Why is Shakespeare so highly regarded?

Eve_Dublin

The King of Moo wrote: »

He was the greatest writer writing in the greatest language.

You probably realise this because you teach it...like myself. I realise now how limiting Spanish can be and how rich English is in comparison but also how difficult that makes it for someone who speaks a language with such a limited vocab and syntax to ever have a really good standard of English. And when your learning Spanish and you get beyond Spanish grammar (which is hard), how hard it is to get your head around just how easy it is because your first language is so complexed in comparison.

Sorry! Nothing to do with the thread...just wanted to say that.

pjmn

In answer to the thread title...

Sarky

He wrote catchy accessible plays about blood, death and sex without being trashy and insufferably dull. He was like Stephanie Myers or EL James, if they were actually talented hacks instead of merely crap repetitive unimaginative hacks.

ArtSmart

cloptrop wrote: »

Shakespeare is so highly regarded because he is British . Joe Cole , Joe Harte , Prine Haryy and William and Cheryl Cole are also over rated because the Englidh media like to build them up .

"If it were done when it were done then it were well it were done quickly".

I dunno Claptrap. Some* have argued that he was more Irish than British, sticking to the 'old' religion (Catholicism) an all - and some strong Irish heritage in the bloodline.




* (the 'some' in question is fictional)

ArtSmart

ejmaztec wrote: »

The most annoying thing about Shakespeare IMO is the bunch of "intellectuals" who insist on using Shakespeare quotes in everyday conversation. They 'deserve a good slap'.

that's from Shakespeare.


so em, slaaaaappppph.

MJ23

Did Othello for the leaving cert, hated every bit of it.

ejmaztec

ArtSmart wrote: »

that's from Shakespeare.


so em, slaaaaappppph.

holystungun9

He's no Pat Ingoldsby.

kylith

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I did Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge for my LC and fooking hated it. Decided to give Hardy another shot the year after I left school and now he's still my favourite writer of all time. I simply read his books and drew what I wanted from them instead of being told what I was supposed to think.

I had the same experience with Jane Austin; I hated every second of it in school, but have enjoyed reading her work since. It may be a problem with the way it's taught.

FloatingVoter

The fact is the texts are plays. They are tools designed for workers (actors) to perform in front of an audience. Said audience would be more akin to that found at a football match not a modern day theatre.
They were never designed to be inflicted on children by bored schoolteachers. Aye, there's the rub.

juan.kerr

Laziness on the part of the education system.

losthorizon

FloatingVoter wrote: »

The fact is the texts are plays. They are tools designed for workers (actors) to perform in front of an audience. Said audience would be more akin to that found at a football match not a modern day theatre.
They were never designed to be inflicted on children by bored schoolteachers. Aye, there's the rub.

I agree. I like going to the theatre every now and again but I would never sit down and read a play.

Imagine if you would having to read a Father Ted script but never getting the chance to see a Father Ted TV show. It probably wouldnt be as quarter as funny. FECK!

quickbeam

mikemac1 wrote: »

Nobody does productions like the BBC

If anyone is interested BBC did a series called The Hollow Crown

Edward III Richard II
Henry IV Part 1 & 2
Henry V

FYP. But otherwise totally agree with everything you said - great series, especially the first two (Richard II and Henry IV P1).

Also agree that Branagh's Henry V is fantastic and that Olivier's is pants. The Hollow Crown version lies somewhere in between.

Capt'n Midnight

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I can't think of any writer in any other language who has had the same influence.

Back in 1861 when Italy reunified perhaps 2% of the population - mostly the upper class in Tuscany - spoke the Tuscan dialect, the language that Dante wrote in.

Dante is the father of the Italian language.

Carter P Fly

Doc Farrell wrote: »

This. Above all: to thy own own self be true.

ARAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH srsly, if you're gonna quote Shakespeare quote it right, It's Thine, not Thy.

Anyways, moving swiftly along, Shakespeare wrote absolutely beautiful sonnets and his plays were stunning. A lot of the bad rap it gets is the way its taught in school where its seems like its all learn the lines and the how to answer the questions in the test and not on appreciating how beautiful it really is

Eve_Dublin

"Thine thou art within thine eyes and two dusts don't fall on thou feet!"

- William Shakespeare. He was such a wit!

holystungun9

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

"Thine thou art within thine eyes and two dusts don't fall on thou feet!"

- William Shakespeare. He was such a wit!

"A stich in time gathers no moss."

- Rory (my neighbour)

Da Shins Kelly

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in 1861 when Italy reunified perhaps 2% of the population - mostly the upper class in Tuscany - spoke the Tuscan dialect, the language that Dante wrote in.

Dante is the father of the Italian language.

Fair enough. What about his influence on literature in general though? Do you think the works of Dante are as well-known and renowned as the works of Shakespeare?

Gauss

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Back in 1861 when Italy reunified perhaps 2% of the population - mostly the upper class in Tuscany - spoke the Tuscan dialect, the language that Dante wrote in.

Dante is the father of the Italian language.

Fair enough. What about his influence on literature in general though? Do you think the works of Dante are as well-known and renowned as the works of Shakespeare?

Well English is a much more dominant language world wide, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Seanchai

ArtSmart wrote: »

I dunno Claptrap. Some* have argued that he was more Irish than British, sticking to the 'old' religion (Catholicism) an all - and some strong Irish heritage in the bloodline.




* (the 'some' in question is fictional)

Well, the whole 'Who was Shakespeare?' question is not going to be solved here but suffice to say that Ulliam (Liam) Nuinseann/ William Nugent, 16th century baron of Skreen in Meath and a noted poet, has been proposed by several historians as the real Shakespeare with quite erudite historical arguments presented to that end. He was Catholic so I wouldn't say this argument is 'fictional'.

A Google should reveal more on this subject.

Da Shins Kelly

Gauss wrote: »

Well English is a much more dominant language world wide, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Well, perhaps Dante is the closest equivalent to Shakespeare in a foreign language, but his works have been translated into English too.

Mardy Bum

His contribution to the English language is staggering.

His success in Elizabethan England was outstanding.

The fact that shades of Hamlet is in almost every notable play since it was written speaks for itself.

He understood human nature in a way only a few men and women since have.

As Im typing this the "Now is the winter of our discontent" speech is being practiced in In America which probably is not too much of a coincidence due to the sheer influence of Shakespeare.

Mardy Bum

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Well, perhaps Dante is the closest equivalent to Shakespeare in a foreign language, but his works have been translated into English too.

Chekhov and Ibsen would be up there in terms of dramatic influence anyway.

SuperInfinity

*shrugs* I don't get it either. He was okay, nothing more.

I allow for the possibility that people more "educated" in english literature and drama than me know better and find he was a genius.

I studied Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. I found neither to be very entertaining, Macbeth was especially lame.

bnt

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Having to do Julius Caeser for the Inter cert and Hamlet for the Leaving seemed like a fate worse than death to me at the time.

They teach Julius Caesar in school because it's possibly the simplest of his plays, with a straightforward narrative based on historical events. It's not that entertaining, I have to admit, but the real action is in the funeral speeches. Compare Brutus' and Mark Antony's for a lesson in how politics works: style beats substance every time, even if it gets people killed to death.

If you want the real deal, then stuff Hamlet and go straight to Macbeth.

Porter: Drink, sir, is a great provoker of three things.
Macduff: What three things does drink especially provoke?
Porter: Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine. Lechery, sir, it provokes, and unprovokes; it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance: therefore, much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him, and disheartens him; makes him stand to, and not stand to; in conclusion, equivocates him in a sleep, and, giving him the lie, leaves him.

Macbeth is also called "The Scottish Play". Shakespeare never did an "Irish Play", and almost never used Irish characters, I think there's one in Henry IV Part II somewhere. So I'm not so surprised that he's not well liked by some here ... feeling a bit left out? :pac:

DyldeBrill

i actually enjoyed king lear and macbeth!

ViveLaVie

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I can't think of any writer in any other language who has had the same influence.

Homer is another one who is ridiculously influential.

ViveLaVie

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I can't think of any writer in any other language who has had the same influence.

Homer is another one who is ridiculously influential.

The King of Moo

SuperInfinity wrote: »

*shrugs* I don't get it either. He was okay, nothing more.

I allow for the possibility that people more "educated" in english literature and drama than me know better and find he was a genius.

I studied Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth. I found neither to be very entertaining, Macbeth was especially lame.

Do you think it's possible that was due more to your teachers than the plays themselves?

As great as I think Shakespeare is, his plays can be intimidating for a teenager for whom they would likely appear incredibly irrelevant and difficult to understand. I wouldn't expect many people of schoolgoing age (myself notwithstanding) to be interested in Shakespeare without some encouragement.
Most students need a good teacher to show them how great and relevant Shakespeare is, and get past the obvious barrier of superficial differences in language and age.

That's the beauty of Shakespeare: you don't need to be particularly well educated to get the most out of them. The only help most people need apart from a glossary (which most texts provide) is a little encouragement, and someone able to make the greatness clear.

cloptrop

I thought hard times by charlie d was better to read than any WS work.
The bully of humility was the greatest discription of a chap in 3 words I ever read . It was describing Mr Bounderby .
Ive been trying to put them 3 words in a song since and I Just cant improve on it .

dpe

Seanchai wrote: »

Well, the whole 'Who was Shakespeare?' question is not going to be solved here but suffice to say that Ulliam (Liam) Nuinseann/ William Nugent, 16th century baron of Skreen in Meath and a noted poet, has been proposed by several historians as the real Shakespeare with quite erudite historical arguments presented to that end. He was Catholic so I wouldn't say this argument is 'fictional'.

A Google should reveal more on this subject.

Why did I just know that after slagging him off in one post you'd try to claim his works were written by an Irishman in the next. You really need to get that chip looked at.

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't think that anyone in the UK gives a toss, except for those involved in the "Shakespeare Country" tourism industry, and they're more concerned with hard cash than British nationalism.

It amazes me the number of Americans that visit the UK and spend two days in London, one in Stratford on Avon and one day in Inverness monster hunting

bnt wrote: »

Macbeth is also called "The Scottish Play". Shakespeare never did an "Irish Play", and almost never used Irish characters, I think there's one in Henry IV Part II somewhere. So I'm not so surprised that he's not well liked by some here ... feeling a bit left out? :pac:

I it not unlucky though for an actor to mention the play by name, hence "The Scottish Play".

conorhal

Doc Farrell wrote: »

[The OP] ...is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Shakespeare, still relevent. Sure he could be talking about boards.ie today so he could,

--Kaiser--

Seanchai wrote: »

Well, the whole 'Who was Shakespeare?' question is not going to be solved here but suffice to say that Ulliam (Liam) Nuinseann/ William Nugent, 16th century baron of Skreen in Meath and a noted poet, has been proposed by several historians as the real Shakespeare with quite erudite historical arguments presented to that end. He was Catholic so I wouldn't say this argument is 'fictional'.

A Google should reveal more on this subject.

From all I've read on the subject, the idea that William Shakepseare of Stratford-upon-Avon didn't write the plays attributed to him is more or less without merit

summerskin

Seanchai wrote: »

Because he was a better plagiarist than his contempories in the English language. Although the very mention of Shakespeare being, in fact, a plagiarist would provoke the ire of British nationalists.

good god, take the chip off your shoulder.

and what's wrong with being a british nationalist? is it any different to being an irish nationalist??

Seanchai

dpe wrote: »

Why did I just know that after slagging him off in one post you'd try to claim his works were written by an Irishman in the next. You really need to get that chip looked at.

Reading fail, unsurprisingly. If you could improve your understanding of the English language even marginally you might understand that it was a rebuke of the person who said such claims about Shakespeare's identity do not exist. They do. Fact.

Seeing as on another thread you've admitted to being British, I'll overlook that typically delusional notion British people tend to have that somebody would have a chip on their shoulder for not being part of the nation that plundered, raped and occupied 20% of planet earth, including Ireland. Yes, what envy the world has for such a record. :rolleyes:

Seanchai

summerskin wrote: »

and what's wrong with being a british nationalist? is it any different to being an irish nationalist??

Hilarious. So summerskin, our veteran apologist for all things British nationalist, takes umbrage once again at anybody questioning a jingoistic nationalism which wants to rule lands beyond Britain. That you can't see a basic difference between the extremism of British nationalism and its claims on lands beyond Britain, and Irish nationalism which seeks to rule Ireland alone really does speak volumes at how mired you are in the imperialist cultural foundations upon which modern Britishness is built.

Now, surely you have some tabloid to read, or Pat Condell video to cheer on?

humanji

Give the politics a rest.

Sarky

So you don't like one of the most celebrated playwrights of all time because 800 years chuckie our lá?

That is both fair and reasonable, and I can see no flaw in your logic.

Fratton Fred

Christ almighty.

First Rory McIlroy, now Shakespeare. The uber Irish nationalist wants to claim everyone on the British isles for his own.

It'll be Guinness and Wilde next.

Jimoslimos

Plays: For the most part very good and given the right cast still rather entertaining today.

Poetry/Sonnets: Meh, IMO overrated because of his success as a playwright.

Seanchai

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Christ almighty.

First Rory McIlroy, now Shakespeare.

Hmmm. And I claimed Britain's Rory McIlroy when, exactly? I expect you'll be able to reference that?

And Guinness is a British company, with its world headquarters there. Its chief product, Guinness, is also an English drink with an anglicised Irish name on the label.

Wattle

My cultural blindspot is Shakespeare. I know he was one of the greatest and most prolific writers ever but as soon as I hear an actor spouting Shakespearean lines I start to yawn.

LordSutch

Wattle wrote: »

My cultural blindspot is Shakespeare. I know he was one of the greatest and most prolific writers ever but as soon as I hear an actor spouting Shakespearean lines I start to yawn.

Nerx time you are in London try and get a ticket to see a Shakespear play at the Globe, I defy you not to be enthralled by one of his plays in that theatre. Shakespeares Globe > http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/theatre/on-stage?utm_source=hp&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=Theatre_hp

Richard III is currently showing (very apt after the recent find).

Da Shins Kelly

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

From all I've read on the subject, the idea that William Shakepseare of Stratford-upon-Avon didn't write the plays attributed to him is more or less without merit

There is very little evidence to suggest the plays were written by anyone else.

pickarooney

LordSutch wrote: »

Wattle wrote: »

My cultural blindspot is Shakespeare. I know he was one of the greatest and most prolific writers ever but as soon as I hear an actor spouting Shakespearean lines I start to yawn.

Nerx time you are in London try and get a ticket to see a Shakespear play at the Globe, I defy you not to be enthralled by one of his plays in that theatre. Shakespeares Globe > http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/theatre/on-stage?utm_source=hp&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=Theatre_hp

Richard III is currently showing (very apt after the recent find).

Was there a part four nobody knew about?

dr.bollocko

Surely only a tweenager could form a negative opinion of shakespeare.... And they all should be at school or studying or espousing the benefits of studyhub to non-eircom customers.

SuperInfinity

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Surely only a tweenager could form a negative opinion of shakespeare.... And they all should be at school or studying or espousing the benefits of studyhub to non-eircom customers.

Saving you the cost of buying textbooks, shur it pays for itself!

LordSutch

pickarooney wrote: »

Was there a part four nobody knew about?

Part IV,
Yeah, and I say onto you that in the year of our Lord 2012 the good King Richards bones were found under ye olde car park in Leicester