Poll: Is shakespeare great?

[KefkaCultist]

I love Shakespeare. I had a Shakespeare class in High School and I was hooked.

However, I HATE Romeo and Juliet. IMO, it is completely overrated and it's his worst play yet that I've read. Nor am I a huge fan of Macbeth. It's okay to me, but not great.

Favorites are: Titus Andronicus, Othello, Hamlet, Midsummer Night's Dream, and The Tempest

 

[Guffe]

Shakespeare no doubt took his ideas from pervious works,

Just wondering if you actually mean "pervious" or if you just misspelled previous?

On Topic:
I think he got lucky, like many others luck has a great deal to do with stuff. Of course he had to be skilled but also lucky.
Personally don't know too much about him, just like anything else old, like mozart, bach etc, sure I've heard about his stories and read parts of them but not really my thing.

 

[Yopaz]

The sheer arrogance of this board continues to amaze. Its relentless. Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time. Its estimated that over 500 billion of his works have been sold; works that influence every piece of fiction in our culture to this day. Not just plays and books, but games, movies, television, EVERYTHING.

But eh, let's ignore all that and declare him "overrated".

Unbelievable. Absolutely epic.

Justin Bieber is (according to Google trends) more popular than Jesus and a lot more popular than Shakespeare. Yet I call Justin Bieber overrated. Just because something sells well it doesn't mean it can't be overrated, in fact that's the definition of overrated. When you call people ignorant for considering him overrated then you prove that you're quite ignorant yourself.

OT: Personally I haven't really read much of Shakespeare

That you find any merit in this comparison at all showcases the exact reason why I phrased my initial comments as I did.

Your argument: Shakespeare's work has had a lot of success, thus it can't be overrated.
My argument: just because something has a lot of success it doesn't mean that it can't be overrated.

Note that I never said Shakespeare was overrated so I didn't insult him in any way. I was simply saying that popularity is not a good measure for overrated or not. Now rather than dismiss my statement off-hand can you actually put some thought into why I am wrong or am I simply wrong because I use examples that are intended for the common mainstream audience and not the intellectuals. Cause you know, Shakespeare was writing for that kind of audience.

Its far too much to write. Let's just say that Justin Bieber will never, ever, sell 500 billion anything, especially after his death.

OK, so you clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. Now if you managed to read one of the past 3 sentences you might have got a feel of that I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated, if not maybe this sentence will help you know that I am saying that.

I am saying that you can't use success as a measure to say if something is overrated or not. There are lots of huge successes out there, some of them are overrated, some of them are underrated and some are rated about where they should be.

Now in case you didn't read any of my post, I have never said that Shakespeare is overrated and I have never compared him to Justin Bieber (I simply used him as a current icon for popularity). What I am getting at is that you havenæt offered anything but his mainstream success for why he isn't overrated. Surely you can mention one thing? One Teeny little actual reason? It shouldn't take you more than a sentence or two to give up one reason apart from his success?

 

[The_Echo]

As far as I know, Shakespeare is, at best, a decent writer. (Really, I'm not sure why people read plays... they're plays. To be played and watched.)

I've only read three of his plays (Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream and Hamlet) so maybe I'm missing out on something.

Romeo and Juliet is garbage, plain and simple. The plot is thin and all of the characters are borderline retarded.
Midsummer was just boring.
Hamlet wasn't super duper great or anything, but I could read it again sometime.

 

[KefkaCultist]

OK, so you clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. Now if you managed to read one of the past 3 sentences you might have got a feel of that I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated, if not maybe this sentence will help you know that I am saying that.

('m not the person you've been quoting. Just an FYI)

So...
What you're saying is...
That you...
Think that...
Shakespeare-is-overrated!

 

[Yopaz]

OK, so you clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. Now if you managed to read one of the past 3 sentences you might have got a feel of that I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated, if not maybe this sentence will help you know that I am saying that.

('m not the person you've been quoting. Just an FYI)

So...
What you're saying is...
That you...
Think that...
Shakespeare-is-overrated!

OK, for a moment there I thought I had quoted the wrong person by accident. Also brilliant post there, made me chuckle quite a bit. Thank you for that one.

 

[RyoScar]

I enjoyed the Shakespear stuff i've read like Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, Macbeth etc. He's a good writer i'd say

 

[Yopaz]

The sheer arrogance of this board continues to amaze. Its relentless. Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time. Its estimated that over 500 billion of his works have been sold; works that influence every piece of fiction in our culture to this day. Not just plays and books, but games, movies, television, EVERYTHING.

But eh, let's ignore all that and declare him "overrated".

Unbelievable. Absolutely epic.

Justin Bieber is (according to Google trends) more popular than Jesus and a lot more popular than Shakespeare. Yet I call Justin Bieber overrated. Just because something sells well it doesn't mean it can't be overrated, in fact that's the definition of overrated. When you call people ignorant for considering him overrated then you prove that you're quite ignorant yourself.

OT: Personally I haven't really read much of Shakespeare

That you find any merit in this comparison at all showcases the exact reason why I phrased my initial comments as I did.

Your argument: Shakespeare's work has had a lot of success, thus it can't be overrated.
My argument: just because something has a lot of success it doesn't mean that it can't be overrated.

Note that I never said Shakespeare was overrated so I didn't insult him in any way. I was simply saying that popularity is not a good measure for overrated or not. Now rather than dismiss my statement off-hand can you actually put some thought into why I am wrong or am I simply wrong because I use examples that are intended for the common mainstream audience and not the intellectuals. Cause you know, Shakespeare was writing for that kind of audience.

Its far too much to write. Let's just say that Justin Bieber will never, ever, sell 500 billion anything, especially after his death.

OK, so you clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. Now if you managed to read one of the past 3 sentences you might have got a feel of that I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated, if not maybe this sentence will help you know that I am saying that.

I am saying that you can't use success as a measure to say if something is overrated or not. There are lots of huge successes out there, some of them are overrated, some of them are underrated and some are rated about where they should be.

Now in case you didn't read any of my post, I have never said that Shakespeare is overrated and I have never compared him to Justin Bieber (I simply used him as a current icon for popularity). What I am getting at is that you havenæt offered anything but his mainstream success for why he isn't overrated. Surely you can mention one thing? One Teeny little actual reason? It shouldn't take you more than a sentence or two to give up one reason apart from his success?

The whole point of my original post was of longevity. Hence I immediately mentioned Shakespeare has impacted fiction (and as others have subsequently pointed out, language and culture). There is a reason why pop stars come and go and Shakespeare still sells. Success IS the scale by which we can judge, because the sheer amount of success we are looking at here pales in comparison to any subjective opinion. Shakespeare sold those billions generations and generations after his death. You can have your opinions on whether or not YOU like it, but success warrants influence, and influence cannot be denied. You CAN'T legitimately call Shakespeare overrated, because that is rewriting history.

OK, thanks for proving to me that you aren't reading my posts at all. Go back and look at my post. I think maybe I mentioned a little something about Shakespeare not being overrated? Maybe once or twice? Maybe more? Really, I think I said something like that there... I even think I said this in my first post

The thing is that Shakespeare's work can be interpreted in ways to make it stay relevant even now. To be able to accomplish that you have to be pretty good.

Yeah, I think I said that to be relevant after all this time Shakespeare has to be pretty good. Now if I said that, how do you seem to think that I see Shakespeare as overrated? I am simply pointing out that success doesn't really prove that he's not overrated. Also you say that there's too much to mention, yet success is the only thing you got on it. Now remember before you sstart feeling insulted again. I have never in my entire life called Shakespeare overrated, I do not think he is overrated, that is not my opinion. Do not start jumping on me for saying that I think he's overrated and that I am stupid for thinking so. Take a deep breath and read my posts before you start replying to them. Please, just try it once, it wont hurt.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Shakespeare was a genius, centuries ahead of his time and as a playwright unmatched to this day.

I just wish the novel, as we understand it, existed as a medium in the days of Shakespeare; I imagine he would've done something incredible with such a beefy amount of text to play with, considering the wonders he worked with his plays that have next to no stage direction at all...

 

[Olas]

Like I've said before, it's not like he was chosen at random to be famous and renowned. His writing has gained prestige over the years because it is ingenious and dramatic. hard to read? Yes, but that's partially because it's in middle english. Once you get over that barrier you can really appreciate his style and wit.

Most people who think he's highly overrated haven't really delved much into his work. I think people are often off put when schools force students to read Romeo and Juliet, despite the fact that it's one of his earliest, and least impressive plays.

 

[Arrogancy]

Shakespeare is a classic, certainly, some of the appeal in reading his plays has faded over the roughly 400 years since he wrote them, but the wit and charm in them is still there. He was critical in the development of English writing and deserves his position as the greatest playwright the English language has ever produced. Now, that said, you also asked why he is taught in every English class, and the answer to that is mostly in the above. Everyone wants to teach Shakespeare. Certainly, there are modern works that deserve to be looked at and Shakespeare shouldn't monopolize every English course between middle school and college, but he is exceptionally important to read.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

He was a pretty okay writer. But the problem is that you're usually reading his scripts, not watching them being acted out. That would really, really help you understand what's going on.

The Reduced Shakespeare Company, by the way, is boss.

 

[CODE-D]

He was a pretty okay writer. But the problem is that you're usually reading his scripts, not watching them being acted out. That would really, really help you understand what's going on.

The Reduced Shakespeare Company, by the way, is boss.

I never had a problem knowing what was going on but the narrative is pretty tiring.

 

[CrashBang]

When I was learning Shakespeare in school/college/university I was continuously more and more mesmerized by what he did and how he did it. His stories are timeless, can be place in any place and time and work, always work.
Now, as an English teacher, I work to help my pupils understand why studying Shakespeare is necessary and fundamental to growth and the appreciation of literature and theatre.

I know this kinda sounds like I'm trying to sell him, like I'm a Shakespeare fanboy (if there's such a thing) but that's because we all should be Shakespeare fanboys.

There will never be anyone more vital to the world of literature and storytelling than Shakespeare.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

Honestly I don't know much of his work other than Romeo and Juliet, I'm not impressed by it. Probably because I'm a simpleton and his old-timey grammar goes over my head at times.

 

[Yopaz]

The sheer arrogance of this board continues to amaze. Its relentless. Shakespeare is the best selling author of all time. Its estimated that over 500 billion of his works have been sold; works that influence every piece of fiction in our culture to this day. Not just plays and books, but games, movies, television, EVERYTHING.

But eh, let's ignore all that and declare him "overrated".

Unbelievable. Absolutely epic.

Justin Bieber is (according to Google trends) more popular than Jesus and a lot more popular than Shakespeare. Yet I call Justin Bieber overrated. Just because something sells well it doesn't mean it can't be overrated, in fact that's the definition of overrated. When you call people ignorant for considering him overrated then you prove that you're quite ignorant yourself.

OT: Personally I haven't really read much of Shakespeare

That you find any merit in this comparison at all showcases the exact reason why I phrased my initial comments as I did.

Your argument: Shakespeare's work has had a lot of success, thus it can't be overrated.
My argument: just because something has a lot of success it doesn't mean that it can't be overrated.

Note that I never said Shakespeare was overrated so I didn't insult him in any way. I was simply saying that popularity is not a good measure for overrated or not. Now rather than dismiss my statement off-hand can you actually put some thought into why I am wrong or am I simply wrong because I use examples that are intended for the common mainstream audience and not the intellectuals. Cause you know, Shakespeare was writing for that kind of audience.

Its far too much to write. Let's just say that Justin Bieber will never, ever, sell 500 billion anything, especially after his death.

OK, so you clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated. Now if you managed to read one of the past 3 sentences you might have got a feel of that I am not saying Shakespeare is overrated, if not maybe this sentence will help you know that I am saying that.

I am saying that you can't use success as a measure to say if something is overrated or not. There are lots of huge successes out there, some of them are overrated, some of them are underrated and some are rated about where they should be.

Now in case you didn't read any of my post, I have never said that Shakespeare is overrated and I have never compared him to Justin Bieber (I simply used him as a current icon for popularity). What I am getting at is that you havenæt offered anything but his mainstream success for why he isn't overrated. Surely you can mention one thing? One Teeny little actual reason? It shouldn't take you more than a sentence or two to give up one reason apart from his success?

The whole point of my original post was of longevity. Hence I immediately mentioned Shakespeare has impacted fiction (and as others have subsequently pointed out, language and culture). There is a reason why pop stars come and go and Shakespeare still sells. Success IS the scale by which we can judge, because the sheer amount of success we are looking at here pales in comparison to any subjective opinion. Shakespeare sold those billions generations and generations after his death. You can have your opinions on whether or not YOU like it, but success warrants influence, and influence cannot be denied. You CAN'T legitimately call Shakespeare overrated, because that is rewriting history.

OK, thanks for proving to me that you aren't reading my posts at all. Go back and look at my post. I think maybe I mentioned a little something about Shakespeare not being overrated? Maybe once or twice? Maybe more? Really, I think I said something like that there... I even think I said this in my first post

The thing is that Shakespeare's work can be interpreted in ways to make it stay relevant even now. To be able to accomplish that you have to be pretty good.

Yeah, I think I said that to be relevant after all this time Shakespeare has to be pretty good. Now if I said that, how do you seem to think that I see Shakespeare as overrated? I am simply pointing out that success doesn't really prove that he's not overrated. Also you say that there's too much to mention, yet success is the only thing you got on it. Now remember before you sstart feeling insulted again. I have never in my entire life called Shakespeare overrated, I do not think he is overrated, that is not my opinion. Do not start jumping on me for saying that I think he's overrated and that I am stupid for thinking so. Take a deep breath and read my posts before you start replying to them. Please, just try it once, it wont hurt.

This is why there's too much to post. You're repeating the same nonsense over and over. I know you didn't call him overrated, as I said, you can't. And I've mentioned several other items besides financial success (again: influence on fiction, language, and culture) and YOU are ignoring ME. I don't know where you came up with anyone feeling insulted or breathing heavy or jumping up and down or whatever it is you are getting at, but all that has nothing to do with my original point which has so much fact supporting it that I can type all day and still not cover everything. I can't get the point across to you if you don't want to get it, so why waste time listing years and years of influence, quotations, and social effects when you can just ignore it? I made my point, and I'm done. Research it yourself if you don't believe me.

Why am I repeating what I say over and over? Because you can't seem to grasp what I am saying. I said in several posts that I did not consider Shakespeare overrated. You replied to one of my posts that if I considered him overrated that was my opinion. I am repeating myself a lot because I obviously have to with you. I am simply asking you to give up more than one reason why he's not overrated and why thinking so makes someone ignorant. Really, just give me one thing besides success. I mentioned that myself in a post you completely ignored.

Now if you're really don't want to go into that well, OK. At least tell me why you think I consider Shakespear overrated. Where did I ever say that? Was it in the post where I repeated that he was not in 4 sentences in a row? Please, explain that reasoning.

 

[jpoon]

Considering the shit alternatives that were available hundreds of years ago? Yes he was a-fucking-mazing you dumb shit.

 

[Erttheking]

They are dry...really REALLY dry...and not a whole lot happens in them.

 

[Blade_125]

Fantastic at writing characters, horrible at writing a plot.

 

[Dimitriov]

They are dry...really REALLY dry...and not a whole lot happens in them.

Twelfth Night: This cross-dressing, gender-bending extravaganza stars Viola (a girl) who lives as Cesario (a boy), who works for Duke Orsino (a boy), who?s in love with Olivia (a girl), who herself falls in love with Viola/Cesario (a, uh, whatever), who?s in love with the Duke, and it only gets more complicated from there until finally the Duke marries Viola and Olivia marries Viola?s brother Sebastian (who, we forgot to mention, washes ashore after a shipwreck round about Act II). (Taken from: http://mikefalick.blogs.com/my_blog/2007/06/the_folks_at_me.html )

That sounds... busy, and not terribly dry.

Also most of his plays involve either murder or bawdy jokes (and usually both). I suspect you just aren't familiar enough with the language/ have had them taught to you badly.