|
|
Post by Olive on Jun 10, 2011 9:45:47 GMT -5
Shakespeare wasn't a god. He was a dude who most likely had extramarital affairs and wrote plays that the people would watch. IE, bums in seats, bums in seats. Titus Andronicus is the Renaissance England version of a slasher flick -- because violence and sex sell. If he created new words, we definitely can. (Also, I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not -- if you were I apologize for going all SRS BSNS on you.) And don't trivialize Shakespeare. Pretty much everything anyone likes about art can be traced back to him. He's the Beatles of literature. Beatles compared to Shakespeare... I think my day was just made. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 9:51:45 GMT -5
And if I'm not mistaken, haven't all these "alternate Shakespeare" theories been throughly disproven?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 10, 2011 9:53:47 GMT -5
Cause we ain't Shakespeare. Your point? He was just a man until the literary community came to revere his work. |
|
|
|
Post by embonpoint on Jun 10, 2011 10:32:46 GMT -5
I don't make new words; I take existing ones and chop 'em in half (because I'm super-lazy and it really, really annoys my sister - plus!), like 'awk' and 'rand' and 'wick' (awkward, random and wicked). I find it hilarious, but everyone else rolls their eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 10, 2011 14:46:00 GMT -5
Shakespeare wasn't a god. He was a dude who most likely had extramarital affairs and wrote plays that the people would watch. IE, bums in seats, bums in seats. Titus Andronicus is the Renaissance England version of a slasher flick -- because violence and sex sell. If he created new words, we definitely can. (Also, I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not -- if you were I apologize for going all SRS BSNS on you.) The sentiment was only half serious, but so many writers try to do the things their heroes did and it often comes out terrible. And don't trivialize Shakespeare. Pretty much everything anyone likes about literature can be traced back to him. He's the Beatles of literature. Except everything anyone likes about him can be traced back to mythology and classics, so he's more the... oh goodness I don't know about musical culture to use this metaphor, but I don't think "Shakespeare wasn't a god" is trivializing, it's realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by pjthefey on Jun 10, 2011 16:07:39 GMT -5
Pretty much everything anyone likes about literature can be traced back to him. He's the Beatles of literature. This is debateable. Just because "pretty much everything" you like can be traced back to Shakespeare, it does not follow that everything everyone likes can be. Furthermore, it does not follow that if someone is interested in something that is touched on by one of Shakespeare's plays, that Shakespeare's work necessarily inspired it or had any influence on the latter work's creation. It is fallacious logic. As for your later post about theories being disproved, disproof is relative to what is accepted by the relevant communities. If something is still being debated, then it can not be said to have been satisfactorily disproved. What is good enough for one person is not good enough for everyone. I don't believe anyone is claiming that Shakespeare doesn't have anything to offer, however it's important to recognize him for what he is - a human or humans with a gift for play-writing. If humanity has already achieved all of its greatest accomplishments, then this world is an extremely depressing place indeed. Fortunately, that is not a belief that I happen to hold. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 20:30:17 GMT -5
Pretty much everything anyone likes about literature can be traced back to him. He's the Beatles of literature. This is debateable. Just because "pretty much everything" you like can be traced back to Shakespeare, it does not follow that everything everyone likes can be. Furthermore, it does not follow that if someone is interested in something that is touched on by one of Shakespeare's plays, that Shakespeare's work necessarily inspired it or had any influence on the latter work's creation. It is fallacious logic. As for your later post about theories being disproved, disproof is relative to what is accepted by the relevant communities. If something is still being debated, then it can not be said to have been satisfactorily disproved. What is good enough for one person is not good enough for everyone. I don't believe anyone is claiming that Shakespeare doesn't have anything to offer, however it's important to recognize him for what he is - a human or humans with a gift for play-writing. If humanity has already achieved all of its greatest accomplishments, then this world is an extremely depressing place indeed. Fortunately, that is not a belief that I happen to hold. You're strawman-ing me hard here, as my original post and subsequent posts haven't made any of the claims you're talking about. And as to the part about truth being relative, I tend to agree, but by this logic, nothing is ever proven. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 20:32:51 GMT -5
Cause we ain't Shakespeare. Your point? He was just a man until the literary community came to revere his work. There was no "literary community" to revere Shakespeare in his time, at least not in the sense you're referring to. The literary community and the entire concept of a canon is centered around Shakespeare (if you believe classics to be a separate form from literature, which I think you do, but I can't quite remember). |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 10, 2011 20:35:05 GMT -5
The sentiment was only half serious, but so many writers try to do the things their heroes did and it often comes out terrible. And don't trivialize Shakespeare. Pretty much everything anyone likes about literature can be traced back to him. He's the Beatles of literature. Except everything anyone likes about him can be traced back to mythology and classics, so he's more the... oh goodness I don't know about musical culture to use this metaphor, but I don't think "Shakespeare wasn't a god" is trivializing, it's realistic. It's not the assertion that he's not a god I'm taking issue with, but the insinuation that he was "just a dude" who wrote plays to "put bums in seats." I really can't stand it when people make the claim that Shakespeare was just an entertainer. And sorry for the triple post, but there's no automatic multi-quote option, and I don't feel like doing all the copypasting right now. |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 11, 2011 3:00:31 GMT -5
Except everything anyone likes about him can be traced back to mythology and classics, so he's more the... oh goodness I don't know about musical culture to use this metaphor, but I don't think "Shakespeare wasn't a god" is trivializing, it's realistic. It's not the assertion that he's not a god I'm taking issue with, but the insinuation that he was "just a dude" who wrote plays to "put bums in seats." I really can't stand it when people make the claim that Shakespeare was just an entertainer. So, wait, there's something wrong with being "just an entertainer"? As an actor and former theatre major I take great offense to that statement. Also, seriously, Shakespeare was not the Beatles of literature because Shakespeare is actually pretty good. Jesus, who the fuck is trivializing him now. I've studied Shakespeare extensively as a theatre major. I agree that he's a great writer, maybe even a genius. But he was also just a dude (or maybe several) who wrote shit to put bums in seats and there is nothing fucking wrong with that. What is wrong is when it's asserted that because Shakespeare did something we mere mortals cannot. Fucking bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 11, 2011 3:03:07 GMT -5
It's not the assertion that he's not a god I'm taking issue with, but the insinuation that he was "just a dude" who wrote plays to "put bums in seats." I really can't stand it when people make the claim that Shakespeare was just an entertainer. So, wait, there's something wrong with being "just an entertainer"? As an actor and former theatre major I take great offense to that statement. Also, seriously, Shakespeare was not the Beatles of literature because Shakespeare is actually pretty good. Jesus, who the fuck is trivializing him now. I've studied Shakespeare extensively as a theatre major. I agree that he's a great writer, maybe even a genius. But he was also just a dude (or maybe several) who wrote shit to put bums in seats and there is nothing fucking wrong with that. What is wrong is when it's asserted that because Shakespeare did something we mere mortals cannot. Fucking bullshit. *applauds slowly* Bravo! |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 11, 2011 3:25:50 GMT -5
It's not the assertion that he's not a god I'm taking issue with, but the insinuation that he was "just a dude" who wrote plays to "put bums in seats." I really can't stand it when people make the claim that Shakespeare was just an entertainer. So, wait, there's something wrong with being "just an entertainer"? As an actor and former theatre major I take great offense to that statement. Also, seriously, Shakespeare was not the Beatles of literature because Shakespeare is actually pretty good. Jesus, who the fuck is trivializing him now. I've studied Shakespeare extensively as a theatre major. I agree that he's a great writer, maybe even a genius. But he was also just a dude (or maybe several) who wrote shit to put bums in seats and there is nothing fucking wrong with that. What is wrong is when it's asserted that because Shakespeare did something we mere mortals cannot. Fucking bullshit. The strawman here is awe-inspiring. I never said there was anything wrong with being just an entertainer, but if there's such a thing as a genius, Shakespeare is that, and there's a difference between being "just an entertainer" and being a genius. I'm not sure how you're making the jump to say that my statement is somehow an indictment against actors. I'm involved in my school's theater program. There's nothing wrong with being an actor, but there's a difference between just being an entertainer and being Shakespeare, just like there's a difference between being Zac Effron and being Tom Hanks. And you don't have to like the Beatles, but the point of my comparison is that Shakespeare is the father of a lot of aspects of literature in the same way the Beatles fathered a lot of aspects of music. By the way, any evidence of Shakespeare being multiple people is based on classism and shoddy "evidence." There's a birth certificate for god's sake and other documents that prove he was a real person. And for the last time, I never said that Shakespeare was a god or that we can't do things he did. I even said it sounded like fun in my post haha. |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 11, 2011 3:26:18 GMT -5
*bows* Thank you. Also I now have the scenes of Slow Clap Guy from Not Another Teen Movie running through my head. |
|
|
|
Post by KatjevanLoon on Jun 11, 2011 4:03:13 GMT -5
The strawman here is awe-inspiring. I never said there was anything wrong with being just an entertainer, but if there's such a thing as a genius, Shakespeare is that, and there's a difference between being "just an entertainer" and being a genius. I'm not sure how you're making the jump to say that my statement is somehow an indictment against actors. I'm involved in my school's theater program. There's nothing wrong with being an actor, but there's a difference between just being an entertainer and being Shakespeare, just like there's a difference between being Zac Effron and being Tom Hanks. And you don't have to like the Beatles, but the point of my comparison is that Shakespeare is the father of a lot of aspects of literature in the same way the Beatles fathered a lot of aspects of music. By the way, any evidence of Shakespeare being multiple people is based on classism and shoddy "evidence." There's a birth certificate for god's sake and other documents that prove he was a real person. And for the last time, I never said that Shakespeare was a god or that we can't do things he did. I even said it sounded like fun in my post haha. People disagreeing with you =! strawman argument. Um, I believe it was an indictment against actors because of your dismissive fucking tone. It sounds like you honestly believe that someone who works in theatre and tries to put bums in seats so zie can eat is a sell-out because zie's just an entertainer. It's really fucking great if you can combine putting bums in seats with really good work, and Shakespeare did that quite often. Not always. Not all of his work is a;ldkfjdsa;lfkj fuckingamazing. You did assert that a good reason for not creating neologisms is because we aren't Shakespeare. Saying that it may be fun to try does not cancel out what you said before that, because there's this unspoken assumption that because it may be fun to try it means we'll never create words that may actually stick, like Shakespeare's did. IE, not on the same level as he was, it's just a bit of fun, not actually important work like the Bard's. Which is why I say he was just a dude who maybe cheated on his wife a bit and definitely wrote things to get bums in seats so he could eat and got lucky more often than not when it came to writing some really brilliant shit. |
|
|
|
Post by Fuck Yeah Dion on Jun 11, 2011 6:44:17 GMT -5
The strawman here is awe-inspiring. I never said there was anything wrong with being just an entertainer, but if there's such a thing as a genius, Shakespeare is that, and there's a difference between being "just an entertainer" and being a genius. I'm not sure how you're making the jump to say that my statement is somehow an indictment against actors. I'm involved in my school's theater program. There's nothing wrong with being an actor, but there's a difference between just being an entertainer and being Shakespeare, just like there's a difference between being Zac Effron and being Tom Hanks. And you don't have to like the Beatles, but the point of my comparison is that Shakespeare is the father of a lot of aspects of literature in the same way the Beatles fathered a lot of aspects of music. By the way, any evidence of Shakespeare being multiple people is based on classism and shoddy "evidence." There's a birth certificate for god's sake and other documents that prove he was a real person. And for the last time, I never said that Shakespeare was a god or that we can't do things he did. I even said it sounded like fun in my post haha. People disagreeing with you =! strawman argument. Um, I believe it was an indictment against actors because of your dismissive fucking tone. It sounds like you honestly believe that someone who works in theatre and tries to put bums in seats so zie can eat is a sell-out because zie's just an entertainer. It's really fucking great if you can combine putting bums in seats with really good work, and Shakespeare did that quite often. Not always. Not all of his work is a;ldkfjdsa;lfkj fuckingamazing. You did assert that a good reason for not creating neologisms is because we aren't Shakespeare. Saying that it may be fun to try does not cancel out what you said before that, because there's this unspoken assumption that because it may be fun to try it means we'll never create words that may actually stick, like Shakespeare's did. IE, not on the same level as he was, it's just a bit of fun, not actually important work like the Bard's. Which is why I say he was just a dude who maybe cheated on his wife a bit and definitely wrote things to get bums in seats so he could eat and got lucky more often than not when it came to writing some really brilliant shit. Your strawman is attacking me on points I haven't made, which you've continued to do in this post. Those four words in my first post were only half serious, as I said before. As my posts in the "what is literature" thread point out, I certainly don't find any artist to be immaculate or untouchable, and I certainly don't think Shakespeare is the only one who can come up with words. For the last time, I'm not taking a dismissing tone toward entertainers. Shakespeare was an entertainer. Like I said, I'm involved in my school's theater program. I just take issue with the assertion that he was just an entertainer. That is not a commentary on the entire art form of acting. I promise it has nothing to do with actors. I'm simply talking about Shakespeare. He's not just an entertainer, and his plays weren't written just to put bums in seats. Those are my only claims. |
|
