[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.20275793 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, Macbeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20275793

Why does Macbeth recognise the weather as both foul and fare?

>> No.17117799 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, Macbeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17117799

>>17117432
>but reading Shakespeare saves one from reading existential philosophy
Also this shows how retarded you are, as if these fields cover the focus of the poet, or the poet replace the existence of these fields. And don't pretend as if I was saying that because the focus is bigger, it's better, I was so obviously saying that your view of things is that, to reduce the poet to an overly literal and faux-philosophical view of things. You say it is not about size but you necessarily reduce to that, because you suppose Shakespeare's dramas are just a psychology, whereas because Aeschylus focuses less through the minds of the individual characters you think it is so much larger. A better way of putting it, would be as Carlyle did, that Dante presents the soul of Christendom, but Shakespeare the practice; each no less a poet, or great. And this but one example should ignite within you the knowledge of the enormous brashness and nullity of these particular views. But have a value in that they may lead on to better thoughts and understandings.

And you didn't even respond to my statement that, even thinking in your frame and judgements, that Shakespeare excelled in the general perfection of every sphere. That "wit, comedy, characterisque and so on" which singularly a Tolstoy or Chekhov may excel in, but not altogether!-- For this, though so common an argument, you had no comment for, no reply. Though I do not believe this is the greatest value of Shakespeare either, though a real one.

Your posts are fraught with these childish assumptions which seem colourful and broad in their range to uneducated minds, but explain NOTHING, and only phantasmagorically cloud your own mind. The quotes I provided should help to give you more of an accurate frame of reference.

>> No.16532502 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, Macbeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16532502

>>16532488
Macbeth, evidently.

>> No.16442274 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, Macbeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16442274

>>16442211
>What is it about this one that's so comfy. I never get sick of it. Might be his best one.
Exactly this, thanks for bringing such feelings to conscious attention.

>>16442253
What are you a fancy boy?

>> No.16440269 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, Macbeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16440269

>>16438031
Meow Meow.

>> No.16425111 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, Macbeth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16425111

>> No.15659689 [View]
File: 57 KB, 408x601, 49d3b7686029779c12fb07e2f4611f5f--edmund-dulac-theatre-posters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15659689

>>15659397
ty e/lit/ist

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]