/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20124286]

What's his appeal? Why is he so important?

[Anonymous No.20124294]

b/c he's Angloë

[Anonymous No.20124302]

>>20124294
beaner

[Anonymous No.20124304]

He invented the human.

[Anonymous No.20124314]

Oswald Spengler explained it well. Just search “Oswald Spengler Shakespeare”.

[Anonymous No.20124319]

>>20124304
He obviously did not. Bloom was such a hack that it still bothers me. His comments in his English poetry book are almost unbearable.

[Anonymous No.20124322]

have you read other plays? theyre shit compared to him

[Anonymous No.20124350]

>>20124304

[Anonymous No.20124399]

>>20124322
this

[Anonymous No.20124411]

>>20124322
Ummmmmmmmmm no sweetie :)

[Anonymous No.20124428]

>letterless grain merchant from stratford knows granular details about high society in verona
yeah, not buying it.

[Anonymous No.20124450]

>>20124428
>granular details
It's been a while since I read Romeo and Juliet, but the setting wasn't really fleshed out as far as I can remember. Really, it could have been set in Timbuktu.

[Anonymous No.20124456]

>>20124322
Shakespeare has a handful of very good plays. Most of the rest of them are subpar.

[Anonymous No.20124479]

>>20124286
He’s the Dante of England but not as good.
Because anglx trannies need to pretend they have cultural achievements

[Anonymous No.20124528]

>>20124479
The Anglo Dante is Milton, not Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.20124644]

>>20124456
most people never wrote any very good plays though

[Anonymous No.20124660]

>>20124286
Because he changed English forever

[Anonymous No.20124833]

>>20124319
Nigga read his fucking book or at least not comment at all

[Anonymous No.20124889]

>>20124528
You typed Chaucer wrong

[Anonymous No.20124891]

>>20124286
I liked him just cos. Hehehehe

[Anonymous No.20124962]

>>20124456
I've read 10 of them and so far 8 of them were masterpieces (2Henry IV and 1Henry VI were pretty bad, I must say). They were not even the most popular ones, I mostly focused on the Histories

[Anonymous No.20124979]

>>20124286
The truth is, Shakespeare is important because he, like the true great writers (Dante, Cervantes, Proust etc) provided insights on the functioning of human desire.
His writing highlights the fundamentally mimetic nature of desire and, in so doing, reveals the lies of Romanticism and "individuality". He reveals the interdependent nature of social relations and the way in which our desires are NOT autonomous but always and unerringly directed by a model with whom we eventually enter into rivalry (unless the model be metaphysical or physically distant).

There is no difference, except in particulars, in the desire of Dostoevsky's Eternal Husband, Cervantes' Lothario or Shakespeare's Lysander and Demetrius.

[Anonymous No.20124994]

>>20124456
even his bad plays normally have a good monologue or two. i think the richard II prison monologue is one of the best things he wrote and the rest of that play is shit.

[Anonymous No.20125016]

>>20124528
Milton is not even close to the shoes of Dante.
>>20124889
>Chaucer
Boccaccio rip off. Can Englishmen be original for once?

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.20125021]

>>20124286


It is the g:Olem factor.

[Anonymous No.20125025]

>>20124286
Macbeth and Hamlet really are in other level. King Lear gets close.

[Anonymous No.20125049]

>>20124286
Have you read him? His word play and metaphor is so relentlessly inventive that reading him is like a roller coaster except for your mind. No other writer in English even comes close

[Anonymous No.20125088]

>>20125049
This reads like the pic in >>20125021
Can you say anything worthwhile about him? Might as well read hard science for intellectual thrills. What actually makes him worthwhile at a critical human level?

[Anonymous No.20125095]

>>20124450
And moreover the narrative material is almost enirey ripped from Bandello's novella.

[Anonymous No.20125108]

>>20124979
based shakespeare is my writer. the sonnets capture relationships very well, especially the gay ones. the internal psychology of the poet is delineated so well it could be my own thoughts

[Anonymous No.20125109]

>>20125088
Fucking idiots... I already told you. Read>>20124979

[Anonymous No.20125188]

>>20125109
Sounds like retarded Marxist blabber. Are you 95 IQ?

[Anonymous No.20125216]

>>20125188
shakespeare has some pretty deep implications regarding personal relationships. not in a feminist "we need to talk about this" way but the shit is just interesting

[Anonymous No.20125227]

>>20124979
>the lies of Romanticism and "individuality"
Read the chapters about psychosis and post again

[Anonymous No.20125319]

>>20124286
Pic related

[Anonymous No.20125339]

>>20124979
>y in which our desires are NOT autonomous but always and unerringly directed by a model with whom we eventually enter into rivalry
based and Girard-pilled

[Anonymous No.20125340]

>>20124962
>2Henry IV and 1Henry VI were pretty bad, I must say
what the fuck? how can you not love the Hal/Henry dichotomy and Falstaff and the gang.

[Anonymous No.20125755]

I never got it either, plays suck. I like Chekov's Ivanov, and I like some of Shakespeare's plays, but it's a shit medium. Plays thrust you into the characters' lives, and you don't really grasp the individual characters until the final act. People say things like "Shakespeare invented the human" (how I despise that hack), but frankly, plays are too short for me to develop strong emotional attachment to the characters.

Plays are for women who instantly feel empathy. I prefer books, I prefer to become acquainted with a character's life and learn everything; unless your play has minimal characters, it's not possible to provide such intimacy. As a result, any philosophical or 'human' themes often feel superficial, and Shakespeare is no exception. His histories (Julius Caesar comes to mind) are an exception, but I already know about Julius Caesar from reading much longer texts on him, so really Shakespeare's plays rely on you to already be familiar with the characters. To me this feels cheap.

His prose is ok, I find the Elizabethan language funny more than beautiful, I can't not laugh at words like 'strumpet'. I tend to enjoy his comedies far more because of this, I can gobble them like lollies and giggle til my heart's content. It's a shame we only studied one comedy at high school (Merchant of Venice), and the main essay was about how Shakespeare was a secret feminist, rather than why that jew Shylock got what was coming. Sometimes he'll have a good line or two, but I really don't see how "To be, or not to be... That is the question" is such a clever original line. It's babbie's first existential thought, really the nerve of these critics...

[Anonymous No.20125774]

>>20124428
There are no details. All his settings are utterly generic. Also people did travel and know more than people these days assume.

[Anonymous No.20125926]

>>20125755
>People say things like "Shakespeare invented the human" (how I despise that hack)
The more I see retards talk about Shakespeare, the more I realize good old Harold created a foolproof pleb filter.

[Anonymous No.20126074]

>>20125926
Bloom's fat beached whale derriere is getting slow baked in hell when he should have converted to Catholicism as per the Catholic university library he entrusted his personal book collection to.

There's no pleb filter, people like you are just faggots.

[Anonymous No.20126152]

>>20125340
I know I'm in the minority here, but I really didnt care about Falsaff, Silence and Shallow in 2Henry IV. Apart from the ending it all felt like useless filler.
In general I think I simply dont like that much these type of characters. I found myself groaning everytime Pistol&co came up in Henry V too.

[Anonymous No.20126255]

>>20124286
He created mass entertainment that told fantastic stories and was able to appeal to both the lower working class and the noble aristocracy. He was a master of language and prose, and could invoke such feelings and emotions from you while you were literally just staring at ink on a piece of paper.

If you don't get Shakespeare, you got filtered all the way back in middle school.

[Anonymous No.20126286]

>>20126074
filtered

[Anonymous No.20126290]

>>20125926
I love Shakes but that is a retarded idea on Bloom's part.

[Anonymous No.20126291]

>>20124979
...and fun fart jokes

[Anonymous No.20126309]

>>20126290
Read the book then comment about it. What niggers who don’t read post here is far from what Bloom was saying.

[Anonymous No.20126339]

>>20124979
Anyone who tries to extract "fundamental nature" from a poet or artist is worthy of an almost instant disregard in my books.

[Anonymous No.20126343]

>>20124428
Why would a grain merchant NOT know granular details you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.20126527]

>>20124286
I believe its bc of God

[Anonymous No.20126718]

>>20124304

Montaigne seems quite human to me, and he wrote his essays before Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.20126752]

>>20125926
Shakespeare's use of puns is excessive and needless, I swear he wrote half of those lines to fit in irrelevant puns. He thinks he's Chaucer but it's not even close.

[editard No.20127143]

>>20126752
>excessive and needless

[Anonymous No.20128135]

>>20124286
The romantic movement revived Shakespeare. And the Germans translated him at the time. Before they had any good playwrites or dramatist. So Germans being Germans raised him to high heaven.

[Anonymous No.20128149]

>>20126343
kek

[Anonymous No.20128960]

>>20125340
I liked Falstaff a lot, too. I thought his character was interesting, and I always wondered if the play was trying to reenforce the idea of monarchy through putting him in a higher position of power later in the play, since he was originally just a dirtbag bar hobo. Like "See, this is why not just anyone should just have power!" That might be a bad reading, though. I only read the plays once.
I liked the old drawings of Falstaff though, he looks so silly.

[Anonymous No.20129698]

>At the age of 18, Shakespeare married 26-year-old Anne Hathaway
Wtf why?? 8 years older. Was it a fetish?

[Anonymous No.20129718]

>>20124286
the only thing more influential than his work is the bible, how are you going to question to the legacy of fucking shakespeare bro?

[Anonymous No.20130067]

>>20129698
With those milkers I would too.

[Anonymous No.20130126]

>>20129718
>>20129718
retard

agricultural revolution by far more important "thing" in human history

if u mean books, quran and darwin more influential than shakespeare still

[Anonymous No.20130152]

>>20125755
this is what only reading novels does to the zoomer brain. it actually requires more, not less intelligence to put yourself in the shoes of play characters for a few scenes of their life. Novels hammer home and explain away everything so that there is no retard who wont get the obvious point of every character. Not that novels are a worse form, but thinking theyre "masculine" is really retarded

[Anonymous No.20130157]

>>20125755
also youre supposed to read shakespeare for the comedy, not the beauty. if you want beauty read spenser or something

[Anonymous No.20130158]

>>20130126
frfr no cap

[Anonymous No.20130210]

>>20130126
>agricultural revolution by far more important "thing" in human history
more like discovering fire
>quran
>darwin
kek

[Anonymous No.20130238]

>>20126343
Got'em

[Anonymous No.20130271]

>>20124428
Same fren, these people will never trick us.

[Anonymous No.20131406]

His poetry is better than his other works.

[Anonymous No.20131521]

>>20124979
>Romanticism
>Elizabethan England
ishiggydiggy

[Anonymous No.20131563]

I heard that Shakespeare was a front for fancis bacon, john dee, and Edward de vere

[Anonymous No.20132442]

>>20130210
>more like discovering fire
more like discovering breathing

[Anonymous No.20132508]

>>20131563
epic schizo shit, i love it