/lit/ - Literature

>>13043308
No, he didn't create this thread.

he's right though
Shakespeare has no depth at all. He wrote 0 novels and he can't fucking write anything without raising the high falutin stakes to life and death. He survives only because his plays still make the elites feel smart.

>>13043308
Orwell's response to him was cringe. He basically spent the whole essay psychoanalysing Tolstoy and trying to allegorise him and King Lear instead of actually responding to the points Tolstoy made.

>>13043496
>he survives
What? No way dude. He died like 300 years ago. There's no way I'd be alive and walking among normal people right now. No possible way.

>>13043516
reddit an hero

>>13043308
>reading shakespeare in translation
>into pigfuck russian no less
Why bother

>>13043548
i’ve heard that shakespeare is supposed to be good in german, but i might be wrong i’m often wrong.

>>13043496
Shakespeare often deminishes the stakes of life and death to a negligible tension, which is always relevant and quite mature. Plus he has a ton of comedies where the stakes aren't life and death. All of it pretty rich criticism in light of Mr. HOW MUCH LAND DOES A MAN NEEEEED, Death of Ivan Illych, Anna Karenina etc etc.

Harold Bloom says Tolstoy and Shakespeare were both masters of (paraphrase) "making their creations seem like nature's own."

Probably Tolstoy is therefore uniquely qualified to criticize Shakespeare.

>>13043556
I sincerely doubt it. Shakespeare created hundreds of English words and common phrases. It seems so inherently tied to the native language.

>>13043548
He read it in English.

i had an honors english course my freshman year of college with a professor who had a doctorate in shakespeare so he designed the whole syllabus around shakespeare's plays and i really enjoyed the 4 or 5 that we read and discussed. also read moby dick for that class. i think that's when i started lurking on lit

>>13043308
>beethoven's kreutzer sonata is depicting a sex scene

>>13043578
He wasn't fluent in English

>>13043496
>Shakespeare has no depth at all.
What has depth then if not Shakespeare? What an astounding thing to say...What does depth even mean then according to you? Many of Shakespeare's characters are more real than what passes for actual people.

>>13043556

If you translate him literary he will be fine in any language. The trick is not to try to fit a particular metric scheme of another language and thus cut out words and change the lines just to get the syllabic number right. Other important thing would be to translate verse as verse, but as free-verse. Most translator either try to fit the metric patters of their own literary tradition or use prose instead. Both these solutions are bad.

Shakespeare is a poet that can tolerate the loss of sonority because the most impressive thing in his poetry is the imagery, and that can be kept alive in a literal translation.

>>13043308
>has a man ever been so wrong?
Probably Nabokov.

>>13043618
>>13043308
What is it about slavs that makes them such autistic contrarians?

>>13043616
I don't think his word play would translate well at all. It isn't what he said but the way he said it.

>>13043607
>For a long time I could not believe in myself, and during fifty years, in order to test myself, I several times recommenced reading Shakespeare in every possible form, in Russian, in English, in German and in Schlegel's translation, as I was advised.

>>13043621
the weather is shit and their women are mean

>>13043526

>>13043644
Mean, but Russian women are the most beautiful. Gray eyes, green eyes, black eyes, nut brown hair, long bodies

And, at least the ones in the novels, they all play piano or speak French, and carry a mysterious darkness that conveys a sincere posession of humanity.

>>13043665
But all the old women in the books and seemingly in life and squat plum butties, cross-clutching moralists alway only half-clued into the dealings of those around them and overly concerned with good reputation and the affects of a potatoes on the good body. So what happens to the cuties of yesteryear?

>>13043607
I have felt with an even greater force, the same feelings — this time, however, not of bewilderment, but of firm, indubitable conviction that the unquestionable glory of a great genius which Shakespeare enjoys, and which compels writers of our time to imitate him and readers and spectators to discover in him non-existent merits — thereby distorting their aesthetic and ethical understanding — is a great evil, as is every untruth.

>>13043756
>writes that mess
>thinks he's in any position to offer the slightest criticism of anyone

>>13043578
>>13043548
>reading and re-reading them in Russian, English and German; but ‘I invariably underwent the same feelings; repulsion, weariness and bewilderment’. Now, at the age of seventy-five, he has once again re-read the entire works of Shakespeare, including the historical plays......

from Orwell

>>13043765
that's from Orwell's essay

>>13043770
>>13043756
>>13043638
>reading Shakespeare with a Russian brain

>>13043851
>reading anything with a frogposter brain

>>13043851
To be fair, it's almost certain Tolstoy didn't actually read it, but relied on second hand critical accounts.

>>13044278
based on what

>>13044313
Among other things, the Orwell essay being quoted itt.

>>13044317
what other things

>>13044335
Things outside of Orwell's essay.

Shakespeare is overrated. I get the feeling that every single Anglo is a masochist because they like to suffer while reading his shit.

I liked Tolstoy, but he was far from being one of the greatest novelists. There was always something in his writing that made me feel like I was reading a fairy tale or a fantasy novel, and just couldn't take his writing seriously. Even when characters in war and peace die it feels underwhelming. I don't know what is it, I just know there was something holding him back from establishing a serious mood.

>>13044386
faggot

>>13043571
Agree

>>13043584
was there a student teacher? if so i took the same class

>>13044656
>serious mood.
like which author?

>>13044797
there wasn't my year, it was at KU in 2017

The only people who like Shakespeare are hive mind academics that want to appear cultured. You are deluding yourself if you actually enjoy sitting down and reading something as dull, predictable, and melodramatic as Shakespeare. If you want philosophy, read a philosopher, not a poet. If you want history, read history, not some larping history play. The list of examples goes on and on. No one has ever provided a good argument for as to why Shakespeare is worth reading. I will gladly hear anything on this board has to say; it will be nothing but the same old "muh sublimity" and "muh great language" over and over without any concrete points of argument. I've read 5 or so of his plays in my maturity and disliked them all immensely.

>>13045701
>subjective opinions don't exist
>you can't like what i don't like

>>13043496
>He wrote 0 novels
This is his greatest virtue.

>>13045701
You sound Jewish

>>13045710
>>13045737
Is this the power of the Shakespeare shill? Once again, you can't even begin to muster an argument as to why Shakespeare is of any value, yet nonetheless begin to foam at the mouth whenever anyone seeks to even question his seemingly-objective status.

>>13045843
liking something doesn't need a justification. i could say "i like this musician" and you say "i hate this musician" and neither of us are wrong because it's our individual opinions

>>13045903
You are running from the argument. If someone likes something they should at least be able to explain why. A person that likes a musician will always be able to pinpoint a certain aspect of the sound, character of the musician, or style that appeals to him. To half the people that shill Shakespeare, they have no justification for it and stumble whenever ask them to explain just why they find it to be good. If they can't explain, that's a telltale sign of a hive mind, living things just since it is common in academia.

>>13046000
>A person that likes a musician will always be able to pinpoint a certain aspect of the sound, character of the musician, or style that appeals to him.
not true, btw

>>13046006
Sounds like you aren't a very freethinking individual, not educated enough to express yourself, or a mix of both.

>>13043496
novels are the lowest form of writing

>>13046030
>loaded statement
>no justification
classic

>>13046017
do you disagree that our subconscious mind is able to direct our likes and dislikes without us explicitly knowing the reason?

>>13046017
Sounds like you are a very freethinking individual, educated enough to express yourself, or a mix of both.

When England was becoming the very first industrial state, they also industrialized their education system, which the model for every other country. All schools were to have similar curriculums, similar textbooks, and marched off to class like their parents to the factories.

One of the things they needed to standardized was english literature. Shakespeare was chosen merely because it could be easily reproduced without licensing because it had no copyright. And there were enough surviving texts.

As generations of people were shuffled off to school, this obscure playwright was introduced to millions. And by the mere fact everyone knows it, it gained prestige. And become a source of reference because everyone would know what you're referencing.

And from this forced meme that is Shakespeare, entire cottage industries sprung up around it. Like pseudo intellectuals.

Shakespeare was McDonalds, mass produced. He made up words for christsakes. No better than Dr. Seuss.

In conclusion, Russia > England.

>>13045711
>>13046030
based

>>13045843
Muh metaphors 8s the usual shakeshill argument, and they are right. He is an absolute master of it, and appreciation for him depends how important you consider it. It's certainly not enough for me.