Poll: What is the Big Deal With Bloody Shakespeare?!?!

[Webb5432]

People read Shakespeare not for the plays, but for the literary devuces (satire, puns, metaphors, etc.). I personally never understood the plays to the full extent, but I did learn about the literary devices from them.

So, don't worry. I never really liked him, either. But, if you pay attention, you will notice little tricks and details that are still in use today. In Macbeth, for example, the witches proclaim that Macbeth would never be destroyed until Burnham wood reaches the walls, and he will never be killed by a man born from a woman.

Burnham wood is miles away from the castle walls, and everyone comes from their mother's womb (other than mystical rebirth or something ludicrous. You get the idea).

Now, get this. The enemy army cuts the trees from Burnham wood to hide their vast number of soldiers. The trees of Burnham wood reach the castle gates. And then, Macbeth's greatest enemy, Macduff, lets Macbeth in on the fact that he was "from his mother's womb untimely ripped". AKA C-Section. Therefore, Macduff wasn't ever technically 'born'.

Reading literature from the past is a grueling process, but let it be a reminder to how far we've come. It's inspirational and a mark of literary history. You don't have to like it (most don't), but it doesn't hurt to respect it. To make it easier for you, I was in an advanced English class and I still don't like Shakespeare. I'd take pulp sci-fi or thrillers any day.

 

[Layz92]

You not being able to remember the names of the very people you claim to have had such an enormous impact kind of damages your argument. And a story being interesting doesn't necessarily mean it will have more of an impact over history than a less interesting one.

That said, I would agree that a lot of old myths like that of Theseus are more imaginative than Shakespeare's plots. However, I'm fairly certain that myths like that weren't the product of a single writer, but rather were told and re-told, being constantly reinterpreted and contributed to. In this way they're more the product of a culture than an individual.

To be fair the original writers were in the BCs and their names were lost to antiquity before people became interested in history again. And the greeks and romans wrote great tragedies and social satire that kicked off the whole art that Shakespeare used. Shakespeare's plots can probably be traced back to earlier works but the older works probably no longer exist. I just find it extremely difficult to believe one man can be credited with inventing modern creative writing.

Just checked some of my textbooks and the famous greeks were the likes of Sophocles and Euripides.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I would have found his stuff more interesting if I could understand old English. I mean, there's no doubt that he's an amazing writer, and the stuff he wrote was especially ground breaking for his time, but there is so much I miss out on. I remember reading books by him that had a lot of comedic moments that made fun of the politics, or society at the time, that I just didn't get because I didn't live in his time, and it's not as funny when it's explained to you.

But I appreciate and respect the man for what he did, he was a brilliant man, and without him the English language wouldn't be anything like it was today. And overall, I did enjoy the work we read in class.

I really wish we read some more modern stuff in English class, stuff that people can easily relate to. I mean, it's important to know about Shakespeare, but how can you expect to get kids interested in reading when you are teaching them stuff that's difficult for them to enjoy? Start off with some of the modern stuff to really show them how great reading can be, and then go back and give them the history, when they already enjoy reading and then can appreciate Shakespeare's works easier.

 

[deadguynotyetburied]

I would have found his stuff more interesting if I could understand old English.

Again, Shakespeare did not write in Old English. Beowulf (written some time around 1000 AD) was recorded in Old English. Chaucer (1343-1400) wrote in Middle English. Shakespeare wrote in Modern English. Granted, it's Early Modern, but it is Modern English. Using the most approximate letterings from modern English, the below is a sample of Old English. I last read this 25 years ago, however, so there may be some misspellings.

Faeder Ure,
Thu the eart on heovonum,
Si thine nama gehalgod.
Tobecume thine riche.
Gewurthe thine wila on eorthan swa swa on heovonum.
Urne gedagwamlican hlaf syle us todaeg.
Forgif us ure giltas swa swa we forgifath urem giltendum.
Ne ylad thu us on constnunge, ac alys us of yvil.
Sothlice.

 

[zhoominator]

I haven't seen too much of his stuff but I loved Othello, Julius Caesar and Romeo and Juliet. I got to play Iago when we did Othello in class, great fun.

 

[IzisviAziria]

Because of this, I say "Pretty Good".

so lemme get this straight... an author has the vast majority of his works frequently studied, read, discussed, and enjoyed 400 years after he writes them, and it only qualifies as "Pretty Good"?

I mean there's something to be said for having standards but that's just ridiculous.

 

[interspark]

This is by far the worst thread I've ever seen on The Escapist. Read a book you failure(s).

i do read books, but only GOOD ones!

Twilight and Eragon don't count

Although both of those series are heavily influenced by Shakespeare, so...

actually ive never read either of those (although ive heard good things about eragon) my favourite author is easily douglas adams (RIP)

 

[BrassButtons]

Uhhhh. do you know the ending of the Merchant of Venice?

Spoiler

right before Antonio can be killed by Shylock it is suddenly reveled that there was a loophole in the contract and that only a pound, no more no less, of flesh can be taken. Since it was impossible for him to do this, he was forced to surrender.

that sounds like a sudden, unexpected piece of good luck to me.

It's not a sudden piece of luck--you're given the exact wording of the contract waaaaay back at the beginning of the play. It was all right in front of your face, you just had to realize it. This isn't a Deus Ex Machina, though it might qualify as a Chekhov's Gun.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what CJ said. I will be graduating this fall with a four year degree in English Rhetoric and Writing. I would recommend taking some advanced writing, English, and literature classes before you tell someone that they have a flawed grasp of the language.

I am, which is why I'm incredulous here. If you're in the same boat, how do you explain the fiasco that is the following paragraph?

The main reason there is nothing wrong with what CJ said is that his writing is conversational. There is nothing wrong with conversational language, especially on the Internet in a forum. The only problems conversational writing can have are misspellings and grammatical issues, which in CJ's reply, there are none.

I've highlighted that which is most offensive. Then again, I'm willing to accept the fact that I'm too strict about this sort of stuff, lest we tumble into an endless cycle of insults and correction.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

when i was a kid id sit in class blocking out the noise of the teacher droning on about macbeth, subtly dreading the aweful truth that, statistically speaking, one day id probably turn into a boring sod like "them" and begin to actually like this crap too!

although here i am, approaching my 18th birthday and it seems i worried for nothing, i still think its all crap and shakespeare is still at the top of my "people to slap if i ever go back in time" list, but what about all the other escapist users? what do you think of shakespeare's works?

Obvious troll is obvious.

 

[Lineoutt]

I respect what he contributed but I don't enjoy reading what he wrote.

 

[TOGSolid]

I was hoping this would be about a new drink.

I am disappoint.

I respect what he contributed but I don't enjoy reading what he wrote.

^^^^This^^^^

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Again, Shakespeare did not write in Old English. Beowulf (written some time around 1000 AD) was recorded in Old English. Chaucer (1343-1400) wrote in Middle English. Shakespeare wrote in Modern English. Granted, it's Early Modern, but it is Modern English. Using the most approximate letterings from modern English, the below is a sample of Old English. I last read this 25 years ago, however, so there may be some misspellings.

Faeder Ure,
Thu the eart on heovonum,
Si thine nama gehalgod.
Tobecume thine riche.
Gewurthe thine wila on eorthan swa swa on heovonum.
Urne gedagwamlican hlaf syle us todaeg.
Forgif us ure giltas swa swa we forgifath urem giltendum.
Ne ylad thu us on constnunge, ac alys us of yvil.
Sothlice.

Oh sorry, thanks for the correction.

 

[BaronFelX]

http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/sidneyfinal.png

In general, he's severely overrated. Yes, his influence is considerable, there is no doubt of that. But literature has evolved a lot since Shakespeare, and an inordinate amount of time is spent with his material as compared to more relevant texts.

The comedies are actually pretty good, but they have two main problems. The first is that, in terms of writing, they're on par with particularly clever modern sitcoms. So, in a modern context, not that special. Also, jokes aren't funny when they have to be explained to you, and some of them are so esoteric at this point that there is no way a person born in the last 200 years could legitimately "get them."

Anyway, they're all better when you see them performed. Plays are boring as fuck to read, but good actors add an incredible amount to the story and understanding thereof.

Also, seriously, Romeo and Juliet? That play is terrible and only has one good character.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what CJ said. I will be graduating this fall with a four year degree in English Rhetoric and Writing. I would recommend taking some advanced writing, English, and literature classes before you tell someone that they have a flawed grasp of the language.

I am, which is why I'm incredulous here. If you're in the same boat, how do you explain the fiasco that is the following paragraph?

The main reason there is nothing wrong with what CJ said is that his writing is conversational. There is nothing wrong with conversational language, especially on the Internet in a forum. The only problems conversational writing can have are misspellings and grammatical issues, which in CJ's reply, there are none.

I've highlighted that which is most offensive. Then again, I'm willing to accept the fact that I'm too strict about this sort of stuff, lest we tumble into an endless cycle of insults and correction.

I would have to say you are too strict to the point you are seeing problems that aren't there. There is absolutely nothing wrong or offensive about what I said, that you put in bold. I have written sentences like that in the past on my writing assignments and papers, and haven't received one red mark. Since I have had some insanely obsessive professors that are highly strict on issues of grammar, I feel safe in saying that I am correct on this whole matter.

 

[Aiden_the-Joker1]

Modern people don't tend to bother with Shakespeare as his story's plots aren't particularly good(Two people falling in love) and because the language is slightly off so lots of people don't even know what is happening and get bored and give up. However the main reason that Shakespeare is so good is because of the underlying messages and that if you read enough into them there can be many. Romeo and Juliet, that true love can never be and will be resigned to failure. Which was even more true back then with arranged marriages and class differences.

 

[Keava]

Apparently he's written comedy. I've never laughed once. Instead of reading some interesting material, my school made us read fucking Much Ado About Nothing, so we spend a sizeable chunk of time trying to translate the old English.

We could have read Fight Club, or Jumper. Something marginally interesting. And legible.

Thats a fucking good idea. And by that I mean I love both the movies and I think I will find the books.

See the things is neither of those books had any impact on culture whatsoever. They are a brief lecture you can bring to beach or when you are taking a dump. They are irrelevant, bland and unoriginal from the literatures point of view.
In school you are supposed to learn about things that either marked their times as a perfect examples of mentality and style of given era, or actually contributed to the future of literature.

Sure for many of you, today most of the 'classic' works mean nothing, you treat them as any other fiction, not really bothering with why's and how's, and compared to the dynamic, action oriented texts of modern times they just seem slow, and unimaginative. But without those 'boring, old scribblings' you maybe wouldn't have all those books, movies or even games you enjoy these days.

 

[DustyDrB]

I only like Macbeth and Hamlet. Twelfth Night is one of the worst things I've ever read. That ending is so sloppy and relies so much on deus ex machina. I understand his influence, but hate the majority of his work. The thing is, I don't know how much of my problems can be attributed to contextual things like how language was used then compare to now, standards for comedy, cultural allusions to the time I may miss, etc. So I can say I don't enjoy most of Shakespeare's work, but I can't say it's bad.