[ 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: 24 KB, 300x300, william-shakespeare-194895-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12479565 No.12479565 [Reply] [Original]

>Most of the “intellectual depth” is people reading into the folio things that weren’t meant to be part of the narrative to the people that watched the plays at their inception. There’s barely any difference in depth between Romeo and Juliet and “The Fault in Our Stars,” or even “Twilight.” Or Twelfth Night and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Or “The Tempest” and “Star Trek.” Like post-colonialism isn’t inherent to “The Tempest,” academics found it by looking there. It’s not really any different from Spider-Man as a puberty metaphor or the X-Men as one for racial inequality. Hell, I wrote my senior thesis on the ecological themes of Dead Space 2 and it was really well received. All you and Maher are doing here is gatekeeping to preserve a sense of pretension.

Do you agree with this brutal commentary on Shakespeare?

>> No.12479570

>>12479565
i don't think any right-thinking person can agree with this

>> No.12479579

>>12479570
why? it makes a lot of sense.

>> No.12479600

I agree. Academics tend to greatly exaggerate Shakespeare’s philosophical questioning. Most of Shakespeare’s wisdom comes from common-sense and the over-repeated lessons on wisdom that have been around since the first written documents. When it comes to academia they seem not to notice the obvious fact that you can see almost anything in any work of art when you look with biased eyes.

Then again, what I really love about Shakespeare is his language, and in this field his work is the greatest ever produced. Poetic language, the metaphor: this is the core of Shakespeare’s greatness. Of course, he was also able to deal with several different themes, characters and situations, and that is also a significant part of his greatness. Yet, if it weren’t for his poetical language all his works would be far more common and uninteresting.

Most academics are jokes. And a lot of philosophers and other professionals try to fit Shakespeare and other artists in their ideas mostly because this is some kind of cultural tradition, a Talmud-like commentary upon former commentaries upon former commentaries (the example that comes to my mind is Freud take on Shakespeare).

>> No.12479609

>>12479600
>Yet, if it weren’t for his poetical language all his works would be far more common and uninteresting
... wow bruh.

>> No.12479619

>>12479565
he held a giant mirror up to Nature, his characters are alive
there’s definitely two levels to Shakespeare, recognized when he was alive
one for the groundlings, one for the wiser sort

>> No.12479626

Bible stories seem simple, but Augustine recognized they can be read on different levels, as metaphor for example

>> No.12479651

>>12479600
But surely the greatest work of art is that which produces the most multi-faceted interpretations? Why do you think a book that can be read one way and one way only is better than a books whose themes are so universal that one can read all kinds of interesting concepts or commentaries into it? If anything it’s more of a testament to a texts immortal staying power, that its information can be reproduced in an entirely different way generation after generation. Texts which manage that are truly timeless, and Shakespeare is no exception.

>> No.12479656

>>12479565
very high iq thread

>> No.12479659

>>12479565
>There’s barely any difference in depth between Romeo and Juliet and “The Fault in Our Stars,” or even “Twilight.” Or Twelfth Night and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Or “The Tempest” and “Star Trek.


philistines, philistines everywhere

>> No.12479698

>>12479579
There are hundreds of movies loke Spider-Man and Twilight. How many plays like Shakespeare's can you name?

>> No.12479849

>>12479565
I agree with your analysis but come to a different conclusion. I don't see it as negative but as positive. Pretences must be kept alive at all costs.

>> No.12479857

>>12479619
>>12479600
These. Shakespeare's philosophy isn't impressive. His wordplay and his characters, however, are fantastic. He is definitely overrated as a poet, though, and doesn't compare to the best of the Greeks and Romans.

>> No.12479868

Maybe the most blatantly retarded thread I’ve ever seen on here.

>> No.12479874

>>12479651
>But surely the greatest work of art is that which produces the most multi-faceted interpretations?
If this was true than post-modern works would completely surpass all of Shakespeare's work as the "greater" works of art? This is only according to your definition.

>> No.12479884

>>12479565
>intent of the author matters
Is there a more brainless position to be held?

>> No.12479899

>>12479868
>It's so retarded, I won't even show why I think it's retarded other than me showing how it contradicts with the things I've been told are "high brow"
If you think Shakespeare has that much depth in the philosophical meaning of his work, then gtfo. His talent came from his ability with language, not his interpretation of life.

>> No.12479905

>>12479884
It's saying the complete opposite.

>> No.12479914

>>12479899
>not his interpretation of life.
He understands life better than anyone, that's like his greatest strength after his language

>> No.12479917

>>12479899
nta, you're exactly what's so retarded about this thread. you think it's such a nuanced and discerning point that shakes has "gud language bro"

>> No.12479938

>all your culture is shit, nothing is better
Fuck off Marx

>> No.12480008

>>12479565
>Most of the “intellectual depth” is people reading into the folio things that weren’t meant to be part of the narrative to the people that watched the plays at their inception
Yes - literary reception and ways of reading change across ages. Fucking wow.

>There’s barely any difference in depth between Romeo and Juliet and “The Fault in Our Stars,” or even “Twilight.” Or Twelfth Night and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Or “The Tempest” and “Star Trek.”
Good arguments there.

>Like post-colonialism isn’t inherent to “The Tempest,” academics found it by looking there
It always was there, though. Shakespeare lived in a colonial country, was aware in some way of the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, and that affected his text. Nobody added anything to the text, just looked particularly closely at one aspect of its structure.

>It’s not really any different from Spider-Man as a puberty metaphor or the X-Men as one for racial inequality
Is this guy saying that Spiderman and X-men cannot be read that way? I'm pretty sure that even their creators were aware of those aspects of the characters, at least at some points in time.

>Hell, I wrote my senior thesis on the ecological themes of Dead Space 2 and it was really well received
Is that supposed to be a criticism or something? Video games can't talk about ecological themes?

I feel like the guy didn't actually coherently write his point in this text, he was probably trying to say something more precise than this rambling. Many point are just left half-explained, and I can only guess what he really wanted to prove.

>> No.12480675

Question. What do you mean by 'depth' exactly? Are you searching for wisdom that's never been told? That doesn't exist. If depth is, however, telling old ideas told with good writing, then yes, Shakespeare do have that.

>> No.12480694
File: 61 KB, 853x511, IMG_E8215.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12480694

>>12480675
This

>> No.12481679

>the current year
>not knowing the sum of Rosicrucian mystery is encoded in SHAKSPEAR
>unironic stratfordians
I SHIG HOPE THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!

>> No.12481823

>>12479899
>Implying your interpretation of life and your ability with language aren't the same thing

>> No.12481861

>>12479565
>Like post-colonialism isn’t inherent to “The Tempest
This is my one absolute peeve with Shakespearean writers. The Tempest is this pleasant, dream-like fantasy tale that they constantly bash in every literary essay for being a secret patriarchal colonist dystonia.
In my copy there's even an essay included where the writer rewrites the ending soliloquy so that Miranda interrupts Prospero and talks about how she will no longer listen to him and is rising up by allying with the oppressed poc Caliban, the giant evil monster who constantly tries to rape her.

>> No.12481873

>>12479899
>His talent came from his ability with language, not his interpretation of life.

in awe at the low iq of this lad

>> No.12481883

>>12479565
If you dissect a work, examining it under a microscope, within a theoretical framework and cultural context, you can find thematic significance in just about anything, and proceed to spew paragraphs and paragraphs of superficial insightful, intellectually lazy drivel. Even the most generic garbage blockbuster could have several essays written examining its various platitudes. This observation is not particularly interesting nor does it have anything to do with Shakespeare. You could have leveled this exact same 'criticism' at any piece of literature.

>> No.12481895

>>12480008
reddit

>> No.12481982

>>12479565
>There’s barely any difference in depth between Romeo and Juliet and “The Fault in Our Stars,” or even “Twilight.” Or Twelfth Night and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Or “The Tempest” and “Star Trek

this is dumb, your low brow garbage isn´t comparable with the great works of art of the past, fuck off redditor

>> No.12481997

>>12479565
BASED

wakey wakey anglo shits

>> No.12482031

>>12479565
What's this from? Reddit?

Shakespeare's power comes from the beauty of his language, from his metaphors (which, like Aristotle recognized, is the one sure sign of literary genius), his representations of the vast psychology of humanity and the emotional and mental growing pains that all people go through in life, whether that be young love, loneliness, depression, loss, love between family, regret at past wrongs, jealousy, envy, short-sightedness, etc. All of that can be seen in Romeo and Juliet, in Macbeth, in Hamlet, in Lear, in Measure for Measure, in The Winter's Tale, in Othello.

>> No.12482059

>>12482031
but wut bout STAR TREEEEK??????

>> No.12482076

>>12482031
Besides being at the right place at the right time I don't feel any particular reason my Shakespeare is so well received. I like a few of his plays, but save for a select few I would much rather watch an Aeschylus for tragedy or Aristophanes or Menander for comedy.
I feel like his immense influence and recognition as "the bard" is coincidental only.

>> No.12482089

>>12479565
imagine being this fucking stupid

>> No.12482102

>>12479651
>But surely the greatest work of art is that which produces the most multi-faceted interpretations?
Are you suggesting that if I were to write with infinite vagueness - allowing the most possible amount of permutations - that the work that I would render would be the ultimate literary masterpiece?

>> No.12482110

>>12479698
>https://www.rsc.org.uk/shakespeares-contemporaries

>> No.12482118

>>12482102
>Finnegans Wake

>> No.12482133

>>12482076
Really? Lear, Macbeth, and Hamlet do more for me than any Aeschylus or Sophocles. But the fact that only 10% of their work survived is a pretty shit deal.

>> No.12482136

>>12479565
Who said this?

>> No.12482684

>>12479874
We have no way of knowing if the postmodern fiction of the late 20th to early 21st century will be regarded in the same way. The important point is that as his works are drama with incredibly nuanced and elevated language, the reason for his longevity is because of his malleability. What the fuck can you do to make a book like Gravity's Rainbow more culturally significant? Distribute it across the wastelands of some post-apocalyptic world in order to convince everyone that "this" is what really happened before the bombs?

>>12482102
There is a difference between infinite vagueness and the exploration of a finite or structurally incomplete world. Calculation presupposes its notion of value as exact, and bypasses the need to prove its reality by communicating its legitimacy through the form of the mathematical symbol. There is nothing wrong with writing as calculation, as the Oulipo writers proved– it simply lacks the fleshed-out quality and vividness of bolder and more artistic works. Metaphysical speculation, on the other hand, can generate a radical uncertainty in the positioning of certain elements of the text, and situates the reader in a boundless enclosure that offers multiple avenues of enquiry.

>> No.12482704

>>12481679
bread crumb pls

>> No.12482855

>>12479651
How the fuck would someone write with multi-faceted interpretations? I mean sure you can have in mind a couple of connotations, but obviously, the 8 interpretations that scholars found in a text aren't the 8 ways in which the author foresaw that his text could be read.

>> No.12482862

>>12482704
Not him but I found this:
>http://hiddenmessagesinshakespeare.blogspot.com/2015/02/chapter-3-francis-bacon-master-of.html
I will continue looking.

>> No.12482864

>>12479565
This is true.
However, only brainlets read for "intellectual depth". Normal people read for aesthetics.

>> No.12483173

>>12479857
Why are these "Greek and Roman" poets that are better than Shakespeare.

>> No.12483178

>>12483173
Because the Greeks didn't speak English

>> No.12483296

>>12483178
Ignore the stroke tier mess I wrote. I meant to say, WHO are the poets that are better than Shakespeare.

>> No.12483391

>>12483296
Homer, Pindar, Aeschylus, Virgil, Ovid, Horace, etc

>> No.12483460

>>12483391
Shakespeare is the better poet. Even though some of these guys outclass him in structure, none of them can touch him in texture.

>> No.12483471

>>12483460
Homer beats him easily. However Shakespeare is the greatest in the english language in terms of metaphors and such, even though he isn't my favourite writer.

>> No.12483541

>>12483471
Homer's great, but I wouldn't say he beats him easily. It's debatable. Right now, I prefer Shakespeare. That could change though.

>> No.12483573

>>12479565
fecundity of reading does indicate some sort of 'universality' but shakespeare being an institution is exposed to it more. 'authorial intent' only matters in that he was able to include things that touched on many aspects of human society regardless of whether he intended a post-colonial reading or not... 'not meant to be part of the narrative' is a half-wit interpretation of interpretations no better than the target of the criticism.

>> No.12484211

>>12479849
Care to expand on this?

>> No.12484782

>bro everything sucks, and I'm too smart for everything