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

[deadguynotyetburied]

Oh sorry, thanks for the correction.

See, that wasn't supposed to be a correction. That was supposed to be an intriguing update with vital information you've felt missing from your life since your earliest childhood. But I don't think they actually had words for that in Old English.

 

[CuddlyCombine]

I love it when a plan comes together posts stray this far from the original topic. I've inserted corrections in italics.
** = inserted correction
"" = existing mistake

I would have to say you are too strict*,* to the point *where* you are seeing problems that aren't there. There is absolutely nothing wrong or offensive about what I said"," that you put in bold. (that's a comma splice) I have written sentences like that in the past on my writing assignments and papers"," (splice) 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.

The only problems conversational writing can have are misspellings and grammatical issues*;* in CJ's reply, there are none.

(inserted semicolon to prevent run-on, removed excess modifiers)

Well, you seem to have two options, at least concerning your schooling; ask for your money back or verify the credentials of your professors, haha.

I'll admit that I'm being hard on you, but don't take it too hard. Grammar is truly a *****, and it's not like anything we say on the Internet really matters.

 

[zutagonecver]

I remember thanking Krishna when we were reading Sheakspeare in high school. Since it was, you know, actualy interesting. Western literature was a breath of fresh air in literature class. Im from Lithuania and 90 % of what we were forced to read were 19/20 century love stories/emo whining fests about the "cruelty" of life whith christian overtones. God I fucking hate those. Speaking of overated literature, the Illiad is shit! Monument to literature my ass. The pacing is horrible, the characters are stupid, the Gods act like 14 year old spoiled suburban kids. At one point, the author spends 30 pages introducing a bajillion characters we never hear about again later in the book. I dont care how long ago it was written. It sucks period.

 

[The Diabolical Biz]

2 words, iambic pentameter.

I've never really been an advocate of "This", but here it seems appropriate, so here goes: This.

Seriously, it is hard to write that shit, and Shakespeare did that for plays! I mean, whole plays!

Utterly Brilliant!

 

[ajemas]

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?

You seem to have an inherent fear of turning into "them", which leads me to believe that you are so dead set on disliking William Shakespeare that nothing that I can say will change your mind. Seeing as this is a very long thread already, I'm going to leave out most of the typical arguments used to argue for Shakespeare's validity.
One thing that I will say is that he revolutionized the English language. He coined so many different expressions and terms, moreso than any other English speaking person that ever lived. In fact, take a look at this list (http://www.cracked.com/article_15859_10-words-phrases-you-wont-believe-shakespeare-invented.html) for some of the high points, or this one for some other examples (http://www.overgrownpath.com/2007/04/on-quoting-shakespeare.html).
(Please forgive me, I do not know how to place links into the text.)
Beyond this, the further that you read into his works, the more and more interesting and entertaining things you will find in the writing. If you take one thing out of this post, it is to open your mind to the possibility of his skill as a writer. If you are dead set on disliking the man's work, then you will never understand what makes him so great. Take a look at the other arguments on this page and really try to understand where they are coming from.

 

[wolf92]

Your lack of grammar, good sir, combined with your frequent misspellings and deduced lack of intelligence, has led me to believe that you are a ninny! A twit! In other words, a quite silly man that I shall spend no more time talking to. Good day, sir!

I agree with this fin gentlemen. Your butchery of the English language is quite atrocious. I say good day to you as well!

 

[Flight]

I like him quite well, really. He was a revolutionary writer, who invented a number of plot elements and completely changed the English language.

 

[Ickorus]

I personally don't like his work but I can understand why others do.

I just wish they didn't force kids to study it at school, 2 years of Shakespeare is not what I call fun.

I mean the thing is, I read loads of books, I read books when I was at school and i'd even sometimes read one of my books in class. The teacher spotted me reading once and asked me why I do so bad in class when I obviously read a lot and I told her quiet bluntly that I find shakespeare to be boring and that it takes too long to get anywhere. (Quiet ironic considering my favourite author is often criticized for having a slower style of writing)

They should let kids do Tolkien or Terry Pratchett instead.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

I HATE IT! I COR UNDERSTAND THE CRAP! I DON'T COME FROM THOSE TIMES AND COMEDY OF ERRORS WASN'T COMEDY TO ME! I HATE IT! BLARG! Anyway my English teacher hated Shakespeare as well and was just as bored as us when she was reading it. Never the less I can't say he wasn't a good writer, I just don't like the language and the things the stories go on about it seems confusing to me. It's like me not liking some pop musicians but I can't knock some of them for knowing how to play Piano or some other kind of instrument as long as it isn't just three chords.

 

[Sun Flash]

He's good for passing English. And I suppose he was probably funnier back in the day, when people actually spoke like that. According to my English teacher, the first half of Romeo and Juliet is pretty much the 16th century "Carry on Loving".

 

[interspark]

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?

You seem to have an inherent fear of turning into "them", which leads me to believe that you are so dead set on disliking William Shakespeare that nothing that I can say will change your mind. Seeing as this is a very long thread already, I'm going to leave out most of the typical arguments used to argue for Shakespeare's validity.
One thing that I will say is that he revolutionized the English language. He coined so many different expressions and terms, moreso than any other English speaking person that ever lived. In fact, take a look at this list (http://www.cracked.com/article_15859_10-words-phrases-you-wont-believe-shakespeare-invented.html) for some of the high points, or this one for some other examples (http://www.overgrownpath.com/2007/04/on-quoting-shakespeare.html).
(Please forgive me, I do not know how to place links into the text.)
Beyond this, the further that you read into his works, the more and more interesting and entertaining things you will find in the writing. If you take one thing out of this post, it is to open your mind to the possibility of his skill as a writer. If you are dead set on disliking the man's work, then you will never understand what makes him so great. Take a look at the other arguments on this page and really try to understand where they are coming from.

oh i understand completely, im sure the english language was quite different before such a popular author came along, but that doesnt meen we have to enjoy his works now, so very long later, the acter Thesbus revolutionised acting, that doesnt meen all his plays were any good!

 

[Zombus]

I really didn't like Shakepeare back in highschool, but now when I think back, I realize that why he is so famous and his works are so good is because anyone now can read his work and get all of it. All of the emotion, the characters and stories are so pure that they will likely be just as defining over nine thousand years into the future as they are today and were back in Victorian England.

 

[CplDustov]

OP, it's hard to take your criticism of Shakespeare seriously, considering your grammar and spelling. Simply take it from me that Shakespeare has affected the English language in ways you cannot begin to imagine. He invented words that we use to this day, he wrote plays that are still selling out venues all over the world. Hell, one man gave us King Lear, Macbeth, Romeo And Juliet, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, and for that he deserves a medal. Not everything he did was amazing of course (I could do without Measure For Measure, personally speaking), but he is regarded around the world as one of the powerhouses of English literature.

Although not really a fan of his works personally I have to agree with a lot of what you say. As somone said previously, tastes have evolved/changed and I find it harder to get into his plays. However, looking at The Lion King, which I have seen it compared to Hamlet, it shares many things in common with Shakespeare's play and is still one of my all time favourite films.
So there is certainly something to it.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I don't know, maybe it's how he consistently, easily wrote in iambic pentameter, a meter which is fucking hard to achieve? Maybe it's the way he had all tragedies, comedies, and histories, all almost effortlessly rolled out? Maybe it's that his characters have development throughout the span of the usual few acts? Maybe it's the well developed use of dramatic irony, allowing characters misfortunes to be predicted, in that "Ohhhh, he's gonna get it!" kind of way? Maybe it's that the man was an absolutely unparalleled wordsmith, putting to ink for the first time hundreds of words that are commonplace today that were never before seen in literature, such as Bubble, Critic, Addiction, Outbreak, Leapfrog, Mountaineer, dialogue, dislocate, torture, unmitigated, assassination, and worthless.

Oh, no, wait, it's all of those things combined! Silly me, forgetting something like that. And yeah, he's not the best, and the gods alone know what happened to the ending of Love's Labor's Lost, but he is pretty damn good when you can understand exactly what he's writing, which, judging from your lack of knowledge of most of his works, I would say is something you don't do.

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

I find him boring.

also...

Interspark!

one day we shall duel, you annoying little tapeworm of a person!

 

[Citrus]

He was brilliant, possibly the greatest writer in the English language, but still ridiculously overrated. I'll never fathom how some people can dedicate their lives to studying his plays.

 

[UberNoodle]

Is this thread populated by Netizens affraid of long passages of text without pictures?

 

[UberNoodle]

He was brilliant, possibly the greatest writer in the English language, but still ridiculously overrated. I'll never fathom how some people can dedicate their lives to studying his plays.

I hope you can see how your use of 'overrated' doesn't really fit there. He is possibly the 'greatest writer' in the language but 'rediculously overrated'?! From that, what should I then infer YOU are, because you clearly represent an incredible authority on the matter.

 

[Citrus]

He was brilliant, possibly the greatest writer in the English language, but still ridiculously overrated. I'll never fathom how some people can dedicate their lives to studying his plays.

I hope you can see how your use of 'overrated' doesn't really fit there. He is possibly the 'greatest writer' in the language but 'rediculously overrated'?! From that, what should I then infer YOU are, because you clearly represent an incredible authority on the matter.

I'd say he is "possibly the greatest writer" not entirely because of his works, but because of his contributions to the English language in general (for example, all the words he invented). His plays themselves are overrated, in my opinion. People spend countless hours analyzing them and finding depth in them that Shakespeare almost certainly did not intend. You can be sure that almost every English-speaking University in the world has a course dedicated entirely to analyzing Shakespeare's works. Basically, I just think people give him too much credit as far as his plays go. So that's how I consider him overrated. I guess I should have clarified.

As for me being the overrated one... Well, as far as I know, I'm not rated at all, thanks.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

I love it when a plan comes together posts stray this far from the original topic. I've inserted corrections in italics.
** = inserted correction
"" = existing mistake

I would have to say you are too strict*,* to the point *where* you are seeing problems that aren't there. There is absolutely nothing wrong or offensive about what I said"," that you put in bold. (that's a comma splice) I have written sentences like that in the past on my writing assignments and papers"," (splice) 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.

The only problems conversational writing can have are misspellings and grammatical issues*;* in CJ's reply, there are none.

(inserted semicolon to prevent run-on, removed excess modifiers)

Well, you seem to have two options, at least concerning your schooling; ask for your money back or verify the credentials of your professors, haha.

I'll admit that I'm being hard on you, but don't take it too hard. Grammar is truly a *****, and it's not like anything we say on the Internet really matters.

Your first correction of adding the comma and the "where", it is purely opinion/extra. The sentence perfectly stands alone on its own. It is one of those things where the professor would say, "If you feel you need something there, put it there, if not, then don't because it is extra stuff that really isn't needed."

Next, the comma splice that you say is in the next sentence is not a comma splice. In that sentence I make a statement and then I add on the qualifier that shows what part I am talking about. The comma is fine, it is a breath point in the sentence.

The second so called comma splice is fine as well. There is the grouping of "assignments and papers" and then there is the qualifier that explains the point of the first part involving the grouping. The two parts can't be crammed together, the comma has to be there, because if it wasn't, there would be the awkward "and and" moment that is a big problem with a lot of student writings.

Lastly, the final part where you add the semicolon in the place of the comma, in the new age of grammar, it is purely opinion and aesthetics. The semicolon is going the way of the dinosaur in the sense of it being a actual integral part of grammar. Most of my professors tell me to avoid using semicolons altogether, they say, "If you really feel you need a separation mark, just put a comma." In the new age of grammar, people have realized that the semicolon and the comma do the exact same thing, they separate thoughts and types of clauses, but we have evolved to realize that we don't need a special different separator mark to tell us what kind of thought or clause is the one that comes next.

The problem isn't my professors, it is that your professors haven't moved on. They are using an outdated playbook. My professors constantly tell me that grammar isn't something that is set in stone. Grammar evolves and changes to suit the needs of the users, if something in grammar starts to become confusing and unexpected to the new generations, those generations will be the ones to change the grammar of the language.

I would recommend that you take some kind of class like one I took called History of the English Language. The class started us off learning to write and speak Old English and continued on with the same regimen for Middle and Modern English. If you take a class like that, you will learn that grammar and spelling change to fit the changes of society.

Anything you comment after this that tries to contradict what I have said, is a mute point because you will be using knowledge from the old playbook. Find some new professors that can change as grammar changes.