How did he do it?

[Anonymous No.13393622]

[Anonymous No.13393662]

Do what?

[Anonymous No.13393687]

>>13393622
great question!
i have no idea
i was thinking about this yesterday too. i suppose he did what Nabokov and Ovid did, just steal the spine of a old story and make it better. So he would write the story out easy with acts, scenes, characters, real quick, playwrighting forces you to think economically- i.e. you only have so much time, so many characters, so many set changes, etc. After he got the skeleton down he started to write. and he would go on and on and on, rereading what he wrote and perfected it, perfected it, perfected it. i see him going around and asking people their opinions, he was surrounded by worldly people mind you, and given the bent of his mind, i see him using every resource. there are parts in his plays, like Tempest, where he knows the names for parts of a ship, like take that for example. I see him reading over the pay and thinking, that would be good to figure out the parts of a ship, and then him going to a sailor on the docks and getting that info. Also, every turn of every character drops the most wisdom. he is a power plant of brilliant sayings. i see him just like i said, going over his work, and everyday, seeing how he can turn an innocent phrase or idea into a brilliant one. and then practicing the plays with his actors, who are familiar and capable of this speech, helping him perfect and distill the good and cut the bad. He reminds me of Kubrick in a lot of ways.

[Anonymous No.13393692]

>>13393622
>How did he do it?
To do or not to do

[Anonymous No.13393693]

>>13393687
>Nabokov
>making something better
pseud detected

[Anonymous No.13393696]

>>13393693
great post!

[Anonymous No.13393697]

>>13393622
Of all the great writers Shakes is the one with the *least* inexplicable strategy. He just took Marlowe's style and made it more fluid and complex instead of static and bombastic, and used that style to depict psychologically natural characters in basic human situations, ornamenting their speech with beautiful but straightforward poetry.

[Anonymous No.13393715]

>>13393687
I wonder what type of person he was like. If Prospero was his alter ego in his later works maybe Hamlet or Romeo represented his younger self.

[Anonymous No.13393723]

>>13393622
you mean what did she do?

[Anonymous No.13393724]

>>13393697
My point is, he's very much a man of Renaissance neoclassicism, where it's simply a matter of style. A modern artist like Picasso presents much more of a "how did he do it" ideological leap instead of the mere *skill* of someone like Shakespeare or Michelangelo.

[Anonymous No.13393734]

>>13393687
you know the quote is that he "never blotted a single line" right? Who knows if it's true but it's what's alleged.

[Anonymous No.13393742]

>>13393622
he was talented

[Anonymous No.13393757]

>>13393715
oh i dunno i suppose he is all the characters, females too. I think of Midsummer or Richard, he brings justice to the thoughts and deeds of everyone he speaks about. Its amazing. He was fearless about understanding human beings of all kinds

>>13393734
sounds exaggerated but i could totally see it in the way that rather then delete he would expand, develop or keep for later. he was a poet, his work was with words, you can't be frivolous with your crude when its your bread butter and legacy on the line

[Anonymous No.13393775]

>>13393687
>>13393757
you sound like a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.13393790]

>>13393757
Agreed. Being a good dramatist requires a good degree of compassion/empathy, I think.

[Anonymous No.13393791]

>>13393775
You sound brilliant!

[Anonymous No.13393800]

>>13393790
also whats Keats wrote about 'negative capability'

[Anonymous No.13393805]

>>13393622
Talentless hack

[Anonymous No.13393991]

I don't know how he tricked the world into thinking he's good. His characters act so unnaturally.

[Anonymous No.13394066]

>>13393991
You want to know what’s natural? it’s sitting on the toilet for a good 20 minutes. It’s telling your mom “I was at a friend with a party” when what you wanted to say was “I was at a party with a friend”. Shakespeare write about fairies and pixies your dam right he’s supernatural

[Anonymous No.13394102]

Shakes was more or less a good guy, and when you feed your heart, it has something to say.

[Anonymous No.13394122]

>>13394066
I'm not talking about the supernatural, by unnatural I mean they don't act the way people normally do. Like how King Lear loves his daughter one minute and asks her if she loves him, but on receiving a clumsy answer is reduced into a ridiculous frothing rage and no longer loves her. That's not human but it's typical Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.13394129]

he wasn't all that good... faulkner was better

[Anonymous No.13394131]

>>13393687

You are a good poster. Thank you for that.

Might I ask you who are your favorite writers and books?

[Anonymous No.13394142]

I think he is one of the greatest writers of all time, but this:

>>13393991
>His characters act so unnaturally.

>>13394122
>mean they don't act the way people normally do. Like how King Lear loves his daughter one minute and asks her if she loves him, but on receiving a clumsy answer is reduced into a ridiculous frothing rage and no longer loves her. That's not human but it's typical Shakespeare.

Is true

[Anonymous No.13394154]

>>13394122
He’s trying to make a point on a London stage in front of a standing audience in the 16th century. Brevity is the soul of wit

[Anonymous No.13394172]

>>13394154
It's not brevity, it's a lack of subtlety.

[Anonymous No.13394190]

He was surrounded by boipussy at all times and had to be absolutely drowning in it. Not much of a shock that great poetry followed.

[Anonymous No.13394633]

He had a black slave who wrote it all

[Anonymous No.13394718]

Word on the streets is shakespeare was like three or four people using that pen name. Or that he and those people were spies for queen elizabeth. Do you think shakespeare ever met john dee?

[Anonymous No.13394807]

>>13393723
huh?