[ 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

View post   
File: 20 KB, 489x627, images (11).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11545055 No.11545055 [Reply] [Original]

Why is he always placed on a pedestal above everybody else?

>> No.11545085

>>11545055
Because he’s consistently better than anyone else

>> No.11545094

>>11545085
fpbp
inb4 muh anglocentrism muh dante is better

>> No.11545100

Best comedy?
Best tragedy?
Most cozy?

>> No.11545115

>>11545100
1 Twelfth night
2 hamlet/Lear
3 Tempest/midsummer nights dream/winters tale

>> No.11545143

He's Homer for virgins

>> No.11545157

>>11545143
Homer is magnificent and a treasure of world literature. He brings the gods to life and writes so compellingly of the great heroes of the ancient world that by reading him one comes to know them and the spirit of the ancient world with them.

Nevertheless, he has nothing on the scope, depth, creativity, virtuosity or energy of Shakespeare

>> No.11545164

>>11545055
Because he's the best English language poet

>> No.11545191

Anglocentric western culture and because English is the dominant western language

>> No.11545212

>>11545191
Such a cop out. Shakespeare is the fuller and more talented human being in every case, not the winner by the accident of the success of the English language as a whole

>> No.11545216

>>11545212
Read english history. They championed Shakespeare as the power of the english language over others

It is basically literary colonialism

>> No.11545228

>>11545216
I agree. That's why we need to promote african authors and languages to combat capitalistic cultural imperialism, comrade

>> No.11545230

>>11545228
I'm not correlating what I said to that, brainlet

>> No.11545233

>>11545216
Yes and they championed Newton as representative of the English power of rationality.

It’s basically scientific colonialism

>> No.11545238

>>11545233
another knee-jerk brainlet

>correlating scientific objectivity to literature

>> No.11545240

>>11545216
>They championed Shakespeare as the power of the english language over others
I wonder why that could be. Have you read the plays and sonnets anon? I think you'll find that they're quite good.

>> No.11545245

>>11545238
I am making that correlation because I believe in some objective criteria by which art can be appraised, and Shakespeare maxes out those objective criteria

>> No.11545257

>>11545240
Same reason why russia champions tolstoy or italy champions dante or portugal champions camoes or france champions a handful of writers
They excel at their language and are a good representation of it
England and english culture just happens to be more dominant and pervasive
>>11545245
Just lol

>> No.11545267

I was reading afew paraphrased 15th century translations of old roman plays and shakesspears lines always sticked out like a sore thumb in flow and profundity. He's the man

>> No.11545276

>>11545257
You believe in objective criteria in art too. It’s why you are on a /lit/ board talking about high art instead of reading the fourth twilight book. It’s easy to hide behind the things postmodernism supposedly proved and made obvious, like the lack of objective aesthetic standards, but none of us actually consume art that way. You know god writing when you read it. You know better writing from worse writing. Why is it so fashionable to pretend this isn’t the case? It’s maddening

>> No.11545280

>>11545276
>god writing
That was a good Freudian slip on your part. Beauty descends from God.

>> No.11545284

>>11545276
I can determine quality based upon my own subjectiveness, perception and experiences, as well as outside opinion.

Don't fall into the trap of deeming your opinions objective facts. No matter how hard you try to intellectualise them anybody can see straight through it

>> No.11545286

>>11545284
>Don't fall into the trap of deeming your opinions objective facts
You don't have to do that to think there are objective standards of beauty. You just think your opinions are either true or false based on that standard.

>> No.11545288
File: 78 KB, 256x256, 3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11545288

>>11545284
>I can determine quality based upon my own subjectiveness, perception and experiences
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.11545290

>>11545286
>>11545288

Prove to me there is objective criteria in literature using examples

>> No.11545293

>>11545284
Lol well I and four hundred years of literary criticism (from all corners of the globe) have fallen into the indefensible trap of regarding Shakespeare as the greatest writer who ever lived. Woe is me! Woe is us! Toss my the life raft of your “subjectiveness” I’m drowning in an ocean of my own utterly baseless opinions!

>> No.11545296

>>11545290
SPEND A MONTH READING NOTHING BUT SHAKESPEARE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND.

There is no argument like example.

>> No.11545312

>>11545085
>implying Shakespeare is better than Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes

>> No.11545321

>>11545312
Oedipus isn’t better than hamlet.
The Birds may be better than Shakespeare’s best comedies, so fair point.
My only concession so far

>> No.11545322

>>11545293
No critic worth their salt has ever claimed shakespeare is the best writer to ever exist

Inb4 harold bloom who i dont count as anything other than an overexcited fanboy

>> No.11545327

>>11545293
>all corners of the globe
>all corners that use English as the national language
>all

>> No.11545335

>>11545327
No fucker all non English speaking Europe worshipped Shakespeare too. Artists and philosophers. Name me a non ancient author who you think could contend with Shakespeare for the title and I’ll show you someone who was hyperconscious of writing in his enormous shadow

>> No.11545340

>>11545322
Who instead?

>> No.11545363

>>11545335
There is no title

>> No.11545405

>>11545363
Right and Rupi Kaur and William Shakespeare are each just a different kind of stroke for a different kind of folk. Real interesting aesthetic philosophy

>> No.11545414

>>11545405
Brainlet

>> No.11545553
File: 8 KB, 600x497, 1532765733277.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11545553

>>11545276
True. You wouldn't call a prose piece a sonnet, would you? though that doesn't stop people from trying, as though they're prepared to ignore the rules as to what constitutes such a form, but still feel entitled to the praise that goes along with writing a good one. Why go to the pains of keeping metre and rhyme, when you can write out a line of prose, and subdivide it into line breaks instead? Pitch a tent and call it a cathedral. You can pick and choose however much you want, so long as you have the safety net of subjectivity to fall into when someone dares to hold your work to a standard. I agree that art, ultimately is subjective, but creatives all too often use it to avoid honing their craft, avoid failure, and avoid constructive criticism. You should master your art from a technical perspective before you start thinking about subjectivity. And if you were to the say, well how can one objectively measure the mastery of one's craft, you're already starting to cop-out. People recognise mastery when they see, read, and hear it, and they know intuitively when what they're experiencing is bullshit. I have friends that fall into this trap and it pains me to never see them grow as artists because of it.

>> No.11545571

>>11545553
>clinging to the boomer mindset

>> No.11545574

>>11545321
>The Birds may be better than Shakespeare’s best comedies, so fair point.
May be.

>> No.11545907

>>11545321
Antigone is.