Are Some Creators Beyond Criticism?

[K12]

Nobody and nothing is above criticism but when it comes to criticising people like Shakespeare it's very hard to tell what potential negatives are a feature of the context and time he wrote rather than something about him as a creator.

When it comes to people who are really brilliant criticism might sound like nitpicking for the sake of it. I find the kind of person who aggressively goes against the general consensus for the sake of making themselves seem like independent thinkers. I have a friend who has watched every Game of Thrones episode purely so he can keep telling me how shit he thinks it is. (I'm not saying that the OP is doing this by the way, it's just something that annoys me)

It's always worth remembering that your criticisms aren't above criticism either.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

Shakespeare has written some really trite shit, and some shit that most people consider awful (Go read Titus Andronicus. Go fucking read it. There is a reason no one talks about it.)

Whoa, hands of Titus! It's my favourite revenge tragedy if all time! It's grotesque, sure, but calling it "shit" is a lot like calling Heart of Darkness "racist".

Also, what so you mean by saying that no one talks about it? I for one studied it in college along with Spanish Tragedy.

I don't think there is an artist beyond criticism, but I certainly don't like people trying to diminish works of art, based solely on their personal preference or political agenda. These are not valid criteria for art, they never were and never will they be.

Which is why I said most people consider it shit. I don't think its total shit, but compared to his other works it is rather off-kilter.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

In King Lear, there is a scene where the earl of Gloucester (Who has been blinded) is going to throw himself off a cliff, he passes out as he swoons, only to be saved by his son whom he banished three acts earlier. This scene is notoriously awful when it is staged- because how the fuck do you stage someone falling off fucking cliff on a stage, but actually having them pass out and caught before they actually fall?

I was going to stay out of this, but...the entire point of that scene is that Edgar tells Gloucester that he's being led to the top of a cliff, but it's actually a moderately-tall ledge at best. Gloucester almost catches on, even:

GLOUCESTER

When shall we come to the top of that same hill?

EDGAR

You do climb up it now: look, how we labour.

GLOUCESTER

Methinks the ground is even.

EDGAR

Horrible steep.

And he doesn't get caught before he falls--he actually falls, but only a few feet, and the impact knocks him out for a few seconds, because he's old and not in the best of shape after being tortured. Edgar then comes and revives him, and the play goes on from there.

If you want actual ridiculous Shakespeare, try King John, the history play that leaves out the Magna Carta, the only thing that 99% of people remember King John for.

Ah, my bad- I got too caught up in the rantings of the scene when I read it apparently. I assumed from reading it that he was caught after fainting. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

Shakespeare isn't above reproach. There's a reason why nobody ever named Titus Andronicus as their favorite play.

My girlfriend says it's her favorite Shakespearean play. She really likes all the awful violence. And on the other hand, she has a distaste of many great things that I love for reasons I don't understand.

The point here being that opinions are completely valid for the person who owns them, and far less so for every other person. That's what makes them so great. They belong to you more than anything else, and no one else has any claim on them, whatever they may say.