Poll: Is shakespeare great?

[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.

 

[doodger]

He is pretty good, but his stories have been copied so much by the media (for example, the lion king and hamlet) that he lost his appeal to me.

 

[BabySinclair]

I've read a fair amount, performed Macbeth, and seen several versions of it, including a 3 man production. While the plots are a bit formulaic, they are well written and are fairly memorable (the histories not withstanding and the better the fool the better the play.)

He was the Quentin Tarantino of his times (though with a broader range)*snip*
And I love the look on the faces of Shakespeare's older and more traditional fans when I compare him to Tarantino. Fuckin' hilarious.

I'll just leave this here

 

[Joccaren]

I find Romeo and Juliet to be absolute drivel but love Macbeth. what did you think of it?

Yeah, agreed that R&J is... yeah...
MacBeth I didn't mind as much. Wouldn't put it as great, but its not bad either. Some parts of it felt off [MacDuff supposedly not being born of woman as he was born through Caesarean Section as one point], and the language was a pain, but the acting was well done.

 

[LongAndShort]

I've read a fair amount, performed Macbeth, and seen several versions of it, including a 3 man production. While the plots are a bit formulaic, they are well written and are fairly memorable (the histories not withstanding and the better the fool the better the play.)

He was the Quentin Tarantino of his times (though with a broader range)*snip*
And I love the look on the faces of Shakespeare's older and more traditional fans when I compare him to Tarantino. Fuckin' hilarious.

I'll just leave this here

That is fantastic, I laughed the whole way through. To pull an old pun from Hamlet, you can bet they spoke of ****-ry matters.

 

[DugMachine]

I had to read Othello in 11th grade and even now out of highschool its still one of my favorite stories.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

While the plots are a bit formulaic, they are well written and are fairly memorable (the histories not withstanding and the better the fool the better the play.)

Shakespeare trivia for you: His fool characters became more sophisticated (Touchstone, for instance) around about 1599 because the former lead comedic actor of the Lord Chamberlain's Men, Will Kempe, left. He was replaced by Robert Armin, and Shakespeare was then writing for someone who had a completely different acting style.

Incidentally, there's some evidence that Kempe and Shakespeare didn't part on good terms, and it's thought that part of Hamlet's speech to the players was aimed at him specifically:

"And let those that play
your clowns speak no more than is set down for them;
for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to
set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh
too; though, in the mean time, some necessary
question of the play be then to be considered:
that's villanous, and shows a most pitiful ambition
in the fool that uses it." --Hamlet, Act III, scene ii

MacBeth I didn't mind as much. Wouldn't put it as great, but its not bad either. Some parts of it felt off [MacDuff supposedly not being born of woman as he was born through Caesarean Section as one point], and the language was a pain, but the acting was well done.

The Macduff Caesarean birth thing isn't really Shakespeare's fault, though--it's directly from his source, the 1587 edition of Holinshed's Chronicles (volume V, page 277):

But Makduffe quicklie auoiding from his horsse, [before] he came at him, answered (with his naked swoord in his hand) saieng: "It is true Makbeth, and now shall thine insatiable crueltie haue an end, for I am euen he that thy wizzards haue told thee of, who was neuer borne of my mother, but ripped out of her wombe:" therewithall he stept vnto him, and slue him in the place.

 

[Baradiel]

Eh. Never really read his stuff. Saw the modern version of Romeo and Juliet with Leonard Diwhatshisface and hated it, so I've not got the best impression of him.

I find it ironic that your avatar is basically what Mr Fry's reaction to your statement would be

OT: I was taught Shakespeare throughout school, and as you get older it gets better. Teaching Shakespeare to Year 7s is pointless in the extreme. They don't care. They won't understand. It needs to be taught by someone who is truly passionate about Shakespeare.

I remember being taught Henry V in GCSE by a teacher who truly love Shakespeare. It was amazing. Hamlet in Year 12. Also taught by someone who enjoyed the language. Both of these teachers were backed up by very well made films of the plays (Kenneth Branaugh as Hamlet is possibly one of my favourite films ever) which certainly helped. It helps visualise the language in an age of visual effects.

Although I think Marlowe's Doctor Faustus comes very close to Hamlet as my favourite play.