Because you are the one that introduced a novel definition of "overrated", it is incumbent on you to defend both the legitimacy and utility of your definition. If all you meant was that you personally held a lower opinion of Shakespeare's work than the majority of other people you'd met who had an opinion on Shakespeare, then you should have said that in the first place.

On the other hand, if you actually meant something more than that, you have yet to lend supporting arguments. Sure, you've reiterated your central point, that your subjective opinion of Shakespeare isn't very high, but you haven't really lent any support to the idea that he is therefore overrated. If you can say nothing more than that your opinion of him is low, particularly in the fact of argument to the contrary, you are only providing evidence that Shakespeare is underrated...by you.

Ultimately, everything is subjective, including grammer and spelling. Whether the sky is blue or the sun bright or water wet is all based on individual perceptions. We eventually quantified these "subjective" observations in much the same way that we eventually established a formal syntax for language and orthography of particular words. In an extension of that process, we quantify more abstract concepts like relevence, imagination and eloquence.

When you make a strong statement, you should be prepared with a better defense than "well, it's subjective." Because if I were allowed to do what I liked as long as I could argue that it was subjective, pretty much everyone else would be dead in short order. Naturally, from my point of view, that's a good argument for why that should be an adequate defense

quote:

---

Because you are the one that introduced a novel definition of "overrated", it is incumbent on you to defend both the legitimacy and utility of your definition.

---

I didn't introduce the definition! I quoted a dictionary! That's my point! You guys are somehow thinking that a rating of a work of art can be objective.

quote:

---

If all you meant was that you personally held a lower opinion of Shakespeare's work than the majority of other people you'd met who had an opinion on Shakespeare, then you should have said that in the first place.

---

Ah, but you see overrated means the same exact thing, and it's only one word.

And anyway, by the very use of the word, I was saying that I believe others have a much higher opinion of his works than I do, not that I have a lower opinion. I think my opinion is just right. That's why it's my opinion. The simple fact is that all this can be most clearly stated by saying that my opinion of Shakespeare is lower than the majority. That statement, however, is highly misleading.

quote:

---

On the other hand, if you actually meant something more than that, you have yet to lend supporting arguments.

---

I would have, but no one really argued that! You all just kept yelling at me for using a word. So here it goes...

Shakespeare wrote about three things: Tragedy, Comedy, and History. He mixed the three in practically every play (Ceasar's assassination, Hamlet calling the English mad, Juliet saying a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet). But his plays are all the same essential plotline. In the tragedy a hero is introduced. Some other character plots some evil, usually directly aimed at the hero. The evil character succedes, but at the cost of if not his life, his freedom (as in Othello), and the hero dies. The only exception to the rule is Romeo and Juliet, where there is no one evil character. The evil is spread between their family (mostly Juliet's). Tybalt being the closest thing to an evil character isn't in the last few scenes (I think he gets killed at the end of Act II iirc) and the formula's role is passed on to the parents who aren't killed and don't lose their family. All they get is guilt.

So Romeo and Juliet is his most original play- compared to his other works. Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's The Birdcage or Vanilla Sky. The only thing you can really give him credit for in that play is the language.

So what of his language? I think it's okay. It's mostly just a fake diamond set in a gold-plated ring. Sure it seems good at first glance, but any close scrutiny can see it's just there to turn normal language into something that's a little more aurally pleasing. Don't get me wrong, he does a fairly good job at it, but it's not the most engaging poetry I've ever read. Poe has a much more masterful ability to turn out a story and make it sound good.

But what really gets me is that because the technology wasn't there back then, he's able to be called the greatest playwright in history. I might agree that ont many playwrights have been able to bring so many elements together in som many works. But that's because there are no more superstar playwrights anymore. Not like they were back then. Now the focus is on the actors. I can point out scripts that surpass each one of Shakespeare's plays, but they won't all be by the same person. It's a shame, really.

But that's because the great writing isn't done for the stage anymore. The great writing is in the movies. To me, Charlie Chaplin is eons above Shakespeare. M. Night Shyamalan and the Wachowski bros would also surpass Shakespeare if they wrote more movies, but they're still young. And what about TV? The writers behind M*A*S*H Seinfeld, and the West Wing match(ed) Shakespeare weekley. Practically every cast member on SNL throughout its 30 year history wrote for the show, and that's while having to rehearse and perform all in one week.

Other assumptions you make are simply false. Shakespeare was not a "superstar" playwright, he was an obscure man who was known to later generations almost entirely on the basis of his work. And not all his work became famous, some of his works have been lost because no one thought to preserve them, others languished in obscurity because they weren't considered really great. The great plays and poems written by Shakespeare have remained famous because they touched generation after generation, speaking to the human condition across ages and cultures.

You speak of writers that have only touched the conditions of their contemporaries, for whom speaking to another generation or culture is only a fancy. They may well touch you more than Shakespeare does, but is that a flaw in Shakespeare or yourself?

I personally find it distressing that you list so many contemporary entertainments as being greater than Shakespeare, it speaks of a narrow mind. You rarely mention any works from more than a hundred years ago, you don't mention works from other cultures than your own.

So if your looking at most used concepts or plots then yes, Shakespeare is perhaps the greatest writer.

quote:

---

See, you're still resorting to simple assertion that your opinion is more correct than any other.

---

No, I'm not. I'm stating my opinion, like anyone else. The difference is that I realize it's my opinion, and that there is no real way to truly defend an opinion on a piece of art using anything but subjective judgement.

And of course I think my opinion is more correct than any other. If I thought another opinion to be more correct I would change my opinion. The same goes for any rational human being. Who thinks, "Wow. That guy's opinion is much better than mine. I'll still believe mine though, even though I think it's wrong."

quote:

---

I'm rather offended that you didn't at least go with Monty Python

---

You're absolutely right. I have no idea why I didn't think of them. I don't deserve to own my special edition DVD of Grail.

quote:

---

Shakespeare was not a "superstar" playwright

---

Ah, now that's a point of contingent. If you ask me, anyone who has the ear of the Queen of England for writing plays, and is known around the western world durring his lifetime to me is a superstar. And I meant more that he is now considered a superstar of sorts.

quote:

---

And not all his work became famous, some of his works have been lost because no one thought to preserve them, others languished in obscurity because they weren't considered really great. The great plays and poems written by Shakespeare have remained famous because they touched generation after generation, speaking to the human condition across ages and cultures.

---

And Quentin Tarantino made From Dusk 'Till Dawn. Does that make him any less of a superstar? By the way, he goes in the same place I put Shyamalan and the W. Bros in my above post, now that I think about it...

quote:

---

You speak of writers that have only touched the conditions of their contemporaries, for whom speaking to another generation or culture is only a fancy.

---

I'm in the same generation as Charlie Chaplin? Woah. Monty Python too? Can I be a hippy!? Oh, right, I forgot to put them on the list

Why do you think I listed modern people? I could have listed Chaucer. I like him more than Shakespeare. Mark Twain? Let's see.. other cultures? Well if I ever think of a culture that speaks English I'll let you know. Otherwise most of the artistry is lost in translation. Haikus, for isntance, would mean so much more if one could understand Japanese.

But I was trying to stick to people who wrote scripts, and to be honest, there aren't a lot of great scripts between Shakespeare and Miller... at least in terms of my opinion and knowlege.

And a hundred years? You really go biblical when you talk about generations, don't you?

quote:

---

They may well touch you more than Shakespeare does, but is that a flaw in Shakespeare or yourself?

---

So is Shakespeare timeless or not? If he is, then any judgement on him is based purely on the quality of his works, and the fact that other works have been written more recently has no impact on the judgement. If he's not, then how can he be considered such a great playwright?

I like to think of his work as timeless. Romeo and Juliet still resonates today. One can still come to a tragic end by being hastey. Hamlet still rings true. Revenge is dangerous no matter what the decade. Othello is still an important play. Racism and jealousy are still facts of life.

But I'd still rather watch an immigration officer get kicked in the rear, and I don't care what Hoover has to say about it.

quote:

---

I personally find it distressing that you list so many contemporary entertainments as being greater than Shakespeare, it speaks of a narrow mind.

---

What on Earth can make you think I have a narrow mind? What post on this board could possibly give you that impression. A heterosexual defending gay rights is narrow-minded?

I don't dislike Shakespeare. I read his plays. I'm not immediately put-off by seeing "by William Shakespeare." I don't care when a story was published by whom. All I care about is wether I like the story. I still like Ender's Game, no matter what I think of the author's politics or religion. George Carlin is still one of the funniest men alive, and that isn't changed by his atheism. Othello is still one of the best plays about jealousy, and I don't care how much a bunch of college professors worship the playwright.

The fact that you are calling me narrow-minded for liking MORE contemporary (there are still a lot of old things on my lists) things than Shakespeare speaks more of your attitude than it does mine.

quote:

---

you don't mention works from other cultures than your own.

---

As I stated before, it's hard to find other cultures that speak English. But if you're a little more hazy in your definition of culture (I'm assuming you're meaning I'm not going outside Western culture) then I have several different cultures.

I mean, if you really believe what you said then that means I'm comming from the same culture as a poor kid growing up in industrial England, and another kid from India moving around the US and ending up in Philidelphia. I must also be from Canada, New York and New Jersey.

Culture differs from city to city, Survivor, and it doesn't matter what the culture is anyway. An African folktale is the same as an English one. Every story in the world is human and culture only makes a difference if you pay attention to the shallow ends of the stories. Honor is still honor and love is still love no matter what you call it or how you express it.

quote:

---

I also find it odd that you're willing to argue so tenaciously (if rather ineffectually) for a position that you claim is nothing more than your personal opinion. That alone tells me that you don't really believe the argument you make.

---

What kind of statement is that? Of course I believe it! What are you thinking? The fact that I realize it is my opinion has no bearing on the fact that it is still my opinion.

quote:

---

As it just so happens, I prefer a number of authors to Shakespeare, from a variety of time periods and nations. It is certainly not my subjective opinion that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in history or even the greatest writer in the English language. But putting my personal tastes aside, it is clear to me that Shakespeare holds a deserved place of great importance in the body of English literature.

---

Do I really have to say it again? I am NOT talking about his impact on the English language or English literature. I am talking about his actual written work. The fact that many people don't see the difference is, I think, one of the main contributors his being overrated as a playwright.