[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 404 KB, 1200x1200, william-shakespeare-194895-1-402 (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12225323 No.12225323 [Reply] [Original]

How did he do it?

>> No.12225327

>>12225323
Montaigne

>> No.12225331

>>12225323
He couldn’t afford to get writers block, he had to write new plays, so he just kept making things, and when you write that much, you get better

>> No.12225332

>ear ring
His was obviously a soiboy

>> No.12225409

>>12225323
Like it’s an historical accident that the Bible is considered by many to be divinely inspired and the word of God and yet Shakespeare’s high tragedies are believed to have been written by a mere mortal. The Bible is glorious, but if it sets the standard for divine writing, in a meritocracy Shakespeare would be considered the king of the king of kings and God’s God.

>> No.12225411

>>12225323
he was seven separate people

>> No.12225413
File: 578 KB, 520x631, whenyougiveheryourmeasureformeasure.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12225413

>>12225323
by fucking 100 women and 1000 young boys

>> No.12225430

Never read. What makes him so good?

>> No.12225432

>>12225430
if you read it you'll find out

>> No.12225449

>>12225432
I'm not native anglo, though.

>> No.12225450

>>12225449
ok... cool?

>> No.12225454

>>12225430
One you get accustomed to his rhythm and method you realize the best of his plays take place in a world more vividly real than our word with characters more human than real humans are. Plato talks about forms being realer than the physical manifestations of those forms. There’s a kind of ontological hierarchy to reality. There is the shit chair, the good chair, and the form of chair itself. The perfect chair would be the one that approximates in physical reality the form of chair. Shakespeare’s plays don’t just posit the existence of forms, as Platos dialogues mostly do: they realize them. The plays are enactments of the forms of human experience, of the human reality. They don’t show the people and the world that we see every day, they show these people in their highest actuality, the people they could possibly be of only they were more real, more perfectly truly themselves.

I know that pretty abstract and probably insufficiently explained, but it’s how I feel.

>> No.12225455

>>12225323
Any biographies of the man or writings from his contemporaries that have insights into his life and history? Even if they are of suspect origin, I’m very curious about what has been speculated about Shakespeare’s life and formative years

>> No.12225473
File: 32 KB, 500x583, E871C35B-F757-43B6-B541-6D404A573384.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12225473

>>12225323
the same way she does it

>> No.12225488

>>12225454
I’ve never been able to feel this while reading him. What are your favorite plays by him?

>> No.12225494

>>12225455
Read the wiki article on his life, there's not a lot of info so anything more substantial than that is mostly speculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_of_William_Shakespeare

>> No.12225502

>>12225455
Also the most important speculation is that he attended a certain grammar school in his hometown, that's where he learned Latin classics.

>> No.12225518

>>12225473
Who is the cutie and how does she do it?

>> No.12225535

>>12225488

This is basically my ordered ranking of the greats.

Highest art ever created: Hamlet, King Lear, The Tempest

Ultra God tier: Othello, Macbeth, A Winter’s Tale, Antony and Cleopatra, Henry 4.1 and 4.2

God tier: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Romeo and Juliet, As You Like It, Henry 5, Twelfth Night, Julius Caesar, The Merchant of Venice

>> No.12225555

>>12225518
Donna Tartt

being herself

>> No.12225931

>>12225535
I think I've read almost all of those, and I didn't get what you got from them. I'd like to be attuned to it, however. Did it come naturally? What do you think I should do?

And please don't write me off as soulless or somehow desolate; Shakespeare is supposed to be universal, and I'm willing to learn

>> No.12225952

>>12225931
Faith and diligence, man. Harold Bloom is a good hype man, and will put you in the right frame of mind to become a bardolator. You need to go into reading Shakespeare believing he is a god among men, and that you’re at fault for not “getting it”. Then you need to keep rereading until you do “get it”.

Its like any difficult philosopher. If you bear with them long enough, believing that they have something important to say, and beating your head against their work until you crack the code, something eventually clicks and their system opens up for you.

>> No.12225970

>>12225952
but men are so good at deceiving themselves; I can't see why that wouldn't be true of drivel!

moreover—art is meant to be enjoyed. What would the poet himself say about such abuse as the suggestion that you had to beat your head against his work, that you had to rely on faith and diligence... I mean, no offense man, but those two virtues seem to apply to ethics, not aesthetics.

The whole pleasure of a work of art is that we understand the whole thing immediately. If it fails to do that, it's useless.

>> No.12225995

>>12225970
I’m saying this to you because you seem incapable of appreciating the almost universally regarded greatest writer in the language. I didn’t have to struggle desperately to gain enjoyment from reading Shakespeare. But I also enjoy him more now than ever now that I understand him better and am more familiar with his mode.

>The whole pleasure of a work of art is that we understand the whole thing immediately. If it fails to do that, it's useless.

This is an absurd argument to be making on this board. The difficult pleasures of high art take a long road of work and initiation to achieve. Your argument holds with respect to cookie-cutter popular art. Yes, you can understand the entirety of an episode of Criminals Minds immediately and with no effort. That’s why so many more people sink an hour into watching it than they do into reading “Ulysses”. The latter takes work. It requires you to have a certain level of basic intelligence, a certain education, a certain familiarity with the medium. And even with all that it’s still a difficult book. Yet those who love it love it in a way that no one one the planet loves an episode of Criminals Minds.

Art isn’t just about easy pleasures and immediate understanding. In fact, I’d say good art is about just about the opposite. It makes you think in ways you wouldn’t usually, about things you wouldn’t usually.

>> No.12226128

>>12225535
nice taste
I'd just switch places between KL and Macbeth

>> No.12226188

>>12225970
Brainlet

>> No.12226200

Some of the ways he do it:

>He studied on a Grammar School, and that kind of school on that time was mostly concerned with teaching language techniques, rhetoric and oratory. Boys had to translate Latin to English and make several exercises of imitation: they had to say the same thing that a particular passage in Latin was saying, but in their own words. They also had to learn a lot of different figures of speech and try their hands and creating their own examples of it (metaphors, similes, metonymy, onomatopoeia, assonance, alliteration, etc.). In other words: Grammar Schools for kids on those days were teaching boys more about literature than most great Universities of today.

>He lived on a time where poetic language was held in high esteem. He had a particular taste for metaphor – the greatest of all poetic techniques and the queen of the figures of speech – and find an audience that didn’t find repulsive if he pushed his own obsession with imagery to the limit. This is the main thing about Shakespeare: he loved language and poetic images and had the opportunity to explore this love. In the end he was saying things that the world have been saying for centuries, but he was saying it with the best words in the bet order.

>He didn’t had a great gift for creating original plots, but solved it by taking plots from other sources and combining them into new works. By doing that he didn’t need to write always about themes that interested him in particular, and so he forced himself to work out several different themes and philosophies and points of view. Since his poetic gift was so great he could trust that he could inject with life even the most arid and uninteresting subjects. He was very lucky for this way of creating his literature. It takes a lot of time to think in original stories, but since he was always looking – like a radar – for good stories in other places he could end up a play and immediately begin another one, thus creating a vast corpus of works.

>He had the incredible good luck to produce a kind of art that was lucrative in that particular time. That means that he had not only artistic ambition as a source of motivation, but also profit. That means he could work on his craft almost exclusively, not needing to make it a hobby. Furthermore, since his income depended on it, he had no time to waste with writers block, but needed to show up every single day and force himself to work. That can do wonders for one’s creativity.

>> No.12226220

>2 B R 0 2 B
>That's the question

Shakespeare hack confirmed.

>> No.12226793

>>12226200
source?

>> No.12226802

>>12226793

Several books on him. I can post a list latter if you want.

>> No.12226809

>>12226802
yes, please, i want to know more

>> No.12226829

>>12225332
it was painted after died

>> No.12226902

>>12226809
we don't know much

>> No.12227017

>>12226802

OK, I will recommend you a list of books.

Keep in mind, however, that most of them are obscure and technical volumes that hardly will catch the attention of most readers. I advise you to proceed in reading them if:

a) You are really fanatic about Shakespeare and what to know all you can about him and about his style of writing.

Or

b) You want to emulate Shakespeare’s style of writing, learn with him and possibly do something similar to what he did (who knows, maybe even compete with him)

Anyway, to the list.

If you want to know what kind of education Shakespeare had there are some books that will show you exactly what kind of material they studied in the Grammar Schools of Elizabethan England. The first book I would recommend (because it is not only filled with information, but also collects several examples from Shakespeare’s own work and it’s a decently readable volume) is this one:

>Shakespeare’s Uses of the Arts of Language, by Sister Miran Joseph Smith

If you really want to dig deeper into the world of the Grammar Schools of Shakespeare’s time the most comprehensive text out there is this one:

>William Shakespeare’s Small Latin and Less Greek, by T.W. Baldwin:

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.3734/page/n5

If you want to understand Shakespeare’s style of writing, the evolution of his language, his uses of metaphors and similes and other poetic techniches, I recommend this books

Before the list, take a look at this selection of commentaries about the metaphors (metaphors being the greatest and most impressive feature of Shakespeare’s style):

https://www.thoughtco.com/power-and-pleasure-of-metaphor-1689249

Now the list:

>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans

If you want to know what sources Shakespeare used to craft his plays, and how he changed them by compressing or augmenting material, and also by mixing several different bits of plots into new plots of his one, read this book:

>The Sources of Shakespeare's Plays, by Kenneth Muir

Also, a tip: if you intend to write poetic plays yourself you might consider looking for old movies as plot sources, combining them and giving them a new and modern set up. If you want to write comedy, for example, you can look for the comedies of the 40s and 50s and find a lot of material that can be translated to the sage.

As for a biography of Shakespeare, the best one I know is this:

>Shakespeare, the World as a Stage, by Bill Bryson

If you want to know the world of theater of that time in detail, look for this book:

>The Elizabethan Stage, by E.K. Chambers

>> No.12227023

>>12225323
it was his nigger maid tho

>> No.12227213

>>12225535
most of his works could easily be in the top tier. don't know where you got romeo & juliet from though

>> No.12227239

>>12225535
>Highest art ever created: Hamlet, King Lear, The Tempest

Why can one say they are superior to Beethoven’s 9th symphony, or The Sistine Chapel Ceiling or the David, or The Marriage of Figaro, or War and Peace?

>> No.12227448

>>12227239
>Beethoven’s 9th symphony
Grosse Fugue is better.
>The Sistine Chapel Ceiling or the David
Pieta is better.

>> No.12227460

>>12225323
The power of anglo editorial industry and propaganda pushing

>> No.12227485

>>12226128

No. Get out now.

>> No.12227499

>>12225323
>implying it wasn't a group of woman under the guise of one name

>> No.12227516

>>12225535
Where would you put Coriolanus?

>> No.12227528

Daily reminder that stylologists also believe James Joyce to have been five different people.

>> No.12227541

>>12227017
thanks for the recommendations. i am a Shakespeare fanatic, so this is right up my alley. also:

>who knows, maybe even compete with him

bless your heart

>> No.12227542

>>12227528
Source?

>> No.12227547

'cause he was Italian

>> No.12227550

>>12226200
>He studied on a Grammar School, and that kind of school on that time was mostly concerned with teaching language techniques, rhetoric and oratory. Boys had to translate Latin to English and make several exercises of imitation: they had to say the same thing that a particular passage in Latin was saying, but in their own words. They also had to learn a lot of different figures of speech and try their hands and creating their own examples of it (metaphors, similes, metonymy, onomatopoeia, assonance, alliteration, etc.). In other words: Grammar Schools for kids on those days were teaching boys more about literature than most great Universities of today.

I have no trouble believing this without a source. Everything i've read about education in history suggests it was vastly superior to anything available to us today. At least man can self teach more nowadays.

>> No.12227714
File: 91 KB, 200x200, 1525294248344.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12227714

>>12227017
thank you very much

>> No.12228087

>>12225454
>enactments
Exactly why they're imperfect. Doesn't make Shakespeare any less amazing, but he is just as Platonic in substance as anything else.

>> No.12228736

>>12226200

this

>> No.12228890

>>12228087
He’s closer to the forms with his characters than Plato is with his.

>> No.12229593

>>12225327
this; and Montaigne did it with Seneca and Plutarch.

>> No.12229599

>>12229593
this; and Seneca did it with Zeno.

don't remember STWG
Start With The Greeks
With
The
Greeks

>> No.12229600

>>12227448
>Pieta is better.
which one tard

>> No.12230150

>>12225535
That's pretty good but I think you're overrating the shit out of the Tempest. I would replace it with Macbeth. I never got the wank a lot of people have over Tempest, like it's good of course but I wouldn't say it even belongs anywhere on that list.

>> No.12230309

>>12227460
Based + anti anglopilled

>> No.12230396

>>12225535
pretty accurate. replace Henry V with Loves Labours Lost or maybe Richard II, they are much better plays. Winter's tale is over rated.

>> No.12230704
File: 628 KB, 1584x1660, Michelangelo's_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12230704

>>12229600
this one you fuck*ng retard

the one my grandfather described as one of the highlights of his life when he saw it in his 30s (currently in his 90s)

>> No.12230720
File: 392 KB, 1536x2048, Michelangelo_pietà_rondanini.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12230720

lol surely i meant this as the "highest art ever created"

>> No.12230858

>>12230150
>Macbeth > Tempest
2edgy4me my dude

>>12230396
I love the St Crispin’s speech way too much. And seeing Hal ascend is bittersweet but pretty dope.

Also, I think A Winter’s Tale is decidedly underrated. Leontes sperging out is (I know I’m parroting the critical consensus) one of the most powerful representations of male sexual jealousy in literature. You get a thrill from the dramatic irony in Othello, knowing that Iago is totally manipulating the fuck out of the moor, but you never really get drawn into thinking that Desdemona is unfaithful. In A Winter’s Tale, no matter how many times you’ve read it, no matter how certain you are of Hermione’s fidelity, Leontes drags you so completely into his feverish paranoia that you actually feel like you’re being cucked. Also, if the final scene with Hermione’s “statue” doesn’t move you, I am inclined to suspect that you have a heart of stone. (I literally cry reading it bros.)

>> No.12230865

>>12230858
>>Macbeth > Tempest
>2edgy4me my dude
lel how is that edgy

>> No.12230896

>>12230865
I’m mostly kidding. Macbeth is obviously a masterpiece. I guess I was (unseriously) insinuating that you’re an edgelord for being unable to appreciate the romantic, dreamlike and consciously-archetypal festival of life affirmation that is the Tempest, while elevating the black, bloody, hopeless and nearly humourless Macbeth to a position of prominence.

>> No.12230899

>>12225323
marijuana and cocaine

>> No.12230906

>>12230704
Saw this at St Peters. Was pretty fucking DOPE.

>> No.12230921

>>12225409
I mean, sure, Muslims are stupid for thinking the supposed poetic sophistication of the Koran means anything toward it's truthfulness, but at least they tend to read the book in Arabic.


These fools that idolatize the King James Version as the only exceptable Buble when it isn't in any of the original languages, and praise while drunk on lethal koolaid its supposed stylistic, literary, beautiful prose (when anyone will prefer whatever translation of their youngsst years), are just disgusting. They will worship their nation and language and near ancestors and their behavior before they ever stop to find out what they themselves even mean by the word "God".

>> No.12230926

>>12230896
>life affirmation
ok as long as you're working from a Nietzschean perspective i support your posts

>> No.12230931

>>12225409
>it’s an historical accident that the Bible is considered by many to be divinely inspired

Not sure "historical accident" was the right phrase there. Shakespeare didn't try to claim to be a god, and while Jesus didn't either, it hardly unexpected that Jesus would face deification while Shakespeare would not.

>> No.12230960

>>12230931
It wasn’t meant to be taken as a serious claim but as a bardolator’s hyperbole. I know there are very explicable sensible determinate reasons for the sacralization of the Bible (and not Shakespeare). The “joke” is that if it took divine inspiration and god becoming man to make the Bible, then it’s writing should be superior to any mere mortal’s writing: if the Bible is the word and work of God, then Shakespeare, whose “word” and works are superior, should by rights be God’s God.

>> No.12231093

Aight hyperbole >>12225970
is fine by me :)

>>12230960
>"if it took divine inspiration and god becoming man to make the Bible, then it’s writing should be superior to any mere mortal’s writing"

Assuming a God pedantic enough to prefer to tell truths (despite how destructive and useless certai truths can be to some people) then one could expect the Bible to be more true, but one shouldn't expect the humble Christian God to prefer style over substance.

It's the Koran that right off the bat threatens with death or worse for those who don't bend over and spread ass checks for it with illogical, subjective reasons like poetic intricacy. In Christianity, I have rarely heard prose style used as proof of divine revelation outside of batshit Anglosupremacists who find the KJV superior to the original authors writing in contemporary tongues. Mao successfully rebelled against the outdated forced memorizarion of Confucian dogma.

...lost my train of thought but the bible has also a wider variety of tones and purposes.

>> No.12231149
File: 127 KB, 400x589, man-eater bug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12231149

>>12225323
Syphilis, same with Joyce.

>> No.12231156

>>12225535
Where's Venus and Adonis? Why do people only like his plays? Sonnets are based teir desu ne too

>> No.12231213

>>12225409
>, in a meritocracy Shakespeare would be considered the king of the king of kings and God’s God.


Literally how? He just wrote plays

>> No.12231216

>>12225454
god i hate you

>> No.12231218

>>12227017
his shit is boring

>> No.12231224

>>12231218
>his shit is boring

Whose? Shakes?

>> No.12231228

>>12231224
yeah, his sonnets especially

>> No.12231259

>>12231228

I agree with you to some extent. Many of the sonnets are actually uninteresting due to the fact that their subject-matter is uninteresting. However they are full of beauties that are far superior to the poems themselves as organic wholes.

For example, a sonnet like Shelley's Ozymandias is far more interesting than almost any Shakespeare sonnet, and yet you will rarely find in Shelley such powerful images as:

Devouring Time, blunt thou the lion's paws,
And make the earth devour her own sweet brood;
Pluck the keen teeth from the fierce tiger's jaws,
And burn the long-lived phoenix in her blood;
Make glad and sorry seasons as thou fleet'st,
And do whate'er thou wilt, swift-footed Time,
To the wide world and all her fading sweets;

In fact, I think Shakespeare really does become grandiose when he has a story to tell and characters to incarnate (who give him subject-matter beyond the poetic conventions of his time). But even his plays, were it not for his language of unbearable splendor, would be not that special.

I also think that many of his comedies have great moments and enormous beauty (The Midssumer Night Dream is perfect as poetry, for example), but in general his jokes are weak and his puns little interesting: they havent aged very well.

>> No.12231267

>>12231259
its unhuman and lacks any 'real' rhytm' banal and boring. as a poet he sucks

>> No.12231273

>>12230906
>Saw this at St Peters.
Where else would you have seen it?

>> No.12231277

>>12231267
>as a poet he sucks

Only if you dont think metaphors are important in poetry. But ifyou value metaphors as the most important of potic toolsthan Shakespeare is the greatet of all poets (keep in mind I'm talking about his plays mostly).

As for lyric poetry, if one is a lover of metaphors than Emily Dickinson is the greatest (her poems are superior to Shakespeare's sonnets).

>> No.12231283

>>12231277
His metaphors were very basic. Which ones are you thinking of?

>> No.12231375

>>12231216
This is called resentment, and is born out of self hatred and feelings of inferiority.

>>12231218
>>12231267
>>12231283
This is called retardation, and is, barring exceptional miraculous cases, incurable.

>> No.12231383
File: 5 KB, 209x242, smiles with contempt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12231383

>>12231375
and this is smugness

>> No.12231391

>>12231283
All life's a stage is a pretty powerful metaphor. I can appreciate it even though I've only read Hamlet and Macbeth and I pretty much dont read at all. What does that make you?

>> No.12231407

>>12231391
That metaphor isn’t in the two plays you mentioned. Have you heard the whole soliloquy? Because the world being a stage in itself is not an interesting metaphor. Maybe you’re a retard.

>> No.12231413

>>12231283
What do you mean by basic? They are incredibly effective and many of them have made their way into common parlance because of how apt and natural they seem, despite having been invented by him. Would you prefer he wrote like Hart Crane?

>"But, look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,
>Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastern hill."

>> No.12231424

>>12231407
These lines from the Macbeth soliloquy

>Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

Also has a stage metaphor. Its pretty great in macbeth, comparing life to a stage is a nice metaphor in and of itself. I haven't read the as you like it soliloquy, I thought it was in Macbeth. Been a while.

>> No.12231427

>>12225323
There’s a certain type of /lit/ user who likes to pretend that metaphor is the highest achievement of literature. Are you guys just parroting Aristotle? Make a legitimate argument why metaphor is a significant part of writing or shut the fuck up.

>> No.12231436

>>12231427
As Aristotle said, its the only literary device that can't be taught. You need a certain talent, a certain imagination to create good metaphors. Everything else can be reduced to a science.

>> No.12231440

>>12231427
Shakespeare’s absolute supremacy derives from so much more than just his untouchably masterful uses of figurative language, faggot.

>> No.12231443

>>12231436
Appeal to authority. Either prove it can’t be taught or pick a different argument. Some could argue that Shakespeare learned metaphors by reading Ovid and others. And just because it can’t be taught doesn’t make it the most pleasing thing to read.

>> No.12231447

>>12231440
Not an argument. It’s a baseless claim. An argument would be you making a case for what does make him a master, then. Try again if you want even though it’s off topic for my query.

>> No.12231456

>>12231443
Because its not original if it is taught, and a metaphor is best when it is original. Nobody likes to read cliches.

>> No.12231484

>>12231447
You come on to a Shakespeare thread, on a literature board, to ask why metaphor is a “significant part of writing”. I know you’re just looking for someone to argue with, but what an absurd and arbitrary hill to want to die on. You can’t believe metaphor is unimportant to writing. It’s like arguing the letter “g” is unnecessary to the English language. What argument would there be to be had about this? I’d say, “you need “g” to spell lots of words.” And you would respond, “you could find other ways to spell those words.” And you’re asking for people to PROVE to you that metaphor is significant. You want peer reviewed studies?

>> No.12231518

>>12231427
I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO A BATTLE OF WITS BUT IT SEEMS YOU ARE UNARMED

>> No.12231785

>>12231391
Why are you trolling me?
>>12231413
Show me some metaphors. I'm open to be changed.

>> No.12232060

>>12225995
Perfectly said.

>> No.12232093

>>12226200
>Boys had to translate Latin to English and make several exercises of imitation: they had to say the same thing that a particular passage in Latin was saying, but in their own words. They also had to learn a lot of different figures of speech and try their hands and creating their own examples of it (metaphors, similes, metonymy, onomatopoeia, assonance, alliteration, etc.).
We still did that in grammar schools here (at least when I went to school), but not translating from Latin. The education system is a shambles and someone must be held accountable.

>> No.12232171

>>12227528
Nah he just had Schizophrenia, Carl Jung confirmed it after reading Ulysses

>> No.12232710

>>12231273
>Where else would you have seen it?
The 1964 World's Fair?

>> No.12233738

>>12225995
can you actually make an argument? This is just a sneering ad populum with a smattering of meaningless cliches. Obviously there are works that have a deeper than superficial depth, but this depth is immediately perceptible... also, Shakespeare wrote for a popular audience... his stuff would’ve been the contemporary equivalent to criminal minds, so the comparison doesn’t work

>> No.12233848

>>12233738
get a load of this guy. what a fucking faggot.

>> No.12234003

>>12233738
An argument for what, though? The guy that was a response to said he didn’t understand Shakespeare and that art one doesn’t understand immediately and thoroughly is bad art. He said Shakespeare was too difficult, I said a little difficulty in art is a good thing. Now you’re responding to that response saying Shakespeare is little more than completely superficial and was as accessible to his audience as criminal minds is to people today. Tell that to the other anon who can’t make sense of Shakespeare because he finds him too difficult!

What’s with this thread attracting grouchy argumentative contrarians? None of you are making interesting points or, as in this case, even paying attention to the broader conversation. Like the guy (probably also you, frankly) arguing that metaphor isn’t important to language and literature, lol. I’m not going to do what I think far too many people do on the internet and tell you that you should kill yourself. But I will tell you that you should consider it.

>> No.12234719

>>12231375
Based shakespeare anon

>> No.12234731

>>12225323
In his second best bed

>> No.12235048

>>12231785
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/metaphorlist.html
Some scholar’s sampling

>> No.12236194

>>12225323
What did he do?