Thread: What- no Shakespeare?

I haven't seen a thread about Shakespeare in the poetry section (if I'm wrong I'm sorry). I am not a native english speaker, and yet one of the things I love about english is his poems.
How about you?

When my love swears that she is made of truth,
I do believe her though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutored youth,
Unlearned in the world's false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false-speaking tongue:
On both sides thus is simple truth suppressed:
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
O! love's best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love, loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her, and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flattered be.


I love this one because it just so true and accurate! Try to explain all that in rational terms...

This one is actually a sonnet, as you may already know. Or is it?

ROMEO [To JULIET.]
93 If I profane with my unworthiest hand
94 This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this:
95 My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
96 To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss. JULIET
97 Good pilgrim, you do wrong your hand too much,
98 Which mannerly devotion shows in this;
99 For saints have hands that pilgrims' hands do touch,
100 And palm to palm is holy palmers' kiss.
ROMEO
101 Have not saints lips, and holy palmers too?
JULIET
102 Ay, pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer.
ROMEO
103 O, then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do;
104 They pray — grant thou, lest faith turn to despair.

"She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

All hail Macbeth!

But as far as Sonnets are concerned, my favorite is 130.

MIR: Sweet lord, you play me false.
FERD: No, my dear'st love,
I would not for the world.
MIR: Yes, for a score of kingdoms you should wrangle,
And I would call it, fair play.
ALONSO: If this prove
A vision of the Island, one dear son
Shall I twice lose.
The Tempest. Act iv. Sc. 1

*sigh* How DID he do it...

I think that William Shakespeare is one of the most overrated authors in the history or literature.

The fact is, had he lived today, he'd probably be nothing. The reason for his major recognition is that there weren't that many options when he was alive. When you have no market for literature and then out of the blue, you get this prolific playwright pumping out dozens of plays, he's bound to find success.

Maybe I'm just bitter because Shakespeare got away with a lot just because he set the precedent. I once had this argument with an English teacher of mine - I had submitted a paper on Shakespeare but had made up most of the words. When I got it back with a "please see me" and a "what is this?" written in red ink, I tried to use the "well, he made up his own words, why can't I?" argument. It didn't work.

Originally Posted by Just Me

The fact is, had he lived today, he'd probably be nothing. The reason for his major recognition is that there weren't that many options when he was alive. When you have no market for literature and then out of the blue, you get this prolific playwright pumping out dozens of plays, he's bound to find success.
.

Considering most of his plays were published post-humorously, I fail to see how he pumped out dozens of them.

Of course, you're probably one of those Marlowe types. And if that's the case, if Marlowe had more success, you'd be saying the same thing about him.

The reason Shakespeare was a success was because he was a literary genius. Nothing less.

The fact is if he wrote today, he'd do with our language what he did with it in the first place... Paved the way for modern English. Had he written today, he'd certainly transcend the boundaries.

Your argument seems to stem from him making up words, so why not blame Chaucer instead? He invented far more words than Shakespeare, and Chaucer was a major source of inspiration.

shakespeare was very good.................

but he is also very overrated.

Dont get me wrong, alot of his stuff is very damn good and i dont think you canreally say he's crap even if you dont like the guy as you have to recognise the effect hes had on literature.
But that still doesnt stop him from being overrated. Alot of other playwrights out there and through the ages have not recieved as much recognition or praise and yet their work stamnds them in as fine a stead.

As for this belief that shakespeare is the greatest author/playwright/guy that ever put pen to paper in english history.........
WHAT?

Come on man, charles dickens, tolkien, these guys had just as big an effect, tolkien even created his very own world, languages and cultures and (despite the stigma fantasy recieves now, alot of it unjust) wrote some simply amazing pieces of literature.

So yes shakespeares good........

but shakespeare aint god.

I think Shakespeare is important, but I just find it overly boring that we must study a whole bunch about him. Okay, he helped out language, but that's all I need to know really. One play i can handle, two I can manage but anymore and I just hate the guy.

This is probobly why I love the Blackadder episode when he meets Shakespeare and hits him, muttering 'thats for all the school children you'll pain in 350 years'.

Or something along the lines

I appreciate Shakespeare. Writing in blank verse and meter is hard enough for just one sonnet, let alone an entire book. He also went fairly in-depth with his characters, which is a nice thing; they had personalities and characteristics, not just a random appearance.

I enjoy the majority of his sonnets, as well as Romeo and Juliet. Hamlet kinda makes me want to jump off a bridge, but that's because of the intensive torture that came with reading that book for an AP class (four three hour plus moves, the entire book twice over, a bijillion plus projects over it, and a ten page paper about it; if it weren't for those, I might like the book).

If it wasn't for Shakespeare, we would today be speaking in a far different type of "English", and he basically brought about the evolution of language.

King Lear has to be one of the best plays ever penned. The sheer depth in it, the way that a typically Jacobean audience would have seen it and the way a modern critic's view would differ SO much from then, it's astounding. Shakespeare was far far beyond his time, incredibly advanced. He was a literary genius, far from being over-rated. In fact, the reverse is true. He was paid next to nothing for his work whilst alive, and whilst he penned many many plays most were never seen on stage during the course of his life.

I think the problem with Shakespeare is that they attempt to teach it to school children. 15 and 16 year olds are not interested in blank verse and the evolution of language. The themes presented in Shakespeare's work are too complicated to be fully understood by teenagers. This is not the case for all, as I began studying Shakespeare at 15 and fell in love with his work almost instantly. However, I feel that most kids in the modern age see his work to be something of a chore to read. The other problem is, unless you choose to study English further, or personally read up on him, the most you'll ever see of William is Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice and possibly Othello or Hamlet, all of which are good but nowhere near the level of utter brilliance as some of this other works.

Originally Posted by LyricalMystery

I think the problem with Shakespeare is that they attempt to teach it to school children. 15 and 16 year olds are not interested in blank verse and the evolution of language. The themes presented in Shakespeare's work are too complicated to be fully understood by teenagers.

HEY! I started reading him at, oh jeez, 11. Started with the heavy stuff too, King Lear, MacBeth, and Hamlet. Loved it, absolutely loved it.

However, as I've read more scholarly articles about the sources of Shakespeare's plays, he ripped off quite a bit. Maybe he changed the place name or a couple of character names. I'm not saying all of the plays were like that, but some were.

Has anyone seen the Reduced Shakespeare Company? That is a hilarious take on the works.

He is the reason I love words.......I started reading his words in elementary school and fell deeply in love...It's a love affair for a lifetime....Okay I've cheated on him by reading others as well but I always come back home to him... Slight humor there but he is my favorite hands down....Brilliantly commands the English language......

Shakespeare is the best I've read. He is the finest playwright you're ever likely to read. The only playwright who comes close to Shakespeare for the impact he's had is Sophocles. Sophocles is my other big favourite. I've read a lot of good ones but you cannot beat Shakespeare. His language, awareness of phonics, drama, the monologue and sililoquy etc is all just stunning.

His poetry isn't too shabby either.

I doubt Will has a account here.

I love seeing the plays, but I don't like reading Shakespeare at all. The emotion and nuance provided by the actors -- good ones, of course -- makes all the difference.