Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Open Discussions About Writing » Shakespeare overrated? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Shakespeare overrated?
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
How about moving the Shakespeare discussion in here, because it doesn't seem to belong in the thread it's in now.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
As for my position on Shakespeare, I say he is the greatest playwright in the English language. If you think that means he's overrated, then name someone greater.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to preempt some potentially futile tangents:

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

From where I sit, looks like the Bard wins.


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
ChrisOwens
Member
Member # 1955

 - posted      Profile for ChrisOwens   Email ChrisOwens         Edit/Delete Post 
His stories, especially A Midsummer’s Night Dream are very good springboards for science fiction and fantasy ideas.

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


Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
I almost laughed when I saw this. I'm sorry, but I wasn't following the thread this argument started in so I'm coming in the middle of it...anyway...WHAT?

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.

So I say again...WHAT?


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
I would say that there are certain pieces of his works that are probably more highly praised than perhaps they should be, but then are several of his better pieces that are wholly over-looked.

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.

Is he the greatest playwright ever? If popularity is any measure, then possibly. Few plays are still read from that time, fewer still are performed. I would venture to guess that Shakespeare is probably the most widely read and performed playwright in history. His works have been translated into many languages and have been adapted to the screen in many incarnations (including an amazing Japanese version of King Lear called Ran).


Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
Not wholly overlooked, even the pieces that only recent textual science has firmly assigned to his body of work were still not wholly overlooked.

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).

For Christine's benefit (well, information, you'll have to decide whether it is beneficial), this discussion is carried over from ArCH's "Laziness" thread. Read at your own peril.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
ChrisOwens
Member
Member # 1955

 - posted      Profile for ChrisOwens   Email ChrisOwens         Edit/Delete Post 
<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?>

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.

[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited December 15, 2004).]


Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
For what it's worth, Shakespeare didn't write in middle English, he wrote in early modern English. Middle English is a different language--it's what the Canterbury Tales was written in--and although it doesn't really seem quite like another language, since you can get the general drift and most of the words are figure-out-able (and don't ask me what kind of English that word is from), the fact is that even lots of the words you think you understand really meant something else at the time. A sample of Old English is Beowulf, which looks a lot more like straightforward German (at least if you don't know German any better than I do).
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
TruHero
Member
Member # 1766

 - posted      Profile for TruHero   Email TruHero         Edit/Delete Post 
Shakespeare overrated? No way. But as far as inspiration, I'd choose Macbeth. It has everything, even witches! Fantasy-like and everything! There are things to be taken from each tale. Taming of the shrew, Midsummer night dream, Othello, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet. They all have a strong anchor or base for all of us "modern day" fiction writers. We shouldn't be knocking him down, but praising his groundwork!

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.

If I could come up with an engaging story like Macbeth or Hamlet in today's society, I would count my self lucky. Nay, even blessed!


Posts: 471 | Registered: Sep 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Jules
Member
Member # 1658

 - posted      Profile for Jules   Email Jules         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, Shakespeare is overrated.

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.

So, that is why I think Shakespeare is overrated. He was an excellent dramatist, putting together these stories in a form that would eventually make them popular throughout the world. But these days, he is most often remembered for his plots. And many of these were simply adaptations of other people's plots with very little variation from his source materials.


Posts: 626 | Registered: Jun 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
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).

Since graduating high school, I have encountered more and more people who have an appreciation for Shakespeare, but I still encounter many more people who can't believe I want to read his works without having a gun pointed at me. I would say that counts as under-rating him.


Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
The people who underrate Shakespeare are generally people who don't read, or don't act.

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

He was good, yes, but I'd much rather watch The Crucible than Hamlet. Give me The Messenger over Henry V any day. Screw a Comedy of Errors, I wanna see Arsenic and Old Lace.


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
SteeleGregory
Member
Member # 2049

 - posted      Profile for SteeleGregory   Email SteeleGregory         Edit/Delete Post 
Anyone that people could refer to as "The Eternal Bard" is obviously overrated.

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?

Can't we respect the great writers of the past without making them gods who's shoulders we must walk upon?


Posts: 103 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
There's a difference between "best" and "greatest."

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.

There are no other playwrights that have had as much impact on our language.

Of course, you haven't truly experience Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon.


Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
RFLong
Member
Member # 1923

 - posted      Profile for RFLong           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm reminded of an anecdote where someone goes to see Hamlet for the first time. After the play, they are asked what they thought and replies:

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.

R


Posts: 284 | Registered: Feb 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, the same thing is true of a lot of "agnostics", in my own experience.

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.

I think that it can be argued that Shakespeare doesn't deserve a special rank above the top rank of English playwrights, but anyone arguing that he deserves a place below the top rank is blowing mood-altering smoke.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
Magic Beans
Member
Member # 2183

 - posted      Profile for Magic Beans   Email Magic Beans         Edit/Delete Post 
I have found that the more one reads Shakespeare (and don't forget all those sonnets), the more there is to find. The point at which you find nothing new to understand in Shakespeare is the end of your limit, not Shakespeare's.

One of the reasons I know Shakespeare is so good is that most of the people teaching him are dreadful, but in spite of that people still enjoy the Bard. When you are lucky enough (as I was) to have a truly insightful teacher on Shakespeare, a whole different world opens up to you. Not only do you see Shakespeare as you never did before, but you see everything as you never did before. Most people never even scratch the surface of Shakespeare.


Posts: 284 | Registered: Sep 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
I love Shakespear, mostly for his innovation with language. If he couldn't find a word to fit the situation he made one up, but he used it in a way so people could understand.(of course that's why I like Snoop Dog too, except he uses it to confuse rather than explain.) Rickfisher used the word Figureoutable, and said don't ask him what kind of english it was. Well it was Shakespearian English.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, Pyre Dynasty! Are you underrating me, or something???
Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

I agree fully that he had a huge impact on our language, but as was said, he just made up words when there wasn't one that fit. Sci-fi writers do that all the time. I bet everyone here can tell me what a jeesh is. But can you point the word out in a dictionary?


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I'm not going to take cheap shots at your logic, but I am going to say that you are clearly smoking something.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
RFLong
Member
Member # 1923

 - posted      Profile for RFLong           Edit/Delete Post 
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)?

Speculation of course, but any thoughts? I'm not asking who today compares to Shakespeare, but it kind of puts into perspective what he achieved when you consider that he was a commercial writer.


Posts: 284 | Registered: Feb 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
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.


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


[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited December 19, 2004).]


Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Ah... the Producers... perhaps that will still be performed on stage 500 years from now. Heck, for all we know Spamalot will be performed 500 years from now. Surely the works of Arthur Miller, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Rodgers and Hammerstein will not be forgotten.


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
Survivor
Member
Member # 213

 - posted      Profile for Survivor   Email Survivor         Edit/Delete Post 
You are...you're hopeless.

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

It's probably the result of living during a cultural decline, people get the idea that the peak their culture is leaving is the apotheosis of human existence. Happens every time.


Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm hopeless? You're the one assuming more things than an astrophysisist.

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.

As far as a cultural decline, there's no such thing as a cultural decline in quality. There can only be a decline in how much culture there is. You cannot judge the quality of culture. Culture is a human idea.


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
<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.>

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.



Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
How can you judge the worth of a piece of art? Are YOU insane? It's freaking art. Everything is subjective when it comes to art.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

[This message has been edited by J (edited December 20, 2004).]


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
> Everything is subjective when it comes to art.

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.


Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
RFLong
Member
Member # 1923

 - posted      Profile for RFLong           Edit/Delete Post 
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.


LOL - loved that!)

R

[This message has been edited by RFLong (edited December 20, 2004).]


Posts: 284 | Registered: Feb 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. 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. Of course he had a huge impact on the English language. But what do I care? I'm talking about his plays!


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
kathmandau
Member
Member # 2254

 - posted      Profile for kathmandau   Email kathmandau         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Dec 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
RFLong
Member
Member # 1923

 - posted      Profile for RFLong           Edit/Delete Post 
Kathmandu - I quite agree.

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.

R


Posts: 284 | Registered: Feb 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
most people have a much higher opinion of his plays than I do. That's what I mean by overrated.
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.

Listen, you have every right to hold any opinion you want to about Shakespeare. All I'm asking here is that you use the correct words. You want to be a writer; you ought to be able to manage that.


Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
franc li
Member
Member # 3850

 - posted      Profile for franc li   Email franc li         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, I gave up on ignoring this thread and I just have to say that Shakespeare did not innovate. He was great not because he invented anything or created anything. Pretty much all his work was based on an existing story. Maybe the most original one I can think of is The Tempest and that has not been filmed recently.

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

[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 22, 2004).]


Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006  | Report this post to a Moderator
Robyn_Hood
Member
Member # 2083

 - posted      Profile for Robyn_Hood   Email Robyn_Hood         Edit/Delete Post 
Should I bite on that one?

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?

[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited December 22, 2004).]


Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

If you think something is overrated, you think that most other people have an opinion that is higher than the opinion you have. What the hell makes you think you can be objective about something like that?


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
BTW, what do some of you think about alternative authorship theories? Particularly the Marlowvian theory?

Computerized studies of patterns of word usage show that unusual words used by characters that William Shakespeare is known to have portrayed on stage in earlier plays show up more frequently in later plays than unusual words used by other characters in the same earlier plays. This is consistent with the theory that the plays were written by an actor who performed the roles Shakespeare is known to have performed. There is no evidence that any other proposed candidate as the "real" author of Shakespeare's plays performed those roles.

All the arguments I have seen for alternative authorship seem to boil down to:
1. The assertion that William Shakespeare was not educated enough to write the plays
2. Textual evidences that prove too much (i.e., the same textual evidence that "proves" Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays also "proves" that Francis Bacon wrote Longfellow's "The Song of Hiawatha" and Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars.")


Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
I have no doubt that Shakespeare wrote his plays. But there is also a very good chance that he plagerized often, as did practically every playwright at the time.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
EricJamesStone
Member
Member # 1681

 - posted      Profile for EricJamesStone   Email EricJamesStone         Edit/Delete Post 
Of course, Homer's poems were not composed by him. They were the product of another blind Greek poet with the same name.
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003  | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyre Dynasty
Member
Member # 1947

 - posted      Profile for Pyre Dynasty   Email Pyre Dynasty         Edit/Delete Post 
Does it really change what was written if Shakespear had a ghostwriter or not? Shakespear is no longer alive but the writings still exsist. If someone else wrote them then he is the one who we think of as Shakespear, and is still brilliant.
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
EJS's post further proves my point.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If you think something is overrated, you think that most other people have an opinion that is higher than the opinion you have.
Not at all. I think most people who like classical music (which includes me) have a higher opinion of Beethoven's Ninth than I do. But I don't think it's overrated. I just don't like it as much as they do, even though I agree with them on its quality (at least in general terms). How much I like it is an opinion. What I think of its quality is a judgment. I'll grant that a "judgment" is not fully objective, but it's a long way from "opinion."

The thing is, ArCHeR, that lots of people have at one time or another said they didn't care for Shakespeare. Sometimes they got responses like, "Oh, but I think he's great." In your case, though, there's been all sorts of hubbub, and my judgment is that it's because you made the claim that he's "overrated," which is akin to the claim that all those who rate him more highly than you do are incorrect. That may not be what you meant. In fact, you say that's not what you meant in your post of 12/21. But it is what "overrated" means. I'm just suggesting that you try to be more careful with your word choice.


Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
But you're not getting my point! If I rate a work of art, it is a subjective opinion. If someone rates it differently, that is another subjective opinion. The fact that the other person's opinion of the work is higher than mine makes that person's opinion overrated in my opinion.

It's all subjective.


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
I do get your point, ArCHeR. You don't seem to get mine, however, which is that you are using the word "overrated" incorrectly. "To rate" something does not mean "to like" or "to enjoy." It means "to classify", or "to calculate the value of."

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.

Use the right word.


Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Why that's what opinions on art are!


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
rickfisher
Member
Member # 1214

 - posted      Profile for rickfisher   Email rickfisher         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry it took me so long to respond, ArCHeR. I was on a computerless vacation over the holidays.
quote:
No I DON'T get your point because your point is that apple is bannana [sic].
I'm a bit puzzled by this. You don't get my point, and yet you tell me what my point is? Which thing is it that you think I'm calling by another name, and what name am I using? I simply said that you're using the wrong word. And, for what it's worth, my argument doesn't depend upon the quality of Shakespeare, or even on whether opinions of him are totally subjective. What it does depend upon (and what I admittedly didn't specify, thinking that you must understand it) is that most people do not think that opinions on artistic matters are entirely subjective, though subjective components are included.

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 the first definition does not simply place a period after the word "substantiated." These are substantially stronger meanings than that of "personal preference," and these are the sorts of meanings most people intend when they talk about their opinion of the quality of Shakespeare's writings. Personal preferences are usually, though not always, aligned with one's opinion.

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."

Listen, you can use words any way you want, and understand them to mean anything you please. You have that right, although I don't know why you'd want to exercise it. But the purpose of language is communication. If you're going to insist, when you talk about "rating" works of art, that you mean only personal preference, then you won't be communicating very effectively. And if that's not your concern, why are you bothering to post to a writer's BB?


Posts: 932 | Registered: Jul 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ArCHeR
Member
Member # 2067

 - posted      Profile for ArCHeR   Email ArCHeR         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

So let's stop arguing what overrated means, and do what this topic was intended to do and argue over wether or not he actually is overrated.


Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004  | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2