most of his plots are absolutely retarded

People forget that when it comes to his Plays he was more of a showrunner than a careful author. It's not meant to be read but watches. Half of them would be lost if not written down by third parties during the shows

I tried reading him once as a non-anglo.

I quit because I was bored out of my mind.

File: Screenshot_20251124_192128_Firefox.jpg (482.8 KB)

482.8 KB JPG

>>25115887

>>25115906
>he was more of a showrunner than a careful author
right, he cut down another guys plays for production. the other guy became anonymous and shakespeare got all the credit, then shakespeares version was called the bad version and ignored as a historical oddity

>>25115910
the point is the kjv and shakespeare define early modern english

>>25115887
KEK no. I'm ESL, and I did read some of his plays, they are good. I really like Coriolanus, Julius Caesar, Anthony and Cleopatra, and Titus Andronicus.

>>25115906
This just isn’t true. Obviously playwrights in a time where there was no copyright would be cautious when publishing their plays. For instance, the good quarto of Hamlet was published only after a bootleg copy, the bad quarto, was published and the company didn’t want an inferior pirated copy associated with them.
>Half of them would be lost if not written down by third parties during the shows
You mean the First Folio. Shakespeare likely intended to prepare and edit his plays for publication when he retired to Stratford but died before he could finish it. Then his friends took over. We wouldn’t have Macbeth, for example, without the First Folio.

File: 1743297669905235.jpg (262.1 KB)

262.1 KB JPG

Are there any people who unironically believe stuff like this (who aren't Hispanic)? It can't all be bait.

I get lost in some of his pllays. I just read the Two Gentleman in Verona and A Comedy Of Errors and I didn't get what the fuck was going on or what the plays tried to say. His main plays are good nevertheless, i didn't King Lear either though

>>25115978
didnt understand

>>25115887
>OP
absolutely correct.
I hate American goyslop fed mutts so much its unreal.

>>25115887
People have been simping for Shakespeare since Elizabethan times. That's not to say he isn't overrated, but if he is, he's been for a while and it isn't a TV-brained amerimutt phenomenon. Shakespeare is pretty good, Milton is trash other than a few le epic quotes

Mona Lisa on the other hand is totally overrated and only because it got stolen from the Louvre in 1911 (no one realized it had been stolen for months)

>>25115978
Those are his earliest (solo) plays and obviously comedy, never mind stage comedy, will not age well

>>25115887
Is there any credibility to the claim Francis bacon was Shakespeare?

Shakespeare is good but yes he is overrated

File: 1701125943407197.gif (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB GIF

It's sad to see /lit/'s fall from grace like this. This board's IQ has fallen so far off a cliff.
I'd like to think this is bait, but we are so far through the looking glass when it comes to Americanized politics ruining just about everything in this world through enshittification spreading far past the internet, I genuinely don't think it is bait anymore. The degradation of education and the decade(s) long worship of anti-intellectualism has been devastating to the arts, and will take generations to recover.

>>25115887
Yeah, it's totally The Simpsons and Superbowl viewers that are reading Shakespeare.

what do you guys think of the Tempest?

File: 0_PinPep_Fosters_Campaign_011JPG-3207378783.jpg (65.3 KB)

65.3 KB JPG

>>25115887
OP pic reeks of nordcuckery.
t. a bong

>>25115903
Then it's a good thing he didn't invent them. He stole every plot he used.

>>25115910
Sounds like you need a bigger mind.

File: this_guy.png (300.8 KB)

300.8 KB PNG

>>25116054
We've got an elite connoisseur of Elizabethan drama here, lads.

>>25115978
The whole point is the plays are meant to be confusing, the comedy is literally the characters getting mixed up and making a bunch of errors. Add in that it’s in Middle English and it’s not gonna be a fun casual read.

>>25116077
Have to wonder if it can recover, or if everything that remains will only be a warped facsimile. We're also probably talking hundreds of years.

>>25116382
It’s because the entire world has the internet now. The most exotic person you could meet online 20 years ago was a guy from Finland.

>>25116348
So?

>>25115887
Why do Europeans seethe so hard over America? Sorry your ancestors didn’t take a chance to build a country and preferred to stay under your feudal lord and slurp gruel

File: quote-shakespeare-knew-the-human-mind-and-its-most-minute-and-intimate-workings-and-he-never-samuel-taylor-coleridge-107-49-10.jpg (72.4 KB)

72.4 KB JPG

What an embarrassing fucking thread. It's like the average /lit/ poster knows nothing about poetry, drama or the long critical reception of Shakespeare by the greatest minds in Europe's history.

Shakespeare is overrated. Besides having some witty turns of phrase, the level of psychological depth is kind of like a puddle compared to 19th century French and Russian novelists. But Shakespeare was no doubt a genius, it's just that he was severely limited by his time, before the rise of the novel. So it seems fair to praise Shakespeare to the greatest extent while still admitting that stage plays are just a less developed mode of artistic expression
>>25115978
I've read all of his comedies and the only one I remember finding humorous was Merry Wives of Windsor, because Falstaff acts as a Chris Farley funny fatman

>>25116477
Falstaff is more intellectually deep than raskalnikov or mersault you stupid brown undergrad

>>25116483
Yes, that's what you've been taught to say (probably by Bloom) but you've just allowed yourself to be carried away by phrases. How is Falstaff, who appears in a small number of plays, and whose total dialogues across all of them could be read in less than an hour, have a credible claim to greater depth than Levin from AK, or Pierre from W&P?

>>25116477
Drama is a higher artform than the novel but of course plebs are dazzled by the idea of 'modern psychology'. There is more universal human psychology in Shakespeare than in any detailed, microscopic observation of quotidian life in a 19th century novel. In today's world, any imbecile can record his slightest thought processes on paper, and as a result he is tricked into thinking he has a profounder idea of human psychology than Shakespeare.

>>25116492
>Drama is a higher artform than the novel
Would you care to demonstrate this? Because you didn't even attempt to do so in your post

>>25116488
>dude Dostoevsky is deep because his retarded christfag incel character goes off on 40 pages of self loathing and praise for dead jews he’s so le deep bro
Sir John mogs European lit they had to clone him a million times

>>25116514
>dude falstaff is so deep bro he's a fat oaf and acts like a buffoon but dispenses pithy wisdom at the same time

every pseud tries to downplay shakespeare but can't name a better playwright

>>25116517
He would mog you in an argument tho

>>25116526
I agree. I already said Shakespeare is undoubtedly a genius. My contention is just that the novel has more depth as an artform. It's possible that if Shakespeare was born a few centuries later, he would've been better than Tolstoy even.

>>25116494
The modern novel is the epitome of bourgeois culture. An artform entirely removed from the senses, the product of a private individual directed towards other private individuals, its subject matter ordinary life and the scraps of human experience. In contrast, drama is not only a condensation of the highest intensity and artfulness in construction, setting before our eyes in the living human being and all his energy of expression the most important and powerful qualities of human nature, but is also idealised with all the genius of the poet and the sublimity of his language. There is no character in a novel as aesthetically potent or psychologically original as King Lear or Falstaff. And there is no novel that can rival in beauty a single line from Dante or Sappho. Your ignorance of poetry is a significant factor in your underrating Shakespeare. Shakespeare's characters are not cut-out paper shapes, they can never be 'improved' upon in their truthfulness to human nature, because the dramatist sees characters as real human beings on the stage, if he has successfully held the mirror up to nature as Shakespeare says, and it is merely his job to transcribe that living being into words.

File: truthnuke.jpg (313.6 KB)

313.6 KB JPG

>>25116537

>>25116537
>The modern novel is the epitome of bourgeois culture.
I would agree with this, though I would disagree its a pejorative descriptor
>An artform entirely removed from the senses, the product of a private individual directed towards other private individuals, its subject matter ordinary life and the scraps of human experience.
Even according to the Greeks themselves (Aristotle) the intellectual sense is more important (and potent) than the five material senses. So I don't see that a novel lacking sound and visual spectacle is something against it. Have you read Euripedes? Would you be impressed by the pulley that lifts a god down onto the stage at the end of a third of his plays?
>drama is not only a condensation of the highest intensity and artfulness in construction, setting before our eyes in the living human being and all his energy of expression the most important and powerful qualities of human nature, but is also idealised with all the genius of the poet and the sublimity of his language.
I don't dispute that language is more beautiful when expressed in poetry, but we're discussing depth, not the aesthetic pleasure a well turned phrase can afford. And you seem to be recurring to the same argument that because stage plays have more brash and bombastic expressions of human life, they're therefore better. Do you really think that the Roman statues would've looked better painted with all the garish colors? Novels lend themselves to subtlety, stage plays lend themselves to viscerality. How many times in Shakespeare's plays does one of the characters have instruction to wink at the audience and make a pithy remark? Is this subtle?

Also I forgot to add
>And there is no novel that can rival in beauty a single line from Dante or Sappho.
This is a nakedly dogmatic statement. It's not hard to see why you venerate dramas so highly when you have the homosexual flare for the dramatic in your own expression

>>25116534
>the novel has more depth as an artform
A perfect display of the barbarity of modern education. You know so many facts as a modern human, for example that every insignificant detail of human experience is worthy of being recorded in words, a uniquely modern discovery, yet you have no concern for aesthetic merit, no awareness even of the distinguishing qualities of artforms. You might as well say a Flaubert novel is superior to a Beethoven symphony because it has more psychological depth. 'Depth' for you is just recording larger quantity of data. Sadly it seems to be symptomatic of that modern disease of being wowed by quantity and caring nothing about quality. The most valuable and spiritually resonant expressions of human culture, such as myth or symbolism, are devalued because they record relatively little data of your boring, mundane, ordinary life. An artform that derives its value from the mere display of human intelligence, something that everyone can learn, such as in studying mathematics, and thus is suited to the pride of the middling intellect, is a very low artform indeed. I do not wish to deny the importance or genius of the modern novel, but any argument for the superiority of the novel to any other artform is necessarily a mistaken one.

>>25116566
I won't say your post has convinced me but it has definitely given me pause to begin to reconsider my view of things

>>25116559
>Even according to the Greeks themselves (Aristotle)
As is well known, the Greeks ceased to appreciate the true nature of drama at a stage of their culture when philosophy stood triumphant over art. We can scarcely form an idea of the sensual power of Greek tragedy, with its unification of dance, music and poetry. Perhaps Japanese plays offer some idea. It would be utterly philistinish to believe that highly convoluted and stylised performance practice of Japan is an only unnecessary decoration to the text.

>we're discussing depth, not the aesthetic pleasure
In the greatest artforms they are the same. Your idea of 'depth' in art seems to be abstract knowledge which can then be artificially imported into an aesthetically pleasing context. Surely, when said like this, you realise what a vulgar view of art this is? Poetry can express things that prose cannot, and the genius of Shakespeare's characters could only have been expressed through his poetry. If you view Shakespeare's poetry as decoration essentially unrelated to the nature of the characters, then you've misunderstood everything and have never formed a true idea of a Shakespeare character in your life.

You suffer from that common imbecility of contemporary culture, the belief that there has been a 'progress' in art and that you can separate an artist from his times. Too often it manifests itself in a phrase like 'if Shakespeare was a live today he would have been a movie director'. You state the cliched view that ancient sculpture looks silly with colouring, I respond that the ancients knew well enough the beauty of bronze and as such had justification enough for colouring their marble, if we dislike it either the reconstructions are too blame or the smallness of our own taste. You imply that there is something primitive and shallow in Shakespeare's characters appealing to the audience, but as any intelligent connoisseur knows, there is no necessary contradiction between artistic genius and popular appeal, and we are in no doubt that these 'winks' (whatever that exactly means) and pithy remarks did not interfere with the realism and consistency of the character. The true beauty of dramatic performance no more lies in 'bombast' than does the beauty of a symphony. Only a cold, egoistic modern man, entirely separated from the beauty of a flourishing artistic culture, could assume that 'bombast' is all that lies in the possibilities of the human face, body and voice.

>>25116563
If you had an ear that could discern poetic beauty, you would be agreeing with me.

>>25116592
>Your idea of 'depth' in art seems to be abstract knowledge which can then be artificially imported into an aesthetically pleasing context. Surely, when said like this, you realise what a vulgar view of art this is?
It may be vulgar but it's the only view of art I can at present wrap my mind around, being a follower of Hume, the great popper of balloons
>Poetry can express things that prose cannot
I'm tempted to believe this but I just cannot bring myself to conceive it as true. Again, perhaps I just have a vulgar turn of mind
>If you view Shakespeare's poetry as decoration essentially unrelated to the nature of the characters
This is how I read Shakespeare, yes
>You suffer from that common imbecility of contemporary culture, the belief that there has been a 'progress' in art and that you can separate an artist from his times.
I've read Bury and Lasch so I'm well aware that progress is the greatest modern myth, but I still can't help but hold that the novel towers above plays and verse
>You state the cliched view that ancient sculpture looks silly with colouring
But it does look silly. It's like Michelangelo's David - the hands have silly proportions, because it was designed to adorn the top of a cathedral, in the same way that the statue colors were expensive and rare and designed to draw attention, in the same way that stage plays employ melodrama to get the attention of the audience members sitting in the back of the hall. It's all practical limitation that the novel overcame.
>if we dislike it either the reconstructions are too blame or the smallness of our own taste.
What reason do you have to think that modern (17th century onward) tastes are small? Again, I don't believe in progress whatsoever, but I do think you're taking a romantic and dogmatic view of the past. "If the ancients did achieve perfection in imaginative literature, it follows that they cannot be surpassed; but we have no right to say, as their admirers are fond of pretending, that they cannot be equalled."
>The true beauty of dramatic performance no more lies in 'bombast' than does the beauty of a symphony.
Good point, I have no answer to this

I know its tempting to dismiss him, thinking hes overrated because of the co opting by retards, dogshit film adaptions, reworkings and fiddlefucking but humans with souls know he was a master of the greatest language

>>25116517
>dude falstaff is so deep bro he's a fat oaf and acts like a buffoon but dispenses pithy wisdom at the same time
This but unironically

No. He's actually really, really good.

>>25116477
>before the rise of the novel
whereas dante and chaucer

File: on poetry and poets.png (43.1 KB)

43.1 KB PNG

>>25116619
>it's the only view of art I can at present wrap my mind around
That's unfortunate. Maybe, if you cannot grant that art presents its own kind of knowledge, you will at least grant that art presents its own qualities of experience which can neither be reduced to either abstract knowledge or aesthetic experience as distinct from abstract knowledge. Is that a satisfying compromise to allow you to better appreciate art?

>I'm tempted to believe this but I just cannot bring myself to conceive it as true.
See pic related. I think T.S. Eliot, without being vague or mystical, offers a very clear example of what poetry can uniquely do. Poetry can be many things, it can be decorative, but it can also be powerful, in ways that prose just simply cannot.

>This is how I read Shakespeare, yes
You will find a much more complex and realistic psychology of character if you look for it in the poetry.

>It's all practical limitation that the novel overcame.
It's all aesthetic splendour that the novel could never hope to attain. Because it is a different medium that does not have access to the power of the senses. It is not strictly an 'art' in the same way poetry, music, painting, sculpture and architecture are. I fail to see how the coloured statues of Antiquity are comparable to the oversized hands of David. That said, the David statue is still a marvel up close, and the oversized hands were not constructed without an intelligent sense of unity with the rest of the sculpture. If there is a particular context which justifies a stylistic trait, why should that be a flaw? Insofar as that stylistic trait could not exist in any other context, it could be argued to be a blessing just as much as it is a limitation. But obviously the colouring of statues is no more the product of a limitation than leaving them bare, as it adds little to their visibility. It is awfully presumptuous to assume that the Greeks used colour to draw attention without also harmonising it with their refined aesthetic sensibility. Polychrome architecture is often truly beautiful in ancient reconstructions, and Renaissance polychrome sculpture has been entirely successful, so why should we presume ancient sculpture must look ridiculous? You must adjust your tastes.

>What reason do you have to think that modern (17th century onward) tastes are small?
It goes without saying that the 17th century was its own world with a very different idea of Antiquity than was the reality. In that sense, it was indeed too small to understand what was foreign to itself.

>>25115887
He was irremediably debunked by Tolstoy

>>25117228
That was just old man Tolstoy seething because Shakespeare was considered a superior artist to him

how absolutely mind broken by this website do you have to be to interpret the concepts of "BLACKED", "mutts", "Ameriniggers" seriously to form your real life view about a piece of British medieval literature.

...I know 4chan has always leaned toward pure contrarianism, but I draw the line at seriously questioning Shakespeare. This is just depressing. Need to start looking for a new place.

>>25115887
kek, I made that post.

>>25115887
I read Comedy of Errors, Taming of the Shrew, Two Gentlemen of Verona, and Henry IV. He's not very good.

>>25116526
Aeschylus

>>25116563
Kek.

>>25116566
>studying mathematics
>middling intellect
Relax..

>>25117601
Tolstoy read and disliked Shakespeare at all stages of his life. I don't know why it's so hard for monolingual English speakers to understand that Shakespeare simply isn't as venerated in continental Europe as he is in England and the US. This isn't solely aimed at (You) but moreso at the entirety of this embarrassing thread. The fervent defending and lashing out against other authors reeks of monolingual insecurity.

>>25117607
Kek, nice one.

>>25115933
Shakespeare would want you to watch the plays, as do all dramatists.