Time to discuss Shakespeare!

[Anonymous No.1471856]

An interesting observation I've made, there are rarely any serious discussions of Shakespeare's work on /lit/. I'm disregarding the very obnoxious WHO WAS SHAKESPEAAR RLY? threads.

Is this because /lit/ does not believe there is anything left to discuss in Shakespeare's work that hasn't been analysed ad nausem by thousands of critics, or is it because they believe that the themes in his work are far to simple for them to waste time on?

I can confess to having felt some sympathy for the latter train of thought. However, that changed when I studied The Taming of The Shrew in a reasonable amount of depth. What I actually saw was that Shakespeare's sense of humour is quite perverse and that while writing what many consider to be the most sexist play still being performed he actually wrote one of the very first plays advocating sexual equality.

Similarly, with Romeo and Juliet while most interpret it as the quinticential love story Shakespeare actually goes out of his way reguarly to mock Romeo's melodramatic tendencies and Juliet's idiocy. He subtely perverts a Love Story into a very cynical look at young love.

It's funny that I've never noticed this before. Does /lit/ agree with me or am I talking out of my ass?

[Nig Nog No.1471860]

>Shakespeare
>Perverse
>This is surprising

Wow, you really didn't know anything about him, did you?

[Anonymous No.1471904]

>>1471860

If this is the case why are there so few threads discussing him?

[Nig Nog No.1471908]

>>1471904

Because James Joyce is filthier by far.

[Anonymous No.1471919]

One of he main reasons I imagine to not discuss Shakespeare on /lit/ is because its too obvious. Not trying to portray other c/lit/s as hipster faggots but just simply saying its already known as something that needs no discussion.

We can also account for the fact that a large majority here would have been taught Shakespeare at school.

And lastly everyone knows Hamlet is one of the greatest things written ever.