me a Drizzit book anyday (Crystal Shard was good - looking forward to Sword Coast).

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 9:21 am

Originally posted by Recoba:
<snip>I liked Shakespeare in Love though. <snip>

Well - I liked that to

But okay, midsummers dream is not one of my favorite plays either.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 9:48 am

One cannot deny Bill's influence on popular culture during the last few hundred years. But whether his status is deserved? That is a different question....

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 9:57 am

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
One cannot deny Bill's influence on popular culture during the last few hundred years. But whether his status is deserved? That is a different question....

Can't say I enjoy his idea of low comedy: Snot and Smirk hitting one another with bladders, making stupid word puns, and scratching. Reminds me of ver bad vaudeville. I like the energy and poetry of his comedies, though, even if their plots are frequently far-fetched. I get the impression that stupid plots weren't really a matter of concern to Elizabethan audiences--anymore than they are to modern ones.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:17 am

I think i voiced my blighted opinion in the Eminem thread, yes he is over rated. I will give reasons if you really want them.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:23 am

@Fable "Snot and Smirk hitting each other with bladders". Where did you find such a comedy show! Sounds like Vic and Bob.

@Sleepster//yeah tells us why you think Big Bad Bill is over-rated.Please.

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:30 am

I am not a very smart man(forrest gump), but I think there were probably better writers of the time that just didn't get noticed. I never have been much on litariture, but I did like shakespear alot more than say, edgar allen poe.IMO.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:37 am

Originally posted by leedogg:
I am not a very smart man(forrest gump), but I think there were probably better writers of the time that just didn't get noticed. I never have been much on litariture, but I did like shakespear alot more than say, edgar allen poe.IMO.

Shakespeare was only one of the popular and successful playwrights of the time. Ben Jonson, Tom Dekker, John Marston, Christopher Marlowe, George Chapman (a very fine writer), Francis Beaumont and Thomas Heywood were all esteemed contemporaries of Shakespeare. They even wrote plays satirizing one another, and it is believed that at least a few mock Shakespeare.

Jonson was especially adept at mimicking the styles of his contemporaries for humorous effect. Marston and he actually fought a duel over their remarks about one another, and Jonson (who had been a soldier) drove off Marston at a run. But when Jonson, Marston and Chapman were all arrested, unfairly (they thought), they united forces to produce a play that satirized the powers-that-be.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Darkpoet · Post by **Darkpoet** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:38 am

Shakespeare wrote, Green eggs and ham, right?? That was the best written book.

I think, old Bill didn't do a bad job as being a president.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:42 am

Well, this isn't very objective so here goes....

His writing style shows no skill with the english language, blank verse is IMO an overrated and banal form with which to put across your writing style.

His actual plot lines and stories are somewhat lacking in depth, he does write good characters, but only characters they are not used as a method to create a greater atmosphere for the story.

The story most people remember him for is Romeo & Juliet, which is another story that deos not feature much in the way of interesting story lines, or characters, Mercucio is the only interesting character (IMO).

People use the same arguments; "but look at when he was writing and observe the style of the time", well i would do this if Shakespeare was not crammed down my throat

I do not think shakespeare is a good example of the writing of the time, just as Wordsworth is not a particularly good representation of the romantic period.

There is more, but this post is already too long.

EDIT:One O in romantic

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Mr Sleep ]

leedogg · Post by **leedogg** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:45 am

Originally posted by fable:
Shakespeare was only one of the popular and successful playwrights of the time. Ben Jonson, Tom Dekker, John Marston, Christopher Marlowe, George Chapman (a very fine writer), Francis Beaumont and Thomas Heywood were all esteemed contemporaries of Shakespeare. They even wrote plays satirizing one another, and it is believed that at least a few mock Shakespeare.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

That's the good ole US schooling.

They only taught us Shakespear(or at least really pushed his work).

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:51 am

Originally posted by leedogg:
That's the good ole US schooling. They only taught us Shakespeare(or at least really pushed his work).

You make them sound like Drug pushers. Hector would love that one.....

Fezek · Post by **Fezek** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:52 am

If we didn't have Bill, then we wouldn't have had Stoppards "Rozencrantz and Guildernstern are dead", which would be a shame.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 10:56 am

I'm quite interested in literature in general, and I tend to value literature in several different terms. By the impact they had on literature history and culture/society in general, but the amount of "creativity" the writer shows (introducing new ideas etc), by style and technical skills, and of course by different aspects of my personal liking of the work.

I think Shakespeare was a great writer, but I also think he is overrated in comparison to some other great writers. Personally, I love some of Shakespeare's tragedies and chronicle plays like King Lear or Henry IV. I don't like his comedies, but I still appreciate that some of those plays have been very important and had a trememdous impact.

The reason why I think Shakespeare was a great writer, and not only a "good" writer, is that he managed to transfer some ideas, questions and problems and about the human nature, that are so universal so people from many different cultures and times can relate to them. That, IMO is a great quality in any artist.

I think it was Umberto Eco who said something like "What is great art and great science can only be judged over time", and generally (there are exceptions) I agree with this.

EDIT: @Sleep: Very interesting opinions. I'm with you on some points, although I still love a lot of Will's work.

About the blank verse: I think blank verse is very apt in English plays, since it's very apt for the spoken English IMO. I think it would be quite tedious to sit through a play written in the Spenser stanza

But as for the Sonnets. nah, I think other contemporary writes wrote better sonnets, especially technically. But I love the part of the Sonnets that deal with time and death.

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

Daniel · Post by **Daniel** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:49 am

Shakespeare... YEGH!

In his time, his stories were tales for the common people... the folks, enjoiying them with predictable stories. His stories are *very* predictable and I am glad I am sober enough to do not like his semi-romantic stories.

To Game or not to Game... THATS is THE question!!

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:54 am

Originally posted by C Elegans:
But I love the part of the Sonnets that deal with time and death.

Are you referring to Shakespeares sonnets, or the other authors of the time?

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:55 am

I do enjoy Shakespeare's tragedies, and many of his histories--while acknowledging that the latter are largely fiction, based generally on accurate events. (Richard III even isn't remotely that.) As CE said, he had a trick of bringing out the humanity of his figures in odd gestures, brief pauses in the plot, or phrases, things that gave life to his people. He also had a rare gift for the music of the English language, which all too easily faded when Noah Webster froze grammar in place with his dictionary and its additions.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Aug 23, 2001 11:57 am

Originally posted by Vegeta:
<snip>

To Game or not to Game... THATS is THE question!!

Whether its nobler in the machine to suffer the bugs and patches of outrages programmin or to save. (or something like that)

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]