>ITT: We discuss why Titus Andronicus is the best of Shakespeare's plays
>Aaron: ... But I have done a thousand dreadful things
>As willingly as one would kill a fly,
>And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
>But that I cannot do ten thousand more
Also, Shakespeare general.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Henry 6th Part I is clearly Shakespeare's best play.
damn, that is a based quote
Spoken by the black sire to the two black rapists of Lavinia. They even had this little gem:
>I would we had a thousand Roman dames
>At such a bay, by turn to serve our lust.
Some stereotypes never change...
The only thing that saved Titus Andronicus from being memoryholed is the depiction of an interracial relationship,, but that doesn't bode well considering Tamora is painted as incredibly evil.
In all, a highly problematic play, but I actually like it because of its "honest" brutality, showing how senseless and psychopathic violence tends to actually be, but also how justified it could be; All of this stemming from a lack of mercy and unmerciful mistake after unmerciful mistake.
Misunderstood, problematic, and one of a kind. I like it, but I wouldn't say it's the best of Shakespeare, just highly under rated.
>The only thing that saved Titus Andronicus from being memoryholed is
eating your own kids without mustard.
>problematic
Twitter is down the road, try your luck there
I thought problematic was universally considered a positive adjective on IQfy
>"honest" brutality,
I want to expand on what I mean here, in case it isn't known. Most plays and literature depict "lofty," honourable violence; Even if one side is evil, at least the violence isn't purely base. This is fine... But in reality, most violence and suffering occurs because someone though "ayo i wan sum fuk." It really doesn't go further than that. The crushing majority of tragedy, unnimaginable suffering, and death happens because someone was horny or thought it would be fun-- no lofty ideals, no soldiers commanded by loyalty to commit evil acts for his lord, no noble misunderstandings, no "socio-economic factors," etc. At the end of the day, one guy could be horny so he completely destroys someone forever.
Most people see Titus as a really shallow play because of that, but that's the point. The play opens with the word "Noble" by the soon-to-be Emperor himself, showing the contrast between the Romans (who represent that loftiness and idealism) and ends with the word "pity," describing the foreigner (who represents the senselessness of REAL violence). The Romans are the playrwrights, the audience, the critics, etc., being introduced to the "foreigners" who don't share their "ideals." Just as Marcus and Titus are driven mad by the sight, so too are the modern viewers.
I see this everywhere, by the way. Privileged, bourgeois white kids like to attribute so much violence to economics or poverty when, really, it's just because some guy wanted new sneakers. The crackhead didn't slay an entire family because he felt oppressed on all sides by his lack of economic opportunities, the unjust system, and biases against who he was, and that he would shortly die of starvation without food- he did it because he wanted to make enough money for a few prostitutes and a high. He isn't a noble, misunderstood, oppressed little guy. Whatever the reason for his present state, (just as with the Tamora and the Moors) he is simply evil. He commits senseless violence because that's just what he does. That's reality-- and that reality drives people insane.
>Most plays and literature depict "lofty," honourable violence
They do? Are you one of those people who only read stuff written before some arbitrary date a few centuries ago? That sort of thing fell out of favor back during realism.
I'm referring to Shakespeare's time and the modern critics that expect profound meaning behind violence when they see Shakespeare.
Besides that, I didn't know people still wrote books after 1758.
>I'm referring to Shakespeare's time
Ahh, that explains why you went into the stuff about privileged white kids and their sneakers.
>Ahh, that explains why you went into the stuff about privileged white kids and their sneakers.
You should see how many people are killed for Nike, wingéd messenger of the gods, in Defoe A Journal of the Plague Year.
Have you ever spoken to a starry eyed white college kid? No matter how much gore porn they read, they still believe that all violence would dry up if everyone were to be given a monthly stimulus check and hugs <3
So because kids are stupid most all of literature depicts violence as honorable? Is literature just a segue to a rant for you?
You are astonishingly low IQ. Sure, little buddy. Whatever entertains you.
>because he felt oppressed on all sides by his lack of economic opportunities
>because he wanted to make enough money
Anon...
Anon isn't arguing that there is an economic context, but he is arguing that Black people's morality and desires exceeds the economic constraints that a rat is subject to. Anon is arguing that like Othello that black people are not constrained by economics, but like men aspire to action in the moral domain.
What I mean is that we imagine a destitute, crying, poor little baby wondering where his next meal will come from-- what we get is a crackhead that kills with no remorse or regret because his pleasure function is too low. I am not saying that economics has no bearing on his actions, but that his actions are motivated by nothing more noble than pleasure and selfishness. He doesn't feel hemmed in by starvation and a lack of economic opportunities, he feels horny and addicted, so he selects the easiest route to increase his pleasure. (If you want to say that the would-be rapist is a good person, or maybe not a bad person, because his government bribes him with 2,000 USD a month to not rape and kill anyone, be my guest.)
So the point is that there was no lofty, misunderstood reason behind his violence. It was "ayo I wan sum fukk" and killing a family was the way to make it happen. Again, reduce that to economic factors if you want to-- I hate that sort of materialism that reduces humans to mathematical functions where more money = less crime. Don't bother discussing art if you don't believe in objective values.
Misinformaton read the play before you comment
>Tamora is painted as incredibly evil
sooo like real mudsharks
Agreed.
Titus and Tempest are Billy's best.
>They open the tomb
There greet in silence, as the dead are wont,
And sleep in peace, slain in your country’s wars.
O sacred receptacle of my joys,
Sweet cell of virtue and nobility,
How many sons hast thou of mine in store
That thou wilt never render to me more!
anyone else ever imagine being so high IQ that you can speak in free-style iambic pentameter all day long?
You could probably do it easily if your head wasn't filled with pornstars and video games and tikkytoks while growing up, there's studies that suggest ancient peoples had extremely high IQ compared to contemporary humans that is inversely correlated with literary tradition, actual use of oratory and memory etc.
Methinks 'tis not worth all the effort it would ask of thee.
>"What did you do to our mom?"
>"What you can't unfrick lmao"
>"You fricked up our mom!!"
>"Motherfricker I fricked your mom"
Its been nearly 350 years and we really haven't changed. Not sure if this is comforting or terrifying.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. We've literally been making "x walked into a bar jokes" since the advent of alcohol and civilisation.
>MARCUS.
Who is this? My niece, that flies away so fast?
Cousin, a word; where is your husband?
If I do dream, would all my wealth would wake me!
If I do wake, some planet strike me down,
That I may slumber an eternal sleep!
Speak, gentle niece, what stern ungentle hands
Hath lopped and hewed and made thy body bare
Of her two branches, those sweet ornaments
Whose circling shadows kings have sought to sleep in,
And might not gain so great a happiness
As half thy love? Why dost not speak to me?
Alas, a crimson river of warm blood,
Like to a bubbling fountain stirred with wind,
Doth rise and fall between thy rosed lips,
Coming and going with thy honey breath.
But sure some Tereus hath deflowered thee,
And, lest thou shouldst detect him, cut thy tongue.
Ah, now thou turn’st away thy face for shame,
And notwithstanding all this loss of blood,
As from a conduit with three issuing spouts,
Yet do thy cheeks look red as Titan’s face
Blushing to be encountered with a cloud.
Shall I speak for thee, shall I say ’tis so?
O, that I knew thy heart, and knew the beast,
That I might rail at him to ease my mind.
Sorrow concealed, like an oven stopped,
Doth burn the heart to cinders where it is.
Fair Philomela, why she but lost her tongue,
And in a tedious sampler sewed her mind;
But, lovely niece, that mean is cut from thee;
A craftier Tereus, cousin, hast thou met,
And he hath cut those pretty fingers off
That could have better sewed than Philomel.
O, had the monster seen those lily hands
Tremble like aspen leaves upon a lute,
And make the silken strings delight to kiss them,
He would not then have touched them for his life.
Or had he heard the heavenly harmony
Which that sweet tongue hath made,
He would have dropped his knife, and fell asleep,
As Cerberus at the Thracian poet’s feet.
Come, let us go, and make thy father blind,
For such a sight will blind a father’s eye.
One hour’s storm will drown the fragrant meads;
What will whole months of tears thy father’s eyes?
Do not draw back, for we will mourn with thee.
O, could our mourning ease thy misery!
I was surprised when I read that this speech was controversial. It is very clear that it is supposed to be a jarring juxtaposition between innocence and beauty, and senseless brutality. Marcus struggles to come to terms with both of those things, and in almost drives Titus mad. In some sense, the modern commentators that bash Titus Andronicus are receiving the intended effect; The beauty of the play is defiled by the horror of reality, and the critic can't accept it.
>The beauty of the play is defiled by the horror of reality, and the critic can't accept it.
I think this is why IQfy is so into Titus. It is the lemonparty of tragedy and strips tragedy to the central element of the horror of confronting the real and the impossibility of choice in action. Seeing modernist critics confused by modernity is normal play.
Also like lemonparty, part of life is seeing The Elephant.
It is pretty great, probably my favorite. Don't have much to say on it but I did get to see it a couple times in the 5 or 6 years after your picrel movie came out and all the companies were trying to out do each other on the gore. Think I will watch the movie again, havn't seen it in years.
There was 9 posts by 5 or 6 anons at best in the 24 hours prior to your post, IQfy clearly is not into Titus.
>There was 9 posts by 5 or 6 anons at best in the 24 hours prior to your post, IQfy clearly is not into Titus.
TITUS IS A FRICKING TRIUMPH OF A PLAY
YES I DO KNOW WHAT A TRIUMPH IS
THAT IS THE POINT
MAN CANNOT BEAR TO BECOME GOD
NOW EAT
Titus Andronicus is a very bad play. You would have to search very hard to find something beautiful within it, and it pales in comparison to everything else he wrote. It's just a very over-the-top revenge story.
>t. filtered
it's a little interesting when you view it as Shakespeare's most violent play, and knowing that he made it while revenge stories were in vogue at the time. But you can't compare it to something like Macbeth and say that it's better.
>Titus Andronicus is the best of Shakespeare's plays
Wooooooow! OP is such a huge contrarian! I've never seen such a confidently stupid endorsement! He must give zero fricks about what educated people think!
Then it's time to refute it and state the real best Shakespeare play, otherwise you're a pseud that has likewise put very little thought into his opinion.
the one I like the most is Macbeth. There are probably 20 different lines off the top of my head that I think are amazing, and I'm sure there are hundreds more. Macbeth is a lot more complicated than Titus, and he has been played as both a villain deserving of his fate and as a victim who was tricked into committing atrocities. Either way what Macbeth has to say about the nature of fate over free will is certainly more interesting than Titus which is just a revenge story. A revenge story no different from The Limey, John Wick, Wrath of Kahn, or Scott Tenorman Must Die.
Taste is subjective. Why should anyone care what "educated" consensus is outside math or science? Even then the most educated guy I know, died of the vax. 50 isn't an insanely young age, but its too young to be collapsing on the ground shitting yourself.
>disney channel furry cartoon
Wooooooow! Anon is such a huge pedophile! I've never seen such a confidently stupid post! He must give zero fricks about what real people think!
Pretty much, you can tell OP only pretends to believes this because he knows it is a widely disagreeable notion. He's a child looking for attention.
The secret sole purpose of this thread was to attract this anon's attention, if possible.
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/23228295/#q23228298
Who wrote this:
>Shakespeare wrote for an audience of unmarriageable lawyers who could frick prostitutes all they want. Later he was revived as arse plays ("Restoration Shakespeare."). Later the romantics basically lionised him.
>Only one of his plays is any good. Titus.
Sadly, I don't think he has replied to my thread with his reason.
I've responded a bunch of times.
Titus strips tragedy to an essential characteristic, like Hamlet does. Titus' essential characteristic is rejected by modernist critique, much like modernism can't handle most Greek tragedy. Titus then is a "problem play" for the modernist (or post-modernist) reader: it exceeds their analytical framework.
Unmarried lawyers or restoration transvestite lovers could "get" Titus. You can "get" Titus. You can "get" Titus and transform your conception of Shakespeare away from the romantic interpretive framework that drives modernist critique and enter a new world of literary critique through the gateway of horror.
Titus appears to be grand guignol, but it is not. Titus' horror derives from the lines delivered and characters, not just from the special effects. Learn to "unread" modernist Shakespeare and read him for yourself. Reverse your inherited opinions of Shakespeare and make his plays your own. Violently. As a conquest of your own urbanity and attempt to control the systems of the world. Man cannot be God. Become humbled in your triumph.
This is just the schizopost I was looking for, thanks!!
I hope I've helped you fail your English 200 class.
Slasher-pessimism is a therapeutic technique for dullards. Violence and suffering is interesting for its erotic-pathetic qualities, not for the weak and powerless to have their failings justified to them by the myth of a maleovant, cruel, and all-powerful universe conspiring against them. Aaron is the lead character of interest because of his unrestrained vitality and energy, Titus is a dead horse getting flogged.
I love plays. The good ones... Shakespeare! I like... Titus Andronicus. It is sweet. Incidentally, did you know you were talking to an artist?
Shakespeare didn't even write most of Titus Andronicus you realize.
Coriolanus is his best play anyway.
Hey, look at this guy! He read the Wikipedia page for Titus Andronicus!
>actually reading Shakespeare
>impossible not to notice how of character and out of style Titus Andronicus is compared to everything else the man wrote
>hurr durr wiki
It's on Wiki because it is obvious and well known, not the other way around my dear illiterate moron-kun.
sorry i'm a destiny fan i'm trying to change
David Cole likes to quote Aaron to say "guys, a lot of Black folk are really like this"
Sad how many anons ITT think Moor=Black person. You probably think Othello was supposed to look like Mahershala Ali. For all the try-hard bloviating about TA being The Bard's best play, you'd think these edge-lords would be less susceptible to Shekelberg/Netflix-brainwashing.
For Shakespeare's time, they practically were the same. That's an oversimplification, but the way Moors and Blacks were treated are comparable.
He repeatedly describes them as coal-black, anon.
Othello is said to have fat Black person lips. You are coping that Brother Speare wrote IR romances
I thought it was awful, the movie did a lot with it though
Is the King Lear with Hopkins in it any good? I heard he makes interesting choices.
From the few clips I've seen, no. Especially since every other casting choice, including the girl-boss Cordelia, is ultra bad. Schofield's will always be the best.