Poll: Shakespeare? Below average playwright or literary genius?

[Vaishnav Reddy]

So , the other day I was just browsing through the internet searching for information for my project on Tolstoy when I stumbled upon an essay Tolstoy wrote criticizing Shakespeare's works and saying they were not relevent in his day and age. He does make an interesing case but he gets a little ( I'm just going to say this ) nonsensical towards the end . The following link is to the essay. Beware , it is quite a long read.

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1549781

This got me really hyped as I finally had something to stuff in my english teacher's face. It is really irritating to see my teacher praise Shakespeare as the " moral teacher of mankind " or something like that when she doesn't understand half of what's in his plays. As you can see from the above statements I don't have any love for Shakespeare. Unfortunately , then I had to go and ruin it by reading the summary of Orwell's rebuttal to Tolstoy's essay called " Lear , Tolstoy and the fool " .



Excerpt from Tolstoy's essay -:

My disagreement with the established opinion about Shakespeare is not
the result of an accidental frame of mind, nor of a light-minded
attitude toward the matter, but is the outcome of many years' repeated
and insistent endeavors to harmonize my own views of Shakespeare with
those established amongst all civilized men of the Christian world.

I remember the astonishment I felt when I first read Shakespeare. I
expected to receive a powerful esthetic pleasure, but having read, one
after the other, works regarded as his best: "King Lear," "Romeo and
Juliet," "Hamlet" and "Macbeth," not only did I feel no delight, but I
felt an irresistible repulsion and tedium, and doubted as to whether I
was senseless in feeling works regarded as the summit of perfection by
the whole of the civilized world to be trivial and positively bad, or
whether the significance which this civilized world attributes to the
works of Shakespeare was itself senseless. My consternation was
increased by the fact that I always keenly felt the beauties of
poetry in every form; then why should artistic works recognized by the
whole world as those of a genius,--the works of Shakespeare,--not only
fail to please me, but be disagreeable to me? For a long time I could
not believe in myself, and during fifty years, in order to test
myself, I several times recommenced reading Shakespeare in every
possible form, in Russian, in English, in German and in Schlegel's
translation, as I was advised. Several times I read the dramas and the
comedies and historical plays, and I invariably underwent the same
feelings: repulsion, weariness, and bewilderment. At the present time,
before writing this preface, being desirous once more to test myself,
I have, as an old man of seventy-five, again read the whole of
Shakespeare, including the historical plays, the "Henrys," "Troilus
and Cressida," the "Tempest," "Cymbeline," and I have felt, with even
greater force, the same feelings,--this time, however, not of
bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the
unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and
which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and
spectators to discover in him non-existent merits,--thereby
distorting their esthetic and ethical understanding,--is a great evil,
as is every untruth.

summary of Orwell's rebuttal ( I recommend reading Tolstoy's essay completely before reading this) -:

One's first feeling is that in describing Shakespeare as a bad writer he is saying something demonstrably untrue. But this is not the case. In reality there is no kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or any other writer, is 'good' ... Ultimately there is no test of literary merit except survival, which is itself an index to majority opinion. Artistic theories such as Tolstoy's are quite worthless, because they not only start out with arbitrary assumptions, but depend on vague terms ('sincere', 'important' and so forth) which can be interpreted in any way one chooses. Properly speaking one cannot answer Tolstoy's attack. The interesting question is: why did he make it? But it should be noticed in passing that he uses many weak or dishonest arguments. Some of them are worth pointing out, not because they invalidate his main charge but because they are, so to speak, evidence of malice.



So what do you guys think and please post your opinins on shakespeare here.

EDIT-: The poll is a little confusing , so i'l just list the options here-:
1.The english language couldn't do with him.
2.Good enough.
3.Neutral.
4.Don't care.
5.What is this shit?

EDIT PS-: I changed the title since it wasn't meant to be the subject of discussion.

 

[Spaghetti]

It sounds like Tolstoy is making an early, more in depth "Am I the only one who hates this?" argument...though I might have read it too quickly

Given the nature of literature and theater today, Shakespeare can probably be considered an acquired taste. But the fact that Shakespeare is still popular to this day, 400 years later is amazing longevity. Right now the BBC 2 is showing a modern adaptation of Richard II in a prime time slot. A couple of years ago they showed a new adaptation of Hamlet as part of the Christmas programming, another major TV slot. The 1996 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet made $147 dollars. With this, I'm more inclined to agree with Orwell than with Tolstoy.

I wouldn't call Shakespeare the "moral teacher of mankind" as OP's teacher would argue. Many of his plays contain murder, fighting, tragedy etc. so "moral teacher" isn't what I'd call him.
But he did know how to put bums on seats in his day. Given that he was a leading member of one of London's greatest playing company suggests he was one of the great playwrights of the age. The fact that his plays continue to be popular today, I would rank him at at least "Pretty good", certainly not "below average author".

Personally I do enjoy watching Shakespeare's work. Reading it can of course be a bit stale and I prefer some of his plays more than other. But those plays I do like, such as Macbeth and Henry V are great stories that I enjoy watching again and again.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

I only really find him pretentious (although not necessarily below average) due to how much his work bored me in English Literature at school.

 

[Vaishnav Reddy]

It sounds like Tolstoy is making an early, more in depth "Am I the only one who hates this?" argument...though I might have read it too quickly

Given the nature of literature and theater today, Shakespeare can probably be considered an acquired taste. But the fact that Shakespeare is still popular to this day, 400 years later is amazing longevity. Right now the BBC 2 is showing a modern adaptation of Richard II in a prime time slot. A couple of years ago they showed a new adaptation of Hamlet as part of the Christmas programming, another major TV slot. The 1996 adaptation of Romeo and Juliet made $147 dollars. With this, I'm more inclined to agree with Orwell than with Tolstoy.

I wouldn't call Shakespeare the "moral teacher of mankind" as OP's teacher would argue. Many of his plays contain murder, fighting, tragedy etc. so "moral teacher" isn't what I'd call him.
But he did know how to put bums on seats in his day. Given that he was a leading member of one of London's greatest playing company suggests he was one of the great playwrights of the age. The fact that his plays continue to be popular today, I would rank him at at least "Pretty good", certainly not "below average author".

Personally I do enjoy watching Shakespeare's work. Reading it can of course be a bit stale and I prefer some of his plays more than other. But those plays I do like, such as Macbeth and Henry V are great stories that I enjoy watching again and again.

Actually the reason our teacher calls him the ' moral teacher ' of mankind is because we have a poem called " Shakespeare " by Matthew Arnold.

The thing that baffles me is Shakespeare's language. whoever talked remotely like that? ( Yes , i know that english was vastly different in the 1500's compared to now.)

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I'd say that even if you dislike Shakespeare's writings, you cannot deny the impact they had. How many euphemisms and sayings did he popularize or create? To quote Bernard Levin on quoting Shakespeare:

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare ``It's Greek to me'', you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger; if your wish is farther to the thought; if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise -why, be that as it may, the more fool you , for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut tut! For goodness' sake! What the dickens! But me no buts! - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.

Bernard Levin

Even if you've never read a single play, I can guarantee that at least once, you've used one of the above phrases.

 

[Dags90]

How could he possibly be considered pretentious? For starters, dude's dead. Almost 400 years dead and buried. I'm fairly certain he isn't going around calling himself the best author ever. And, like him or not, he's important. There are things based off his plays which are well received on their own.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Shakespeare (IMO) is basically a really good storyteller who writes excellent characters and invented a solid chunk of the modern English language. I think that people occasionally go to far when interpreting Shakespeare, because his plays were probably not designed for close reading (in fact, they were designed for an audience that would not even be able to catch every word!)

I also think that we don't necessarily approach the plays as the historical texts that they are. After a (unfortunately very cursory - I'll try to give this essay the attention it deserves later because it's very interesting/incisive) reading of the first three parts of Tolstoy's essay, I wonder if his problem (and the problem in many English classes) is that he's not approaching it as a historical text. He's expecting centuries-old jokes to still be funny to an audience of his time period, King Lear to attempt to avoid anachronisms, and other things that I don't know if we can even say a renaissance play was trying to do (or "should" try to do, by the standards of Shakespeare's contemporaries) in the first place.

On a completely unrelated note, this:

All his characters speak, not their own, but always one and the same Shakespearian, pretentious, and unnatural language

...is a pretty interesting critique. I don't think it's more than about 50% correct (comedic characters definitely talk differently from kings etc. in Shakespeare, the word choice probably did not come off as "pretentious" at the time period, it was written within specific conventions of renaissance theater, and so on) but I do think it's a good point that many of Shakespeare's major characters are very similar on paper.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The thing that baffles me is Shakespeare's language. whoever talked remotely like that? ( Yes , i know that english was vastly different in the 1500's compared to now.)

Now, I'm pretty sure that Shakespeare is a much better writer than Joss Whedon, but Whedon's a good analogy. Does Wash talk like an actual human being? Is Wash an entertaining character to listen to to an audience of the time period that Firefly was produced for? Will Firefly still be as funny to an audience in the year 2412 as it is to a modern audience? Same principle.

 

[Esotera]

He was obviously a very successful writer in his time, and you can't deny that he has made a massive contribution to the English language through all the words he coined and the phrases he wrote that came into common use. That alone still makes him relevant today.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Important thing to take into account: Shakespeare was not an author, he was a playwright. I know this sounds pedantic, but bear with me. What I mean is that his works aren't meant to be read, they're meant to be watched, so reading Romeo and Juliet or whatever at school isn't going to give you the same experience of Shakespeare as watching it performed by professional actors. Basically, don't make a final judgement on Shakespeare until you've seen at least one of his plays performed by actors of reasonable quality.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I really enjoy most of his work, but I don't know that I would necessarily call him a mindblowingly amazing or perfect writer. What he did, he did extremely well, and he ably managed to fit many larger deeper themes inside entertainment that is easily enjoyed by everyone.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

I'm admittedly biased--I've got degrees in this stuff, even--but I would have to say I would call Shakespeare an amazing writer. Not all the time, mind you; there are (for instance) some jokes that don't quite work after four hundred years, even without taking into account the accent shifts since then. When he's really on, though, he can turn a phrase like no one else:

Spoiler: King John, Act III, scene iv. A woman talks about the death of her child.

Grief fills the room up of my absent child,
Lies in his bed, walks up and down with me,
Puts on his pretty looks, repeats his words,
Remembers me of all his gracious parts,
Stuffs out his vacant garments with his form;
Then, have I reason to be fond of grief?
Fare you well: had you such a loss as I,
I could give better comfort than you do.

Spoiler: Hamlet, Act II, scene ii. Hamlet is filled with self-loathing at the fact that an actor can work up so much emotion over the character Hecuba, but he can't force himself to revenge his father's murder.

What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,
That he should weep for her? What would he do,
Had he the motive and the cue for passion
That I have? He would drown the stage with tears
And cleave the general ear with horrid speech,
Make mad the guilty and appal the free,
Confound the ignorant, and amaze indeed
The very faculties of eyes and ears.

There are lots of these, sometimes as single phrases. Titus Andronicus, for instance, has one of the best summations of despair I've ever heard: "If there were reason for these miseries, then into limits could I bind my woes."

I could go on about this stuff for hours, but I think I'll leave it there for now. =)

 

[Dryk]

I only really find him pretentious (although not necessarily below average) due to how much his work bored me in English Literature at school.

I find it hard to find him pretentious, he was very successful at getting the (literally) unwashed masses to show up to his plays week after week

 

[frizzlebyte]

Important thing to take into account: Shakespeare was not an author, he was a playwright. I know this sounds pedantic, but bear with me. What I mean is that his works aren't meant to be read, they're meant to be watched, so reading Romeo and Juliet or whatever at school isn't going to give you the same experience of Shakespeare as watching it performed by professional actors. Basically, don't make a final judgement on Shakespeare until you've seen at least one of his plays performed by actors of reasonable quality.

That is quite right. If you look at any screenplay, really, it is obvious that it works better when heard, not read.

As for his being pretentious...nah. You can find his work tedious (mainly language-age barriers), but he did what he did. Doing what you do ain't pretentious.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"

"Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."

I am a huge sucker for Shakespeare, but... it's Shakespeare. He was a genius. The language of his plays and sonnets is simply beautiful, and there is so much meaning to be found within his works.

Titus Andronicus is the exception. That play is not very good; although the homage to it in 'A Dance with Dragons' is awesome.

 

[Samus Aran but a man]

btw what does it mean by "the English language could" - I assumed that meant he was the best so I voted for that

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Pretentious? No way! If anything Shakespeare was exactly the opposite of pretentious. His appeal came in his ability to reach out to and connect with such a wide range of people in his audiences at once. Also from what little we know about the man personally it certainly seems that he didn't do what he did for self-satisfaction or Royal approval (although he certainly got it), he did it because he was a true entertainer at heart. He lived for the applause of his audience, whether that applause came from the pit or from the upper levels.

Really, the idea that his writing isn't relevant anymore is simply ridiculous. Simply put, if his writing had ever lost relevance it wouldn't still be around in such a dominant position in literature. You just can't write about love, or identity, or revenge, or pride, or.. you know what, just about anything about anything, without taking some notes from Shakespeare. Yes, everyone's writing should have its own unique quality, but if you're actively trying to not write like Shakespeare, then you're doing it wrong, because he (for want of a better word) wrote the book on all of it.

 

[willsham45]

Shakespeare the author house, "a brand" a writer yes but its not all his stuff...or at least that is what my girlfriend reckons.
I don't know or care, I will go to a play.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Well for one thing, everyone in Star Trek has a very inflated opinion of him.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

To call a writer who's primary audience was the poor and uneducated "pretentious" is laughably stupid. His great genius was that he took an art form for the groundlings and wrote well enough to add themes and turns of phrase that remain in place today.

He could entertain beggars and queens in equal measure. Half his jokes are sex jokes, and the other half would elicit hearty chortles from royalty.