/lit/ - Literature

Same, but then again I'm not a native speaker and don't trust my verdict on it 100%. In my humble opinion, Shakespeare has nothing on even the top 50 German classical writers/poets. I think a lot has to do with him being a spearhead figure that coined an insane amount of tropes and prosaic styles over a body of work that is insane.

>>13365001
His poetry isn't particularly interesting to me but The Tempest is among the first works of fiction (that has survived) not to stick to the comedy / tragedy / history genres and explicitly come up with a fantastical world that isn't just Christian theological allegory. He also had a command of wordplay, cultural intertextuality, and quality of structure in his plays that seems commonplace to us now but was revolutionary at the time. It's a Seinfeld effect situation: The things he was good at were so influential that compared to how people have used the same techniques and tropes since, the things that were original in his plays no longer stick out as original and the things he was good at no longer stick out as anything special.

Also, his plays aren't meant to be performed the way most people perform them (in a dramatic, upper-class RP English voice), they sounded closer to Appalachians than any other modern-day accent back then. Phonetics and cadence etc. have changed so much we lose quite a bit of the performance (and lots of puns and double meanings etc.) as a result. Despite the royal audience, these were plays with working-class-sounding characters written to be understood and enjoyed by everybody, not the intelligentsia. If he was a modern film director he'd be a Spielberg or a Nolan, not an arthouse director or someone who wins Academy awards for self-serious dramas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpphT7n9s

He wasn't actually considered that great until millenials started reading
I remember back in the 90s when Alexander Pope was considered the greatest english writer

>>13365001
Idk what the technical terms are for this but it's a combination of the pure phonetics of the words, the rhythm of the phrases, and the meaning being expressed. But you can't just analyze each separately they intertwine in this extremely complicated way like harmonizing voices or something. You could never consciously plan to write like that, it is clearly an instinctive process.

Shakespeare is one of the few people who combines those things perfectly, and can maintain that level of perfection over multiple lines, the level of mastery and depth on display is just hypnotizing.

>>13365051
I wonder how many people on this website believe things like this and become grossly misinformed while thinking they are intelligent.

>>13365001
You do look, my son, in a moved sort,
As if you were dismay'd: be cheerful, sir.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

>>13365053
This. The only modern author (that I've read, I'm sure there may be others I haven't) I've seen who can do this to even a similar extent is David Mitchell, the one who wrote Cloud Atlas. Each word just flows one after the next like water and you instinctively don't draw your eyes away from the sentence, not simply because the content intrigues you but because the way it is written is so fluent and well-formed.

Even if he wrote like Tom Clancy he'd still be the greatest psychologist in literature.
Or consider who the second best playwright is. Let's say Chekhov. Chekhov has four plays which still work on stage and get performed, and you could expect people to buy tickets for. Moliere has three. Ibsen has maybe five or six. Shakespeare has about 25.

>>13365001
Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature. Particular manners can be known to few, and therefore few only can judge how nearly they are copied. The irregular combinations of fanciful invention may delight a-while, by that novelty of which the common satiety of life sends us all in quest; but the pleasures of sudden wonder are soon exhausted, and the mind can only repose on the stability of truth.

Shakespeare is above all writers, at least above all modern writers, the poet of nature; the poet that holds up to his readers a faithful mirrour of manners and of life. His characters are not modified by the customs of particular places, unpractised by the rest of the world; by the peculiarities of studies or professions, which can operate but upon small numbers; or by the accidents of transient fashions or temporary opinions: they are the genuine progeny of common humanity, such as the world will always supply, and observation will always find. His persons act and speak by the influence of those general passions and principles by which all minds are agitated, and the whole system of life is continued in motion. In the writings of other poets a character is too often an individual; in those of Shakespeare it is commonly a species.

>>13365132
So in other words you mean it's good because it's relatable to a very broad audience?

>>13365050
Being the 'first' to do something doesn't make him the greatest writer.
>>13365053
His rhythm? His stuff is mostly unrhymed besides a few couplets, which are extremely based and something a teenager could write.
>>13365084
How is he the greatest psychologist?

>>13365301
>How is he the greatest psychologist?
Because he's the greatest at psychology. He understands what makes people tick, how they think, how they manage their self image etc better than any other writer. Even minor or comic relief characters have detailed motivations and desires, hard enough in a long novel, extraordinary in a play.

>>13365330
How does he understand what makes people tick? Explain. I don't really see that in his sonnets.

>>13365301
>Being the 'first' to do something doesn't make him the greatest writer
But it makes him most influential ergo important ergo well known ergo popular. Think about it like a science, he is just the most cited. Citations = importance

You should always see art in the context of the time and possibilities.

>>13365342
>I don't really see that in his sonnets.
I would have said especially in his sonnets. What do you think his sonnets are about?

>>13365362
That doesn't make him the best writer. Just the most popular or influential.

>>13365366
What do you mean by 'best' writer?

>>13365364
Can you give me an example of his revolutionary insight piercing straight through the heart and grabbing the psyche for display because I really do not see it. His metaphors are basic dualities 'light//dark' and 'fire' 'sun//moon', 'night//day'' it's really basic. I don't like the way he rhymes either but then again Pale Fire is my favourite type of rhyming, so I don't hold that against him.

>>13365380
Personally, I'd say a philosophical mind, a love of wisdom and a good heart capturing the human condition and it's stories/experiences would make someone the best writer. They would have to be able to connect to the masses and write lucidly yet appeal to the academic.

I do not think Shakespeare is particularly philosophical, nor wise, nor very loving. I do think he was a good dramatist.

>>13365330
>He understands what makes people tick, how they think, how they manage their self image etc better than any other writer.

That's what Harold Bloom's point is. If you actually read his Shakespeare book beyond a summary, and look past the overabundance of Bardolatry, you'll see he thinks what makes Shakespeare unique is that he invented the first characters who were capable of real introspection, and who could change because of that introspection. There are authors who understood human nature well, like Plato and Dante, but their figures are rather static.

>>13365404
>a philosophical mind, a love of wisdom and a good heart capturing the human condition and it's stories/experiences

could you name a few examples of writers like that?

>>13365404
>a philosophical mind, a love of wisdom and a good heart capturing the human condition and it's stories/experiences would make someone the best writer. They would have to be able to connect to the masses and write lucidly yet appeal to the academic.
Pretty much a definition of Shakespeare for most people. Not really sure what you are after here, there is no universal metric by which his quality can be proved.

>write plays for the masses
>the only way to see any live action story is by going to see plays
>outperform everyone else in the field
>theater troupes continue performing plays after you die
>language slowly changes toward simplicity
>the plays that are being performed seem more complex than the shit jokes they truly are
>get thrown into the western cannon because of this

>>13365061
Okay, now this is epic

>>13365301
>His rhythm?
yeah the rhythm of his phrases

>>13365385
>insight piercing straight through the heart and grabbing the psyche for display
The sonnets didn't display this for you? Are they a clumsy exploration of sexual jealousy? Many people do find them insightful about the psyche, de gustibus non est disputandum

>>13365301
Coming up with a notion that no other human (or few, and few enough that yours is the first example to survive for any significant length of time) has been able to conceive of is pretty notable. I know what you're saying, you're saying the first person to invent the camera didn't make his first fuzzy test photographs the best photographs to ever be taken- But the first person to think about cutting between still images in sequence to invoke the illusion of causality and provoke an emotional response, that's an impressive artistic achievement.

>>13365430
>outperform everyone else in the field
So he's the best

I think you’re insensitive to poetry if you can’t see that, great characterization and monologues about timeless human philosophical issues aside, he writes some of the greatest poetry in (if nothing else) the English language, and this in mostly blank verse. I think the plays also have the greatest meat of his works, including his most beautiful lines. His sonnets can be technically impressive and interesting but I think they’re overrated compared to the best of his plays.

>>13365404
But your definition of 'best' is completely dependant on the paradigm/zeitgeist of your time. It's neither absolute, nor quantifiable. You can talk about the quality of the craftsmanship of the trade, sure. But not about the 'quality' of the artistic piece, because it is inherently subjective. If you look at painting as an art for example, people in the baroque period did not have enough artistic skill nor the means to paint (near) photorealistically. Today there are uncountable painters who can. Does that mean everyone today is a 'better' painter than the masters of old? Why are the baroque paintings in a museum and Jerry Jaggoff is sitting in the shoppingmall, selling his pieces for 5 bucks each?

>>13365424
>>13365440
Give an example of this please.

>>13365486
Those are philosophical claims, one's that should be made, like the comparison between the baroque period and photorealism today. Whatever you are trying to say isn't come out right. And who cares if something doesn't sell?
>>13365472
Give us an example

>>13365366
Again, think science.
>"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
Just because you see more, doesn't mean you are 'better'. Everything you see is due to pioneers before you on whose shoulders you are standing. In the literary world, Shakespeare is probably one of the most important pioneers in the post classical era, that's what makes him 'the best'. Before you answer again about the distinction of quality and importance, I have to refer to this
>>13365486
If you are still not convinced, it may be due to the fact that you attribute absolute quality to art, in which case we have our true focal point.

>>13365491
Sonnet 133? Can't force you to like it and I can't prove it's good. But I like it, and find it quite an insightful examination of a delicate situation

>>13365532
'beshrew' and 'groan' are aesthetically ugly words, especially sonically spoken. same with 'engrossed' and 'bosom ward'. i don't see the beauty in this at all. what are you seeing?
>>13365521
I don't even believe in the subject so I won't debate you on that. You should read Heidegger though.

>>13365548
>aesthetically ugly words
De gustibus non est disputandum dude. I like the way he's expressing quite a complex set of emotions in a few lines.
Other than 'I don't like the sounds of those words' do have any other thoughts on why it fails to reach your standards?

>>13365532
I guess it describes a 'toxic' relationship but it does so, again, very basically. 'Prison', 'Torture', 'Slavery'....these are always basic descriptors

>>13365486
>the quality of a piece of art is at all related to its price
>there aren't painting techniques and tools directly superior to others.
lol

>>13365499
I know a bank where the wild thyme blows,
Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows,
Quite over-canopied with luscious woodbine,
With sweet musk-roses and with eglantine:
There sleeps Titania sometime of the night,
Lull’d in these flowers with dances and delight;
And there the snake throws her enamell’d skin,
Weed wide enough to wrap a fairy in:
(Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 2 Scene 1, spoken by Oberon)

>>13365557
A fool concerns himself with the consciousness contained within something, a wise person questions the spirit who would do such a thing. Your taste has a basis. It really does come off as ugly and basic. I was expecting to read the most beautiful poem about the mishaps of love and instead got something that left me questioning why someone would think that is even worth writing on paper at all.

>>13365578
You haven't really said anything here. How does it come across as ugly and basic?

>>13365578
Why did it leave you questioning?

>>13365577
Rather lovely, but the following 'Athenian' mentions really throw it off for me.
>>13365589
The word choices do not invoke any passion. The way they look to the eye, the way they make me feel when expressed /said. 'Bosom ward' sounds ludicrous to write down and 'engrossed' sounds 'gross' to me. These aren't words that make you feel anything or create imagery. It really confuses me how someone would see value in this and I'm someone that can read a Joycian word salad and admire it. I think it's the fact that the words are largely inaccesible in themselves, as in they don't access the finer qualities of the soul, nor do they show a great display of sensitivtiy to beauty.

>>13365589
Even today's poetry (rap) conveys a 'toxic' relationship better. Look up Eyedea - Paradise. You don't have to listen to it to admire it. Take the chorus here. It's nice written too.

If we'd discover the long lost art dying
Only the lonely resent angels for flying
Twisted, living off each other's sickness, like parasites
This is paradise
If we'd discover the long lost art dying
Only the lonely resent angels for flying
Addicted, afraid to take control of my own life
This is paradise

>>13365578
>A fool concerns himself with the consciousness contained within something, a wise person questions the spirit who would do such a thing
Topkek. According to who?
>>13365601
What is it about the word choices that is not largely inaccesible in themselves, as in they don't access the finer qualities of the soul, nor do they show a great display of sensitivtiy to beauty? To whom is this the case?

>>13365564
Never said either, please read again and don't resort to strawmen.

>>13365627
I read that either in an ancient jewish poem by a wise sage or a quote by a philosopher of the advaita idealism tradition of India. Briefly explaining it , a schizophrenic proposes for you to take off your bullet belt because he believes you will be arrested or even killed for wearing it by the police. You don't question what he said, only a fool would do that, you know it's foolish because of the spirit that said it. Retroductive reasoning.

The words themselves don't speak an intuitive language of the soul, it doesn't chirp the language of birds. Ancient Greek is largely compound if I'm not mistaken, so the language is quite intuitive, but here those words require a dictionary for most people and engrossed doesn't contain any emotional reflexity, if anything it numbs the conveyance of being absorbed because it's not intuitively understood, and it doesn't possess a strong sonic quality. The word literally has 'gross' in it for gods sake.

>>13365001
Anglo imperialism. Cervantes and Montaigne are as good if not better.

>>13365672
>engrossed doesn't contain any emotional reflexity, if anything it numbs the conveyance of being absorbed because it's not intuitively understood, and it doesn't possess a strong sonic quality
To whom?

>>13365672
>I read that either in an ancient jewish poem by a wise sage or a quote by a philosopher of the advaita idealism tradition of India
Not sure what this has to do with anything. Why should I consult these people when reading poetry?

>>13365548
Namedropping to avoid an argument is pretty low. The focal point is whether you believe in absolute or inherent quality of art.

Thought experiment: In 100 years, if some rather unknown writer X from let's say ~500AD is suddenly hailed as the absolute best, because his style resonates most with the sensibilities of people in 2100. More scholars study him and his meters, pupils learn about him in school and the cultural paradigm is that he is undisputedly 'the best'. Does this make him the best right now aswell?

The civil war really added a lot of popularity to his figure and works

Dante > Shakespeare

>>13365754
Dante couldn't write women

>>13365760
Tolstoy and Proust are better than Shakespeare.

>>13365725
>>13365721
>>13365697
Since you believe this to be relative I choose not to believe what you say. I'll be sure to establish the geometroneurodynamics for the beauty of words when you tell me the origin of the teleological arrangements of beauty. It's going to be hard to do with your philosophy. To answer your thought experiment. it's not about hailing the superficial appearance of something, it's what beneath, something you are failing to 'grasp' here.

>>13365777
Can't argue with them trips
>>13365778
Please let us know which are are the truly beautiful words so I can use them as much as often in my own work

>>13365601
Nice meaningless word salad. Are you going to say anything concrete or are you going to just babble on? I'd assume you were trolling but it's a lot of effort to.type out such vacuous nonsense

>>13365618
Total doggerel

>>13365778
I (the thought exp anon) am just the first quite you posted. The beauty of words anon has an entirely different discussion with you. So you are admitting to your believe that art has inherent absolute value, completely disconnected from an interpreter. That's where I differ, still thank you for the interesting discourse.

He invented the human

>>13365815
>>13365789
>>13365848
The 'intuition' in art in the words of Augustine is an 'intellection' that extends beyond the range of the dialectic, and expression, not the likeness produced by the artist's observation of things as seen in the world, but of archetypes called forth in recollection of contemplation, the types being heavenly forms, iconographic images and standarsized types of characters of personalitys, myths rather than history, the architecture of the universe and the unstruck music (anahatanada) of the spheres.

>>13365819
Why do you think so?

Shakespeare is a bit of a one-trick pony. Everything is [thisly] [thatly].

His work seems deep because he wrote in loose collaboration with his actors and other playwrights (Middleton in Measure for Measure and Macbeth).

I find it easy to believe that Shakespeare's plays were actually written by a black woman.

Because they suck!

>>13365856
Thanks for your middlebrow take my 18 year old friend.

>>13365001
I really don't know. I really like his work, he and P.G. Wodehouse are the only writers who consistently cause me to laugh out load when I am reading them. Other people just don't get into him. Of course, the language is archaic, so that is a barrier, as is the fact that usually we are reading plays which were designed to be watched rather than read. Someone once asked me why I like Shakespeare so much, and all I can come up with, aside from my subjective liking of his works for their own sake, is that he encompasses so much within his writings. You can learn about the world from Great Literature as well as from personal experience.

>>13365851
The comparison between 'parasite' and 'paradise' is inane, the kind of connection only an adolescent would make and think profound. The trite metaphor of "angels flying" is not merely clichéd but is incoherently shackled in a non-sequitur to the notion of some envious lonely people. As a whole the lines don't cohere - they might as well be from different poems and the prosody is woeful, most notably in the clumsy usage of 'Addicted," to start a line. This would be hideously awkward with a beat; it's absolutely nauseating on the page. No grace or beauty whatsoever.

>>13365777
>Proust

>>13365001
The metaphor is the thing

>>13365050
>The things he was good at were so influential
Not influental, forgotten, especially compared to works of antiquity. He's seinfeld alright, because before that there was monty python which for some reason, never really caught on in the US.

>>13366009
It gives imagery of a lonely person envying those filled with joy and freedom in love; knowing their counterpart deserves this they resent them for trying to find someone better. It goes well with the general concept that this is not actually paradise, but it is his paradise, a twisted inner world of co-dependency.

If you want to talk about adoelsence, Shakespeare in his Sonnet 133 says 'prison my heart' and 'torture' and 'jail' as a descriptor.

also how is addicted 'clumsy'? it fills in with the conceptual coherency and generally sounds sonically nice.

>>13366072
The image of the lonely person and the angel are too disparate - it's a laughable comparison, the height (or should that be the depth) of bathos. The topic of the lyric seem to me very immature, the pretentious scrawlings of an overly sensitive teenager.

You appear to have a very poor ear if you don't realize how clumsy the prosody is. I suggest reading some Edmund Spenser and John Keats (these are both poets) to refine your sense of rhythm and metaphor.

>>13365851
Yeah, but gimme some details man. What are the words to avoid other than 'engrossed'?

>>13366141
It's known that lonely people tend to have a bad streak in them that makes them resent those with a better nature (angels), so again, the comparsion is apt. I'm not sure how the topic is 'immature', Shakespeare comparing his love to 'torture' and 'prison' reeks of immaturity. In fact, if you knew the dynamics of a co-dependent relationship you would find it to be one of the more interesting topics for relationship struggles. I like Keats already.

>>13366226
You have to horn your own artistic sensibility. I'd say if you want a principle to organize the way you create art, you must first 'feel' what you want to convey, don't bother writing if it doesn't make you feel. Just look for the more universal words like 'soul' and 'love' and pose it in a way that would make any woman swoon.

That's my personal advice you can follow if you want.

>>13366302
Nah, it's completely banal while 133 is a sophisticated look at adult relationships with far superior use of language. The song doesn't even scan

>>13366313
>pose it in a way that would make any woman swoon.
What if I told you I was a woman (male)

>>13366323
I'd probably want to read your writings even more, maybe you could make me swoon hahah

>>13366319
Scan? I'm not sure how 'tortured' and 'prison' is superior language my dude, it sounds like an emo wrote it in his notebook during middle school. You can say it's banal but I just explained why it isn't so really you're shooting blanks here. Nevertheless, we disagree and I don't know your criteria for quality writing

>>13366342
>but I just explained why it isn't so
Yeah, but I don't agree with your explanation, and as the person having to read it, I have the final say. I think it's banal, therefore to me it is banal, and you don't get an opinion, capiche?

>>13366302
>It's known that lonely people tend to have a bad streak in them that makes them resent those with a better nature (angels), so again, the comparsion is apt.
No, it is not known, you have just pulled that out from your arse. It's an awkward stretch my friend.

>I'm not sure how the topic is 'immature',
Because you are coming from it from a place of immaturity. When you're older you'll get a keener sense of the banality of the lyric.
>Shakespeare
Ah but we're not talking about Shakespeare, we're talking about your duff little ditty that you love so much. Besides, the sonnet is far more coherent and stimulating than the loping braying of your fractured doggerel. There's no shame in liking bad verse anon, we all have our own guilty pleasures.
>I like Keats
You may like him but you don't seem to have really read him. An aficionado of Keats should have a better ear than this.

>>13366329
Fuck off faggot

>>13366369
I don't care about your posture towards something that is factual. I'm not a teenage girl sharing music recommendations. I don't think it's the end all of poetry, just better than that Shakespeare sonnet, especially with lines like 'the chilidsh attempt to find forever', really conveys the nature of a toxic relationship.

>>13366378
Jim Morrison conveys similiar imagery and something not being done before doesn't renounce it. I'm not sure what you want me to do, link you evidence that lonely people can feel bitter towards more succesful people? Again, how is 'prison' and 'tortured' better than what I posted? You can call it 'stimulating' but you haven't pointed out WHY you feel this way and I've already pointed out why this is superior in depth, which you haven't refuted, you just claim to be 'wiser' than be on virtue of being more pretentious.

>>13366378
>loping braying of your fractured doggerel.

Like I said, look at the spirit behind something and not what you think it is. The way you talk is disgusting, no wonder you think "A torment thrice three-fold thus" and " thy steel bosom's ward". You have no innate ability to distinguish whether something is disgusting or not

>>13366436
>Jim Morrison
Widely regarded to be an awful poet. I'd be more careful about who you use to back you up next time.
>I'm not sure what you want me to do, link you evidence that lonely people can feel bitter towards more succesful people?
What does this have to do with the trite image of the angel flying to symbolize success? Very silly of you to focus on what the metaphor is referring to rather than the metaphor itself. Basic poetical analysis anon, don't they teach this at your school?
>Again, how is 'prison' and 'tortured' better than what I posted?
Because it is both coherent and cohesive.
> I've already pointed out why this is superior in depth
Still waiting for you to do this hun.
>you just claim to be 'wiser' than be on virtue of being more pretentious.
Why would I claim to be pretentious? Your appreciation for incoherent verse is spreading to your prose anon
>>13366468
>Like I said, look at the spirit behind something and not what you think it is.
'The spirit behind something' is irrelevant. You don't get marks for good intentions in poetry. You either communicate your ideas in a graceful and cohesive way or you write doggerel like that lyric.
>The way you talk is disgusting
Prove it
>no wonder you think
No wonder I think what?

>>13366531
>Very silly of you to focus on what the metaphor is referring to rather than the metaphor itself.

Probably the most uneducated thing said in this thread, you are devolving into a language argument. Also 'prison and torture' is barely 'cohesive' and it's vague, extremely basic and curtails no detail.

As I said "It gives imagery of a lonely person envying those filled with joy and freedom in love; knowing their counterpart deserves this they resent them for trying to find someone better. It goes well with the general concept that this is not actually paradise, but it is his paradise, a twisted inner world of co-dependency."

>you just claim to be 'wiser' than me on virtue of being more pretentious. Your reading comprehension is almost as bad as your deductive ability, let alone your sense of aesthetics.

"Silence is is the most obscure sound I've ever heard, those lonely giant spaces in between your every word" is way more lucid and human than anything in that sonnet. But you know, I can't kick soul into you. Jim morrison loved rimbaud, his lyrics are great too. You are free to enjoy what you want brother but you can't claim superiority in things that are not so and then withhold articulating yourself, at that point you are 13 and sharing 'music recommendations' with me. Either elucidate on your point with substance or you show that you are unable to comment on something as basic as this. You might have read all the books in the barrel but you can't think for yourself, no reasoning on your end.

>>13366713
>Probably the most uneducated thing said in this thread
Sounds an awful lot like seething to me my lad. Rather unbecoming of you.
>barely 'cohesive' and it's vague, extremely basic and curtails no detail.
It's a lot more concrete than the angel metaphor. It's cohesion should be obvious to anyone with a decent grasp of the English language (is it your second anon, you keep misusing words so I'm guessing so?) , prison and torture have been known to be related to one another now and again unlike angels and the lonely which creates rather undercooked and tenuous connection.
>"It gives imagery of a lonely person envying those filled with joy and freedom in love; knowing their counterpart deserves this they resent them for trying to find someone better. It goes well with the general concept that this is not actually paradise, but it is his paradise, a twisted inner world of co-dependency."
It's poor imagery, as I have established, which makes it doggerel. Write an essay if you want sophomoric "depth" without decent prosody.
>"Silence is is the most obscure sound I've ever heard, those lonely giant spaces in between your every word" is way more lucid and human than anything in that sonnet.
In what way is it lucid and human? Be less vague anon, elucidate on your point.
> Your reading comprehension is almost as bad as your deductive ability, let alone your sense of aesthetics.
More seething without argument anon, not a good look.
>Jim morrison loved rimbaud
So? Got any other factoids for me?
>Either elucidate on your point with substance or you show that you are unable to comment on something as basic as this. You might have read all the books in the barrel but you can't think for yourself, no reasoning on your end.
Best take that beam from out your eye anon, it's clouding your sight.

>Shakespeare is bad because he's popular

>>13365410
Bloom's argument (and the "self-overhearing" that Shakespeare supposedly invented) never struck me as very convincing. Shakespeare sure is one remarkable writer in a long line of great psychologists, but he's hardly unique. Introspection had been a staple of Christian writings or centuries before him.

>>13365001
>Why is Shakespeare considered the greatest writer of all time?

He's a perfect storm of everything that makes a writer be considered great.

Great linguistic agility and versalitily, wide range of topics, characters, tones and moods, all the tricks of a blossoming new kind of theatre that was inveted shortly before him but that he exploited and perfected to oblivion (so much that all his contemporaries are almost forgotten next to him). All at a crucial time for the then-developing England.

Then add the fact that his works have little in the way of explicit political and ideological discourse (so any cause can claim him), that very little is known about his personal life (so personal and ethical reservations don't play in, people can identify with and theorize about him), and that explains how he became a symbol of English literature and Englishness in general.

Then add that due to his plethoric aesthetics (common in his time, but Shakespeare, being the symbol of his era, gets credit for everything that arose with it) he was a perfect counter to the French-inspired classical aesthetics, which allowed both the Germans and the English (and even the French!) to build him as a stalwart against a perceived foreign corruption.
Then add, again, that aesthetical indeterminacy which made him ripe for appropriation by literally every major artistic movement from the 1830s onward, first romanticism, then symbolism, then modernism, then surrealism.

Then add the outgrowth of academic criticism, ever eager to fester on the corpse of any sufficiently canonical writer and to throw itself behind an old name with living momentum to it.

That gives you Shakespeare. A guy so famous people who don't give a fuck about literature still admire him. A guy so revered people have argued he invented free-masonry, or the theory of blood circulation, or the works of Balzac, or basically all human psychology.

The history of Shakespeare's reception is fascinating really. In his lifetime he was popular and known for his wit (could think Spielberg or perhaps Tarantino in the contemporary cinematic realm), but if his buddies could have read the shit we write about him now, they would have laughed themselves into the moon. Then he became a posthumous sensation in England in the eigtheenth century (but people still changed his endings with no scruples), and from there spread to the continent, with the simultaneous help of the French (chiefly Voltaire, with mixed feelings) and the German (who hilariously made him into their national poet). Then the recuperation gangbang began, and explaining you're an heir to Shakespeare (but everyone else isn't) became a rite of passage for every art theoricien and movement founder.

I once found a nice post (don't remember if it was on 4chan) by a PhD student in literary history, titled "Did Shakespeare write in German in reality ?". Very nice account of the nationalistic German recuperation of Shakespeare. I'll try to find it.