Shakespeare, the overrated.

[Anonymous No.21981734]

While I like Tudor England more than most, and would have every reason to pretend Shakespeare was awesome, I am relentlessly bored by the pretense made by some that Shakespeare was awesome. Apart from Henry V, there's really nothing that stands out with his work that makes him anything special.

I think, perhaps, some have it in mind that theatre didn't exist, or something, before Shakespeare, and erroneously consider him its inventor, or something. Whilst for literary style one with an English bent to it, one would find more engaging works with the later likes of 1600 and 1700's theatre, as well as Punch and Judy.

I suggest that if [the fop who claims Shakespeare is good] hadn't been forced to watch Leonardo Di Caprios version of Romeo and Juliet in school that they would consider Shakespeare no greater nor worser nor of any interest to them as to their feelings about every other piece of theatre.

I will not, here, get into the plot holes in Romeo and Juliet, nor the War Propaganda against the Scots and French in MacBeth or Henry V, nor the absurdities of his Jewlyus Seezer... nor of the novelty of doing Black Face in Dead Pan in Othello (which admittedly holds a very funny surrealistic aspect to us nowadays) .... but this Man is largely a piece of garbage who is not even a good source for any of the amazing things happening in his contemporary society.

Where, I ask you rabble of lepers who will drag your rotting stumps to defend this gibbon as your lips fall from your heads, is ShacklesPears merit and value? As: methinks you all a pack of fops.

[Anonymous No.21981741]

>>21981734
Damn, Op is stupid. No point explaining to an imbecile.

[Anonymous No.21981749]

>>21981741
If you're hiding your cock, anon, it means you're ashamed of having its small size known.

[Anonymous No.21981750]

his sonnets are much better than his plays
no need to (You) me

[Anonymous No.21981754]

ed.
I forgot about the plot holes in Merchant of Venice too.
OP

[Anonymous No.21981755]

>>21981749
So you walk around naked 24/7? For a man with a really fine cock, it is not to be shown to those who don't deserve it.

[Anonymous No.21981761]

>>21981750
Miss. (You)me,
but who could name five?
Opie

[Anonymous No.21981768]

>>21981755
Much of Greater London rests upon my cock, anon. This remains apt to the metaphor, even as we extend it (pun intended).

[Anonymous No.21981843]

>plot holes
Cringe autist detected.

[Anonymous No.21981916]

>>21981843
oh didums, wouldnt want your fucking teletubbies movie to be spoiled by things like making any sense, pampers-wearing autist, you.

[Anonymous No.21981944]

What about the Internet compels people to write with such confidence on things they know nothing about. He even says “While I like Tudor England more than most,” as if to establish some expertise when he clearly has none. And the way he tries to mime an academic with his tone. So weird. Get something to do, guy

[Anonymous No.21981950]

GR8B8M8

[Anonymous No.21981968]

>>21981734

More of your conversation would infect my brain

[Anonymous No.21981980]

>>21981944
What compels you to launch into character attacks whilst offering no case at all to the topic? You even say "as if to establish some expertise when he clearly has none," when you, infinitely more studied upon the topic by your claim, fail to touch the original post even at all.

>>21981950
lawl, how drole,
I'm not a troll,
I'm simply asking lessons from the swole.

[Anonymous No.21981986]

>>21981968
If you can't handle fluent English go back to Tocharistan, you weather-beaten plum merchant.

[Anonymous No.21981990]

>>21981734
>>21981754
>phony intellectual tone
>argumentative “special knowledge” time-wasting post
>only mentions of Shakespeare’s work: Leonardo DiCaprio Romeo and Juliet, irrelevant and bizarre Scottish war propaganda (what?) in macbeth, blackface in othello and how it’s funny, merchant of Venice the poltard shitbook that no one cares about, and Julius Caesar which he misspells to include “jew”
>refers to the Henriad as Henry V, apparently unaware of his bibliography
Illiterate chuddies ruined this board. If only they read more than two books a year, and one of those books wasn’t a Twitter chud writing some shit with a title like “The Esoteric Industry” about some guy who realizes minorities and women FUCKING SUCK BRUH

[Anonymous No.21982056]

>>21981986

Went right over your head didn't it.

[Anonymous No.21982078]

>>21982056
Yes, a total non-sequitur in place of a response to the topic, combined with a series of character attacks sure went right over my head lol

Congrats faggots,
>>21982056
>>21981990
>>21981968
>>21981843
>>21981741

you've all made shakespeare fans look like a bunch of embittered queers hahaha

[Anonymous No.21982095]

>>21981990
>only mentions
What, there are some hidden ones? Oh fuck mysterious stranger, better conceal your wisdom from us by not letting us know what they are.

>meme picture
If I don't like boiled sweets, and ask you what's so great about them, you pretend I'm fuming in rage about boiled sweets and launch into character attacks and universal narratives about "all people ruining (this world)."

Don't ask me how I know you're fodder.

[Anonymous No.21982106]

>>21981734
Almost every line is dripping with triple meanings and endless subtly. His characters are either incredibly complex and realistic. His contemporaries feel like cutouts compared to him.

[Anonymous No.21982209]

>>21982106
>triple meanings and endless subtly
..such as..

I ... don't mean to dismiss the single real reply so far in this thread, but.. such as what? I get the emotional vigor of Henry V, I can't recall anything like this though,
>triple meanings and endless subtly
>characters are either incredibly complex and realistic

[Anonymous No.21982288]

>>21982209
Literally pick a line. Even in Romeo and Juliet the lovers always speak in extended metaphors and allusions that continue for pages and reappear. The stars motif is used in R and J over and over but in constantly changing contexts that continue to add more meaning. And that's just one thing.

[Anonymous No.21982290]

>>21981734
>Shakespeare, the overrated

[Anonymous No.21982291]

>>21982106
>His characters are either incredibly complex and realistic
definitely not

[Anonymous No.21982336]

>>21982291
Yeah, I presume anon isn't referring to the obvious parodies, or the lead characters. I can't really think of a 'realistic' or overly complex character.

>>21982288
>extended metaphors and allusions
Well that's just window dressing really.

I mean, neither Romeo and Juliet are very complex; they have bad reasons for doing what they do (although bad plot) and the animosity between their families doesn't make any sense although that's needed to find an excuse why they weren't betrothed as infants (which would've been the common thing to do to force two families to make peace). It'sonly even with that aspect that the plot begins to make sense, and then it's not even really an allusion to love but to family politics IF that's the intended narrative (which it probably would have been taken as at the time).

Then again, I've never read that synopsis.

[Anonymous No.21982344]

>>21982288
>and Juliet
Have you ever read Gormengast? Fuscia is a kind of a parody of Juliet, I guess in some ways, but Juliet is just that; an unbearable girl. There's nothing she really does.

[Anonymous No.21982401]

>>21982336
>Well that's just window dressing really.
Literature is philosophy with window dressing

>they have bad reasons for doing what they do (although bad plot)
It's based on a folk tale that was supposedly a somewhat true story iirc?

>the animosity between their families doesn't make any sense although that's needed to find an excuse why they weren't betrothed as infants (which would've been the common thing to do to force two families to make peace).
Blood feuds were incredibly common.

>It'sonly even with that aspect that the plot begins to make sense, and then it's not even really an allusion to love but to family politics IF that's the intended narrative (which it probably would have been taken as at the time).
It's about love and an anti-revenge story. In modern, sanitized versions love is seen as beautiful and idealistic whereas originally it was about how horrible and stupid love and especially young love is. Despite that this foolish love is the key to unraveling the equally foolish hate of the two families. Feuds were and are common places and the metaphor extends to any interpersonal hate and desire for revenge. Ultimately, all the characters are getting buffeted around by various ideas of duties to love and duties to hate and a parallel is drawn between the two as reciprocal illnesses of the mind.

[Anonymous No.21982408]

>>21982344
>Have you ever read Gormengast?
I've read the author but not that book. I find him reaaaally dull.

>Fuscia is a kind of a parody of Juliet, I guess in some ways, but Juliet is just that; an unbearable girl. There's nothing she really does.
Well that's kinda the idea, at least in the beginning. At the start she's a perfect little girl that completely goes along with her family's terrible nature but then because of her passion becomes rebellious and even starts back talking her father (this is unthinkable for a woman at the time).

[Anonymous No.21982486]

>>21982401
>whereas originally it was about how horrible and stupid love and especially young love is.
> and a parallel is drawn between the two as reciprocal illnesses of the mind

Yes these are good points, I'd quite forgotten the former. I suppose I'm going to try and reread the main bits and imagine Juliet being played by a young Man with a squeaky voice and with two large cabbages stuffed down his dress and see how that takes me, for a comedic thing.

>>21982408
Ah but if we're comparing her to Fusky then even Fuskys rebellion is a put-on, for being so deeply engrossed in her own narcissism. I see no difference there; Fuscia would as easily take her own life to be dramatic, if anything it would make her more shallow because of it.

[Anonymous No.21982567]

>>21982486
>Ah but if we're comparing her to Fusky then even Fuskys rebellion is a put-on, for being so deeply engrossed in her own narcissism.
But if she's so narcissistic then why would she be so pleasant and obedient in the beginning? Her father doesn't want her to marry but her mother goes against her father's wishes and basically forces her daughter to consent to a marriage to a man she's never met. Lady C ONLY wants this marriage to increase her own status and power and throughout the exchange it's heavily implied that they don't even have that great of a relationship to begin with but at the slight provocation Juliet accepts despite being far younger than what she and her father believes is an acceptable age. Her naive and obediently feminine nature and slavish acceptance of duty allows her to be manipulated by those around her which is lost, as I understand it, with this fuscia character. This also mirrors in inverse the tragic character arc of Romeo. Romeo from the beginning can't give about the feud or any of that nonsense. He's a complete romantic from the beginning and wants to forget all of his filial duties to pursue love. However, after Tybalt kills mercrutio he thinks he thinks, wrongly, that his romanticism was wrong and he needed to be more attentive to his familial duty. This one slip back into revenge and duty is ultimately what causes their deaths.

[Anonymous No.21982888]

>>21981734
While I don't despiste him as much as you do, I agree he's a worse writer than say, Chaucer, who's far more deserving of the "foundational national author" spot, but Chaucer was also a catholic and we all know anglos couldn't live idolizing a dirty papist.
I'm not sure how you should go about finding this but there are mentions out there of Shakespeare's esteem being raised to where it is today during victorian times, I'm 100% sure that if any such study exists, it will eventually conclude that this increase in how he was viewed has to do with his ALLEGED protestantism, because apparently the man wasn't that fond of the CoE either (because of course, having some wit and imagination in him, this sort of dreary northern religion must have hurt him to his innermost being).
Also keep in mind there's a lot of seethe involved in angloids realizing they'll never have a Dante or Cervantes, so they came up with the easiest one they could find.

[Anonymous No.21982941]

>>21981734
>been dead for 400+ years
>I don't understand why people pretend to like him
>400 more years pass and Picard is still reciting it
>your opinions are discarded

[Anonymous No.21982995]

>>21982888
>as much
I just think it's a bit boring, in light of the subsequent 300 years of theatre (arguably not a lot of it survives); but really it's the person who believes Shakespeare is the beginning and end of theatre; whilst being aware of nothing at all else. I get the impression that the Shakespeare fetish is ... as you say here,
> the "foundational national author"
>there are mentions out there of Shakespeare's esteem being raised to where it is today during victorian times,
sort of artificially hoisted up because the more interesting stuff contained more relevant or deeper subject matter which was embarrassing to the stuffy attitudes of the later 1800's folks.

Sort how nothing survives of the Roman Atellan Farce or Menippean Satires, except that we know they were wildly popular until they were banned. Same thing can be recalled of the more engaging theatre in the 1700's, and its disappearance.

>Also keep in mind there's a lot of seethe involved in angloids realizing they'll never have a Dante or Cervantes, so they came up with the easiest one they could find.
Ha, true. Although we have David Garrick.

>>21982941
>Picard
and speaking of David Garrick.

My overall point is that the vigor of theatre is lost to this dusty old regurgitation of nothingness.

>why people pretend to like him
Well it certainly is a pretense; if you're only aware of one particular kind of biscuit you can't claim to have any experience in biscuits. I suggest that the wodge of dried bread dough they hold up as being 'the best biscuit ever' is not the best biscuit ever.

>>21982567
>But if she's so narcissistic then why would she be so pleasant and obedient in the beginning?
It's a put-on; an act; a pretense, she mimics what she thinks she ought be perceived as an tailors her movements and utterances to convey a certain image that she's trying to pass herself off as being.

But .. okay, that's not really Juliet. Or... is it? Was Peake in fact really really really right about it..? I don't know lol

[Anonymous No.21983002]

>>21981734

[Anonymous No.21983012]

>>21981734
I like how the one approved play is the gay war propaganda

[Anonymous No.21983020]

>>21983012
YOU SIR WILL HOLD YOUR MANHOOD CHEAP

[Anonymous No.21983086]

>>21982995
But like
Not everyone is a biscuit eater
So I can bust out a sonnet from the 151 and people will be like oh yeah poetry that's cool
And it gets the point across for the medium
And that is what it means to master an art

[Anonymous No.21983168]

>>21983086
No, no, no.

They are claiming to be all about the biscuits (they claim to be fine appreciators of the theatre) when pushed on this they reveal to only be aware of one biscuit (only being aware of one specific theatre-thing).

You could say that they "know what a theatre is like," from being aware of this, but that hardly conveys the medium anyone than.. listening to one song in your life gives you an even near partial awareness of the 10,000 genres 'of' music, for instance.

[Anonymous No.21983198]

>>21983168
Yeah but you're forgetting that people really do believe in the things they say.
Some people spend their whole life studying economics and would react the same way you are now if you told them we should set taxes the highest for the ultra rich.
Because you only understand one facet of the tax system, your bracket.
This is an analogy demonstrating your relative lack of knowledge in the financial system compared to someone that has lived it for many years.
Of course, to you, the discrepancies are obvious but to that same economist they will tout Shakespeare and continue on
Because Shakespeare is reliably the poster child of the fiber aspects of literature

[Anonymous No.21983277]

>>21983198
Hm. Would you say, then, that it is not unlike the discarded can of soup being proclaimed as High Art?