I find it mental that Shakespeare is considered even that good by anglos
 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
I find it mental that Shakespeare is considered even that good by anglos
I find it mental that Shakespeare is considered even that good by anglos
|
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
|
It's a tradition.
It's mostly a germanic thing I think
He rivals authors like Goethe and Schiller in Germany as being amongst the greatest 'german' authors of all time
In Norway and Denmark he also has an equally high status although from what I understand the Swedish don't rate him as highly
Shakespeare and his spread was initiated by the ruling class to get rid of regional dialects and make the english easier to control
Regional dialects have survived and no one ever spoke like a Shakespeare play.
Shakespearean theatre using those over the top received pronunciation accents is pretty much a Victorian thing and a lot of his work (especially his sonnets) are clearly meant to be read in his rhotic Warwickshire accent.
why
Do you really mean "...even that good by..."?
Or do you actually mean ".... that good even by..."?
"as good as he is by anglos"
not that anon
OP combined two constructions in one sentence:
>I find it mental that Shakespeare is even considered that good by anglos [ie Shakespeare might be good but still overrated by anglos, the "even" adverb only adding redundancy and insistence to the surprise expressed by "mental"]
>I find it mental that Shakespeare is considered even good by anglos [ie "even good" treated as an adjective, as opposed to decent at best, let alone above merely good]
Any issue understanding that sentence is a (you) problem. People make those constructions all the time.
t. esl in England for ten years
I bet you're one of those "classic" simpsons fanboys and unironically think simpsons is superior to shakespeare
you are simpson
i find it mental that you're brave enough to be an edgy contrarian online
>t. ESL
Chi
I don't even get why, there are lots of great anglo authors, many of which are better than Shakespear.
t. ESL
name 5
Charles Dickens
Mark Twain
Cormac McCarthy
Isaac Asimov
F. Gardner
I don't think American authors are considered anglos.
Well America is an anglo country same with Canada, Australia and New Zeland. If Mexico is an hispanic country then America is an anglo country.
It's true but most Americans don't think that way outside of Anglo-Saxonist supremist LARPers
>Isaac Asimov
Melville
Faulkner
McCarthy
Chaucer, Gawain poet, Langland, Harry Potter woman, me
Lolno
“ Shakespeare is our most underrated poet. It should not be necessary to say that, but it is. We generally acknowledge Shakespeare's poetic superiority to other candidates for greatest poet in English, but doing that is comparable to saying that King Kong is bigger than other monkeys. The difference between Shakespeare's abilities with language and those even of Milton, Chaucer, or Ben Jonson is immense.”
This. Most of you shakespeare haters have never even read poetry. Spenser is good but doesn’t hold a candle to Shakespeare, not him, not Yeats, not Keats, not Rossetti, not Coleridge, not Wordsworth, certainly not Milton, the list goes on forever.. Shakespeare really was that good
And the craziest part is that Shakespeare was actually a woman.
I don’t know I feel it is entrenched in tradition but when I studied Shakespeare I genuinely had a great time
If you've thoroughly studied a Shakespeare play, read it multiple times over, and came away from it thinking Shakespeare is overrated, then you're a bloodless gimp and an embarrassing midwit. Because you lack both the heart to enjoy theatre and the intellect to see the genius.
what the frick does that mean? you fricking foreigner, learn some proper english before you go on the internet (an anglo invention btw) to shit on shakespeare.
Why is he a foreigner? Cause he made a mistake, natives make mistakes all the time. "what is you doin" " You was next to me bike" and so on. Secondly there are so many dialects of enlgish that it's hard to say english is an unified langauge, american english is the main reason people learn and it is the main branch of english everyone learns, I can smell that you are "english" , so just shut up little boy and be thankful your ancestors got to the american east coast when they did, and that spain didn't get there 50 years earlier than they did.
>t.
Congratulations your in company with every high schooler
Filtered: the thread
Shakespeare is one of maybe three things on the planet that is indeed as good as people say it is.
I used to think like this too. My first play I had read was the Merchant of Venice and I didn't really like it. The plot filtered me (as I wasn't nearly as antisemitic back then as I am today) The plot filtered me. Portia and the other woman were repugnant. Sincerely the only thing I liked about it was the "Hath not a israelite Eyes" and Antonio's friendship with Bassanio.
Had I not read any other work by him, I would still share your opinion on him. However, I read a few of his sonnets, and they changed my mind. Or perhaps, I had left behind my prejudices when reading them, being more open to his style. This time, I began to appreciate him.
I believe the problem to the modern reader is the flowery prose of the metaphysical poet to which one is not accustomed. This along with his unorthodox sentence structure are the biggest hurdles to reading him.
Nevertheless, it is a worthy endeavour attempting to understand and enjoy his works. His renown as the greatest English playwright and poet is far from unmerited. I doubt you can even name another English playwright, and metaphysical poetry far surpasses free verse in style and substance.
>Portia and the other woman were repugnant.
I’m curious why you thought this in particular. I can’t think of anything repugnant in them.
They felt unlikeable from the start, but what made me despise them was the part where they crossdressed as the lawyer and his assistant and ask of Bassanio and Gratiano the rings they had given to them as payment. How Portia and Nerissa taunt them by saying they cucked them right after marrying them to get the rings back made my blood boil.
It sounds like you have some unresolved issues related to women anon. It's just in good humour, and iirc they didn't actually say they cucked them but made a hypothetical.
Why? I don't like Anglos but besides perhaps being too popular the works by themselves are fun.
ESL here, I read the translated version and the original English, both were shit. I don't get it, maybe during his time he was good but nowadays his writing and his ideas are just irrelevant. Peoples mentality and the way of thinking in 21st century already encompass all what he wrote about, there really is nothing new there.
>encompass all what he wrote about, there really is nothing new there.
This is a very ESL/third world way of thinking. Why does novel = good? Why aren't you amazed by a man's ability to encapsulate the depth and variety of humanity in characters hundreds of years ago in gorgeous text? I can think of a million "new" stories that are untrue and shallow, that won't make them good.
>Why aren't you amazed by a man's ability to encapsulate the depth and variety of humanity in characters hundreds of years ago in gorgeous text?
His ability may have been mindblowing during his time, but today his ability (among reputable authors of the last 50-100 years) is not that great because literature has improved and advanced since then. Same with his characters, they are the most basic stereotypes that have been used and reused countless of times in every shape or form, everyone (I mean people with at least slight inclination to literature or learning in general, not a complete brainless modern monkeys) is just too familiar with it even without ever reading any of the original Shakespeares work. Again there is merit there in his writing but the world has moved on.
>is not that great because literature has improved and advanced since then.
Lol. Lmao even. You clearly haven't read anything. Seriously, go back.
Well, since literature has advanced so much since his times, can you name a novel from the last 10 years better than Shakespeare?
>literature has improved and advanced since then
It literally hasn't. The Elizabethan period was the golden age of English literature.
>Peoples mentality and the way of thinking in 21st century already encompass all what he wrote about, there really is nothing new there.
Because of people like him, moron. You really don't seem to gather just ow influential he was in our sense of expression.
ESLs simply cannot understand. It's like pretending you hear a dog whistle.
>le epic post
T.S. Eliot and Tolstoy both had somewhat similar (but more qualified) views on Shakespeare.
Like Eliot, I find Dante's world more interesting than that of Shakespeare's, but I won't make any final commitment on Shakespeare's literary merit. I have not read Shakespeare deeply and extensively enough to do so. I can say this. He interests me less than Dante, Milton, Tolstoy, Eliot.
I mean, you're listing some of the greatest writers in history. It's fine to rank them and have preferences among them but you're still recognizing them as the pinnacle of the art form. Which they are, Shakespeare included.
Yes, this is true. I also find Shakespeare great. I don't know from what standpoint the OP is coming from. There are certain genre enthusiasts who like to take down figures from the literary canon--a kind of middle brow Philistinism--but there are also some devoted literary enthusiasts who sometimes have controversial assessments, e.g. Eliot regarding Hamlet.
I have encountered in some circles an insistence that Shakespeare's work, without qualification, surpasses the work of all other canonical figures; some even go so far that they believe this assessment stands even when considering authors who wrote in languages other than English (so called "Bardolatry).
I suppose my preference for other figures in the canon over Shakespeare is strong enough that I can't help but be somewhat resistant to this assessment.
The comedies are what put him above Dante. Dante could have written King Lear or Hamlet, but could he have written Much Ado About Nothing or The Comedy of Errors?
As well as the serious intellectual stuff, Shakespeare deals with all the knockabout silliness of life: boners, misunderstandings, getting drunk. Eliot, Dante, Milton never really approach that side of life. Even Tolstoy can only deal with it in a moralgay way, he's never actually funny, not a single pun about big dicks
Shakespeare's comedies are amusing but not funny
Are you kidding me? He's fantastic.
If anything, anglos don't deserve him.