/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14832891]

Why does no modern playwright or screenwriter try to write something like Shakespeare did? I don't mean that they have to use the same vocabulary, the "thous" and "methoughts" and "yonders", not even they have to use blank verse in iambic pentameter, but just poetic language with similes and metaphors and all sorts of images and language games.

Nowadays everyone talks about writing dialogue that sounds natural but that at the same time is not natural (after all, people's daily conversations are not the same as dialogue). There is a lot of talk about subtext and things like that, but nobody tries to do what Shakespeare did, but with modern stories and modern vocabulary. People talk about Tarantino, and Mammet, and Sorkin, and the "musicality" or even "poetry" of their dialogue, but it is all several degrees below what Shakespeare did. Imagine how many metaphors can be created with technologies and concepts that the Shakespeare era has never seen (cell phones, satellites, computers, hamburgers, submarines, rockets, etc.)?

[Anonymous No.14832920]

>>14832891
I'm guessing you've never read/seen a Samuel Beckett play?

[Anonymous No.14833022]

>>14832920

But Beckett is a minimalist

[Anonymous No.14833336]

>>14832891
Interesting question. Personally, I think modernism has ruined the idea of another Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.14833373]

>>14832920
beckett's plays don't have much in common with shakespare prose-wise, unless you're talking metaphor, and even then it's not particularly comparable.

back to OP, it's because play-writing was the only avenue for most writers outside of releasing poetry. today you have novels, poetry, film, and many other methodologies for writing; someone with shakespeare's talent for prose is more likely want to write a book than write a play nobody will see

[Anonymous No.14833386]

>>14833336
nonsense, literary eras and epochs cannot impugn upon someone with plain talent for writing

[Anonymous No.14833469]

>>14833336
Well no shit, because even if Shakespeare were born today and reproduced similar works, they would be like trying to catch smoke and, at best, the literal definition of didactic. It's why it's so fucking terrible when someone tries to copy the style of Beowulf and write a poem exactly like it: it's gone. Borges has a great story about this called "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" or something, where a man becomes obsessed with Don Quixote and tries to modernize the text, which results in writing Don Quixote exactly as it is. Clamoring for another time period is the strangest, most ridiculous wish, especially when applied to art and literature.

[Anonymous No.14833483]

>>14833469
if shakespeare were alive today, he'd be writing his prose following standard modern english, it's not like he was anachronistic in his own time

[Anonymous No.14833589]

>>14833483
There's no period in which people talked in iambic pentameter nor has it ever stopped being used

[Anonymous No.14833643]

>>14833589
see OP: " I don't mean that they have to use the same vocabulary, the "thous" and "methoughts" and "yonders", not even they have to use blank verse in iambic pentameter, but just poetic language with similes and metaphors and all sorts of images and language games."


in any case, shakespeare was not anachronistic, once again

[Anonymous No.14833821]

I imagine seeing a shakespeare play live was confusing as fuck for the average peasant
The henriad was probably a hit but I have a hard time seeing jack sheepfuck and his 15 kids appreciating hamlet

[Anonymous No.14833903]

>>14833821
Shakespeare was smart, he added comedy and action to his plays. Even if you don't get all his references, you'll enjoy it

[Anonymous No.14833908]

>>14832891
Masked and Anonymous (2003)

[Anonymous No.14833913]

>>14833373
>>14833469
I was reading Ezra Pound, and he states that reading Shakespeare's sonnets and plays makes him think Shakespeare probably wanted to be poet alone, but since poetry doesn't pay the bills he started writing plays. It was an interesting point, though unfortunately Pound doesn't really back it up or explain why he thinks that

[Anonymous No.14833929]

>>14833913
>though unfortunately Pound doesn't really back it up or explain why he thinks that
imagine that lmao

[Anonymous No.14833950]

>>14833913
That's basically what ben jonson did

[Anonymous No.14833960]

>>14832891
I'm literally trying to do this in my writing, anon. I tone it down to some degree. I'm not genius enough to conjure new figures out of the ether for every sentence I write, and I don't even think someone capable of doing so would find an audience today. But I try to make my characters speak as much like Shakespeare's as I can without drawing undue attention to it. My approach to dialogue (for better) and to narrative storytelling (for worse) is all but completely informed by Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.14833972]

>>14833913
>>14833929
Shakespeare was a top-bill (or close to top-bill) actor in his day, no reason to quit a day-job you love if you're able to mend together your passions in one career

if he went poet exclusively he'd have to rely on literary sponsors; also remember that he got modestly famous in his time, he even got to meet King James at some point

[Anonymous No.14834006]

Joyce

[Anonymous No.14834022]

Absolutely irrelevant after the 20th century. Technology is not just new objects for metaphors, but a change we went through that completely changed the cultural landscape. To be truly like Shakespeare (fresh, creative, elegant, unbelievably prolific) will mean to reinvent poetry.

[Anonymous No.14834029]

>>14834022
>(fresh, creative, elegant, unbelievably prolific) will mean to reinvent poetry.

incredibly hyperbolic, Shakespeare took plenty of influence by those who came before him; Ovid in particular

[Anonymous No.14834048]

>>14834022
>Poetry after Auschwitz
They really need to get over themselves

[Anonymous No.14834058]

>>14833469
i agree with u but i dont think thats what pierre menard is about

[Anonymous No.14834063]

>>14834048
to be frank, Jews aren't particularly significant in poetry

[Anonymous No.14834503]

>>14833960

Nice to hear this. I hope it all goes well for you, Anon.

[Anonymous No.14834536]

>>14834048
>Get over themselves
Get over money? Are you suggesting Jews to get over their precious shekels? NEVER

[Anonymous No.14834630]

>>14834503
Thanks, anon. I hope one day I'll help meet the need for shakespearean screenwriting you mentioned, and in a way that challenges mass audiences, while still being reasonably accessible to them and popular with them

[Anonymous No.14834832]

>>14833960
Send your work?

[Anonymous No.14834932]

>>14834832
I am ashamed to admit that as of right now I only write goofy stories to goofy writing prompts on reddit. I'm trying to find and settle into my style

[Anonymous No.14835015]

>>14834048
I knew some brainlet will reply thinking Auschwitz a central part of the idea instead of figurative speech.

[Anonymous No.14835077]

>>14832891
Derek Jarman, Peter Greenaway to name two. They're not not out there, you just dont know enough.

[Anonymous No.14835167]

>>14832891
It seems odd to the playwritter or even bards to do the same what shakespeare did.

For me personally, there is no other shakespeare screenwriting style. Its like in music.

Led zeppelin is greatest hard rock band. But there are no other bands like led to sound like led zeppelin. But then there is greta van fleet, heavily criticized by many for immitating zeppelin or even sounding like led zeppelin for their own originality.

Still speaking, you dont really wanted to create the same thing of what shakespeare did. Yes its impressing that you did the same thing of shakespeare but its completely unoriginal.

[Anonymous No.14835300]

>>14832891
They probably exist. Remember that Shakespeare was re discovered in 19th century and only then got the acclaim that he has today. So maybe in a few centuries we can discover another one with our contemporary approach.

[Anonymous No.14835524]

>>14835300
Maybe but i doubt that they reach further from what they are doing. Still a good thing if they have the same style shakespeare did.

[Anonymous No.14835573]

>>14833972
Where do you get all that?

[Anonymous No.14836053]

Shakespeare is largely overrated from my experience of reading him. I’ve never seen such a melodramatic author before. Iago was like a comic book villain in Othello. In Lear everyone dies at the end for literally no reason, it’s like he thought the thing wasn’t tragic enough so he decided to randomly kill off every character and make the good guys triumph suddenly. I think people just have higher standards now than back then.

[Anonymous No.14836061]

>>14835167
...

[Anonymous No.14836072]

>itt everyone is a moron because they don't realise the spirito-culturo-socio-racio-historico-dialectico-colectivo-individualo cause and reasoning/effect for the creations of the time.

Why do you think the only good "modern" literature is based on angst and uneasiness?Or the absurd as Kierkegaard put it. And further why is -after so long under modernity- all literature(we are talking of the great creations and not quaintness) incapable of finding centre purpose out of un-ironised irony? Or the deadening of emotion and the laughing at it its cause.

[Anonymous No.14836211]

What’s really the difference between a Shakespeare quote like “to be or not to be XD” and a movie quote like “life finds a way”? Both are pseudo philosophical garbage.

[Anonymous No.14837028]

>>14836211

You have to make this decision of "to be or not to be" every single day of your goddamn mediocre life even if is only to jerk off to your hentais and you call it "philophical garbage".

[Anonymous No.14837059]

>>14832891
There's a Brazilian poster who does just that. He wrote a very long play, Faustian in length almost. I have read some excerpts of it. There are bad moments and some very good ones.

Anyway, the nearest thing I know to what OP is looking for is T.S. Eliot's theater.

[Anonymous No.14837296]

>>14837028
Oh yeah? Explain how then. If you don’t the quote is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.14837381]

>>14833469
I disagree utterly - if there's no reason to prefer an ancient style, there is also no reason to prefer a modern one - only false ideas of relevance or authenticity
>Clamoring for another time period is the strangest, most ridiculous wish, especially when applied to art and literature
Strange idea, since that very impulse brought us the Renaissance, early modern epic poetry, and neoclassocism in general

[Anonymous No.14837401]

They have, they have...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6DU3b7HjO4k

[Anonymous No.14837704]

>>14837059

Is the same guy who wrote that play about an Afghan teacher and the taliban?

[Anonymous No.14838689]

>>14832891

bump