Greatness (all remotely relevant usages):
. . .
6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate.
8. Superior in quality or character; noble
9. Powerful; influential

Source: American Heritage Dictionary

I don't like Shakespeare's stuff, personally. I find some of the stories to be allr ight but the language is difficult enough for me to wade through to be a put off and it is not of my time.

But of course he's great! Overrated? His work has survived nearly half a millenium. He managed to bring together noble and commoner alike to enjoy the same tales. He has influenced literature and art in the intervening centuries. He is still an inspiration to modern writers and playwrights.

quote:

---

However, if someone wrote like him today, he would probably be labeled pretentious.

---

This distrubed me most of all. You can't make this comparison. It just doesn't work. If someone wrote like him today...you mean in the same language? He wrote in a perfectly good style for the people of his day. I may find his language a bit thick to get through today, but had I been born then I would not have had any problems. The language has evolved. Wrote like him today? You mean in a common, if slightly elevated and poetic manner? Hmmm..>I can't think of any fantasy writers who do that! Or are you suggesting that someone write in the style of English centuries ago? But Shakespeare did not do that, or he would have been writing in Old English as opposed to Middle English.

As for his contribution to literature, theatre, the arts, the English language, history, I don't think it is possible to over-rate him. Was he the greatest playwright of his time? Well, there are records from his time of people who thought not, but for the most part he enjoyed favour with both the lower and upper classes. In fact King James was one of Shakespeare's patrons and Queen Elizabeth had The Merry Wives of Windsor written at her request.

I think that it is possible to overrate Shakespeare, but I have observed a lot more people that underrate him, usually because they don't have a firm command of the English language despite having grown up speaking it. Merry Wives...that's a good one. Ran is also a pretty cool movie, though I like King Lear better (even though that creepy woman gives Edmund a run for his money as the villian).

I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to disturb anyone. I guess, writers up to and including Tolkien are allowed to do things that are great, but now are frowned upon.

I think when the average people thinks of Shakespeare nowadays, the first things they think of is melodrama. Perhaps, it is not the Bard, but actors who have overdone thier parts.

The fundamentals of the fiction we write are all found within his writings. You don't have to like all of his stuff, but you can't deny the solid foundation he laid for us to build upon.

No, I don't think this means he isn't the greatest playwright who ever wrote in English.

You see, a lot of people seem to think that he is more than that, that he wrote the greatest literature ever written, that he was this truly original genius who suddenly burst onto the scene and gave all these wonderful plays to the world, that every word he wrote was golden and that nobody has truly innovated since him.

That's what I think is overrating him. Yes, he wrote a lot of great plays. Some of the best plays ever written. But there are plenty of works that surpass them in other fields, I think. And of course his stories weren't originals, coming out of nowhere to amaze the public. Romeo and Juliet wasn't the first romantic tragedy. In fact, my understanding is that it was simply a new production in English of a play that was already popular in Italy (probably written by Luigi da Porto, according to one source I have). Many others of Shakespeare's plays have similar sources.

quote:

---

I think that it is possible to overrate Shakespeare, but I have observed a lot more people that underrate him, usually because they don't have a firm command of the English language despite having grown up speaking it.

---

Before I started reading Shakespeare, most of what I had heard is that he is hard to read and hard to understand. It made me wonder how his works could survive for hundreds of years and continue to be performed if they were so awful.

So I resolved to find out.

When I was in grade 9 (last year of junior high), we studied a small passage from Romeo and Juliet. I actually enjoyed it, though most of my classmates bemoaned the experience. My Language Arts teacher also did a brief performance of the first scene of Richard III. Finally in high school we got to study a few plays (R&J-grade 10, Macbeth-grade 11, Hamlet-grade 12). I was hooked.

I managed to watch a Stratford, Ontario, production of R&J on television, and later that same year I saw Kenneth Branagh in Henry V (I managed to find a copy of it and it was the first time I read Shakespeare simply because I wanted to).

But what I'm mainly talking about is the worshiping of his Holy Shakespeare that goes on amoungst English and drama teachers.

That's not to say Shakespeare wasn't a masterful playwright, but to say he's the best writer in the history of the English language is, perhaps, extreme. What criteria could you possibly use to determine that anyway?

For example, many people consider "Citizen Kane" to be the greatest movie ever made -- not because it did things better than they have been done since, but because so much of what has been done since has been influenced by "Citizen Kane."

Sure, there are probably more people who can knowingly quote Arnold Schwarzenegger than William Shakespeare, but consider the following from Bernard Levin:

quote:

---

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare "It's Greek to me", you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise - shy, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that is the long and short of it, if you belive that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surly you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinkin idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut, tut! for goodness' sake! what the dickens! but me no buts - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.

---

It was alright, but it was full of cliches.

I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity. He wrote for his audience. Playhouses in Elizabethan England had a massive turnover - think soap opera today.

Funny thing it that treating something with too great a reverence can ruin it. My husband doesn't like poetry - why? Because of the way he was taught English at school.

The point is that when such a vast disparity of opinion about the value of something exists generally, it really is meaningless to say it is "overrated" or "underrated". You could say of a specific person's opinion that it overrates or underrates Shakespeare, but it is meaningless to say that Shakespeare is overrated unless you mean that he is universally overrated, that everyone's opinion of his work is too high.

I will say that I think that ArCH definitely underrates Shakespeare. Perhaps not by a huge amount, since he does compare his plays to other great plays. But he is consistently making the comparison unfavorable to Shakespeare, as if Shakespeare's work belongs in a class below the top rank of playwrights.

quote:

---

I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity.

---

Actually, if it got more butts in the seats (or more accurately, more slobber on the stage), he did.

Shakespeare made movies to make money. The fact that it took grandiloquent language to do so is just one factor that goes into his overrating (anyone ever notice how the word grandiloquent is, in itself, grandiloquent?). People went to the theater to hear fancy language. That's why I think more modern playwrights are better. I don't blame Shakespeare for it, for all I know if he were around in the 50s and 60s he could have been a much greater playwright. But he wasn't.

quote:

---

I will say that I think that ArCH definitely underrates Shakespeare. Perhaps not by a huge amount, since he does compare his plays to other great plays. But he is consistently making the comparison unfavorable to Shakespeare, as if Shakespeare's work belongs in a class below the top rank of playwrights.

---

But you're not quite understanding my point. I like other playwrights BETTER than I like Shakespeare. I don't like him LESS. He's good. He's great. But I think others are better. I'm not trying to put anyone in any classes. Shakespeare is in the highest class, he's just not at the head of the class. At least IN MY OPINION.

quote:

---

quote:I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity.

Actually, if it got more butts in the seats (or more accurately, more slobber on the stage), he did.

---

I thought that's what I was saying. He wrote to attract an audience. I don't see anything wrong with that. The point that he did so and still produced plays and poetry that survives and is enjoyed to this day speaks volumes about his talent and skill as a writer.

So did Chaucer before him and Dickens afterwards. Dickens even changed the end of Great Expectations because of (ironicly) audience expectations.

An interesting question though - of writers working today whose work do you think will be performed/read/enjoyed 500 years from now? Or another - of writers working today who writes across such a broad range of genres (or is it that he defies genres)?

quote:

---

I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity.
Actually, if it got more butts in the seats..., he did.

---

quote:

---

The point that he did so and still produced plays and poetry that survives and is enjoyed to this day speaks volumes about his talent and skill as a writer.

---

But you're missing an important fact: People liked that kind of poetry. People had different standards back then. People came to the theater to hear fancy language and poetry, see a good fight scene, and according to good Three Stooges formula, to see rich and powerful people in a tragedy.

That's right! People LIKED seeing the Prince of Denmark die. Not because there was tragic irony to it. But because he was a prince. To them it was seeing the people who make them suffer, suffer. And we do it to this very day. Just go watch Trading Places, or Billy Madison, or Black Sheep. In fact, most comedies with former SNL cast members have some rich guy getting cut down to size.

quote:

---

An interesting question though - of writers working today whose work do you think will be performed/read/enjoyed 500 years from now? Or another - of writers working today who writes across such a broad range of genres (or is it that he defies genres)?

---

You can't really think that way anymore. The true question is: what old movie will still sell 500 years from now? Movies have changed the way we show appreciation for a good script.

Take the Sixth Sense. I don't think anyone will continue to make the Sixth Sense. There might be one or two remakes, but not anything to compare to the many productions of Shakespeare's plays.

Why? Becuase we have the masterpiece already. The Sixth Sense has been made, and any time someone wants to see it again, they can go out and buy the DVD.

So who do I think will have their movies still selling 500 years from now? Well, the Sixth Sense for one. Star Wars will never die, and I doubt Indian Jones will either. Saving Private Ryan will last a long time, as it is starting to become a tradition to play it on TV on D-Day and/or memorial day.

The movie to have this done first is It's a Wonderful Life, which will also never die. Citizen Kane (SP?) will still be around in 500 years, and so will the Marx Brothers, Three Stooges, Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

Then there's Mel Brooks. While History of the World Part I and Robin Hood: Men in Tights might fade away, can you imagine a world in which we let our children forget Young Frankenstien, Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs, or the Producers?

You really believe that the art of this generation is superior to all that came before and all that will come after.

I do not believe that any art is better or worse than any other art. I just happen to like some things more than others. That does not change their worth.

If you paid any attention at all, you'd know that I don't care WHEN something was made. If I really did only like things I consider modern, Arsenic and Old Lace, Mel Brooks, and Arthur Miller, Charlie Chaplin, buster Keaton, the Marx bros. and three stooges would not be things I like.

I don't like everything I listed (well, I like everything except for a lot of R&H), because the list wasn't of things I like it was a list of things that would last, and if you dissagree, you have no concept of what the populous treasures.

All art is equally worthy, but unequally appreciated? I can't believe you typed that (presumably) with a straight face. A Harlequin romance novel is "worth" as much as Hamlet? Every fragment on the F&F thread is "worth" as much as The Canterbury Tales?

In the interest of reason and sanity, I have to disagree. Works of art are not equally worthy. Some speak so clearly and well to something universal in the human soul that a failure to appreciate them exposes a flaw in the reader, and not the book.

Other works of art are so universally meaningless and banal so as to degrade the mind and soul of the reader.

No rational person can assert equality of worth between the two.

Before you respond by claiming that "meaning" is individualistic, reread my post, taking particular note of the use of the word universal.

There is a world of difference between a worthwhile book and an enjoyable one. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, they often have little to do with each other.

For example, if all opinions on the worth of art are to be subjective, then your opinion (that the worth of art is subjective) must also be subjective.

And if the subjectivity of opinions on the worth of art is a subjective subject, then the worth of art itself cannot in fact be subjective.

Not everything (unless you're going to argue that everything beyond art is subjective, too.) For example, it is fairly easy to objectively compare certain forms of impact that particular works of art or artists have had on culture.

quote:

---

But you're missing an important fact: People liked that kind of poetry. People had different standards back then. People came to the theater to hear fancy language and poetry, see a good fight scene, and according to good Three Stooges formula, to see rich and powerful people in a tragedy.

---

People still do, and you say as much in your post. I wouldn't agree that people had different standards then. Everyone has different standards. We're just exposed to different things. The general population had a deeper knowlege of certain areas that today many of us lack - classics, medieval history, mythology and legends for example - if only through their exposure to the playhouses.

As for remakes of films - sorry, but Hollywood is continually remaking films, or modernising versions of novels etc to make them contemporary. Films also continually pick up and reference other films. Since most Hollywood films follow a formula anyway, you could argue that 90% of what we watch is either a straight remake or modernisation.

I have to agree with the others on the subjectivity of art thing. Surely saying that no one can judge a piece of art is the same as placing art itself (like Shakespeare "The Eternal Bard") on a pedestle and thereby over-rating it. It's good because it's art doesn't cut it as an argument. It's good because it speaks to me, perhaps, but that doesn't make it good for everyone.

(btw Eric,

quote:

---

There's a difference between writing for posterity and writing for posteriors.

---

R

quote:

---

If all worth in art is subjective then art has no meaning whatsoever.
For example, if all opinions on the worth of art are to be subjective, then your opinion (that the worth of art is subjective) must also be subjective.

And if the subjectivity of opinions on the worth of art is a subjective subject, then the worth of art itself cannot in fact be subjective.

---

If you're trying to be funny, good job

quote:

---

Not everything (unless you're going to argue that everything beyond art is subjective, too.) For example, it is fairly easy to objectively compare certain forms of impact that particular works of art or artists have had on culture.

If I claim that the short stories I have written have had as much impact on the development of Western Civilization as the complete works of William Shakespeare, I'm objectively wrong, no matter how high a subjective opinion I may have of my own work.

---

You said it yourself. It's not the actual art that is objective, it's the impact it has. Myceneans could have worshiped the "snake godess" statue, but to me it's a crappy statue (or you could go the opposite way: art historians study it every day and think of it as a reflection on that culture, but in reality it was just made to make fun of a snake charmer who fell out of her dress one night). Its worth to me and its impact on that culture are two completely different things.

Going back to the original argument, I don't care what impact Shakespeare had on the price of tea in China. His plays aren't up to the standards of quality I have. If it weren't for his language, I wouldn't like them at all, except for MAYBE Othello.

ArCHeR -

quote:

---

In my opinion Shakespeare is overrated as a playwright. Why? because most people have a much higher opinion of his plays than I do. That's what I mean by overrated

---

Or maybe you're underrating him as a writer.

And on that note I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

quote:

---

most people have a much higher opinion of his plays than I do. That's what I mean by overrated.

---

Many of you, especially the younger ones, will think that I have just agreed that he is overrated but that is not the case. Original does not equal great. I think a lot of the hostility toward him is from those who vainly seek to create something entirely new.

Shakespeare knew how to tap into a story that grabs the mass unconscious, at least for the English speaking world. He was actually skilled at the opposite of originality.

P.S. Anyone who doesn't list Casablanca among the greatest films ever isn't well-watched

If you watch Casablanca and for some reason don't think it is "among the greatest films ever", are you still well-watched for having sat through it?

------

BTW, what do some of you think about alternative authorship theories? Particularly the Marlowvian theory?

Are alternative authorship theories a way of under-rating the man while at the same time over-rating the work?

quote:

---

I am of the opinion that Shakespeare cannot be too highly rated, as playright or someone who understood the human mind and emotions. It has been said that he was the first psychologist and that understanding is why his plays remain relevant and appreciated.

---

See what I mean?

quote:

---

But that's not what overrated means. It's not an opinion; it's a statement about opinions, an objective claim that other people's opinions are inaccurate. To say that anyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's is to say that the word "overrated" is meaningless.

---

Wow. Ok. In order to think something is overrated, you have to rate it for yourself. You have to have an opinion.

quote:

---

BTW, what do some of you think about alternative authorship theories? Particularly the Marlowvian theory?

---

quote:

---

If you think something is overrated, you think that most other people have an opinion that is higher than the opinion you have.

---

Now, few things are totally objective. On the other hand, few things are totally subjective. To claim that anything not nailed down is subjective is to make meaningless all of language. If that's your intent, why are you even using language? Since you are using language, I'll assume that that's not your intent. So let's drop the "it's all subjective" argument.

Some things are subjective, entirely and without question. Opinions are totally subjective. Ratings, however, are not.

Am I saying that Shakespeare is not "overrated"? I have my opinions on that, but they're not relevant to this post. Am I saying that no one could reasonably say that Shakespeare is "overrated"? No, I'm not saying that either. But I am saying that, to make that claim, you need to back it up with more than opinion. You need to specify the reasons others have rated him highly, and demonstrate why those reasons are faulty. You need to specify what flaws he has, and demonstrate why they are significant. None of that is necessary if you simply want to say that your opinion of Shakespeare is lower than that of the majority of people who have opinions about him. You want to say you like Arthur Miller better? Fine. You want to say Shakespeare's language is too flowery for your taste? Fine. You want to say Shakespeare is overrated? Ah, now you're saying that people who've studied him carefully and have good reasons for their claims are, by and large wrong in their claims and arguments. Might that be the case? Sure. But don't say it if you can't back it up.

Especially don't say it if you mean only that your opinion of his works is not as high as theirs.

quote:

---

I do get your point, ArCHeR. You don't seem to get mine, however, which is that you are using the word "overrated" incorrectly.

---

No. No I DON'T get your point because your point is that apple is bannana.

I'm saying that Shakespeare's works are overrated.

quote:

---

o·ver·rate; o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates
To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.

---

It is my opinion that the merrits of Shakespeare's writings are not as good as most people think they are. People rate his plays too highly. His plays are not as good as they say they are, in my opinion.

It is a matter of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot use any objective device to determine the quality of art. One either likes the piece of art to various degrees, dislikes a piece of art to various degrees, or neither likes nor dislikes a piece of art.

Art:
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Beauty:
The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.

That makes art subjective! *GASP!*

Hey, what's subjective, by the way?

Subjective:
taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias

quote:

---

No I DON'T get your point because your point is that apple is bannana [sic].

---

Let me try to explain this from the ground up. Personal preferences are entirely subjective. If I say that my favorite color is purple, you're not liable to argue with me and say, "No, blue is better." You might say, "I prefer blue," and that would be the end of it. (Small children, of course, might well argue. It takes some time and maturity to recognize that one's own personal preferences may not be universal.)

The word "opinion" is often loosely used to mean "personal preference," as in: "My opinion is that purple (or Shakespeare) is the best color (or writer) ever." This is the way "opinion" has largely been used previously in this thread. However, we all know about "educated opinions" and "informed opinions." American Heritage defines "opinion" as:

quote:

---

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. 2. An evaluation or judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert."

---

Note that I am not saying that opinions of artistic works are anything other than purely subjective. That claim is irrelevant to my argument. I'm only saying that most people believe that reasons can be brought to bear in making a decision about artistic merit. In the case of a writer, those reasons are based on attributes such as: handling of POV (not relevant for a playwright), use of vocabulary and grammar, varied sentence structure, unusual or arresting imagery and metaphors, perceptive characterization, skillful plotting, meaningful conflicts and resolutions, and so forth. Based on such attributes, a person may rate a writer like Shakespeare against other writers. This rating is considered by the people doing it to contain many non-subjective elements. Whether they are right to think so is the subject of a different argument; the point is that they do think so.

Therefore, when you use the term "overrated" to refer to Shakespeare, you have gone beyond stating that your personal preference for Shakespeare is not as high as the people who have "overrated" him. You are claiming that these individuals have made an error. To do this without presenting a supporting argument is rude. It would be somewhat like getting a term paper back marked: "Nope. All wrong. You get an F."

quote:

---

rating is considered by the people doing it to contain many non-subjective elements.

---

But those aren't non-subjective (or as I like to say it: objective) elements. The only thing that is objective when it comes to writing is spelling and grammar. On that point, it doesn't matter when it comes to plays beyond stage directions. Dialogue can have grammatical errors, because the characters can make grammatical errors. Heck, they can make spelling errors (people saying then when they mean than, etc.)

But the whole idea of rating a playwright is subjective. You either like his plays best, or you like someone else's plays best. The fact that I think that people like Shakespears plays so much more than I do makes him overrated to me. Why? Because I have a different opinion than they do. They will all say I underrate Shakespeare, and they're right, because it's their opinion.