 |
|   | Subject: Overrated and over here
Posted Jul 21, 1999 by The Wisest Fool | | Post: 1
|
Perhaps the most annoying aspect of English teaching in the UK is the literary asslicking His plays get by being on the syllabus year in, year out. Shakespeare must be the easiest writer to write anything about as there is a massive amount of pre-written critique to reference and (as the article says) no-one knows much about him.
Yes he wrote 37 plays. Only about a dozen were great. Most of the plots were rehashed from other English writers or 'classic' European tales.
His overuse of the iambic pentameter is limiting and clumsy.
The language that was natural to him is unnatural to us in 1999 and has scared off and bored senseless more students than it has turned on to drama.
He used ten words where two would do.
He died (nearly 400 years ago), get over it.
Is no-one going to bare their fardels at me?
To me, English Literature 'O' level classes were nothing more than taking a novel, some poems and a Shakespeare play, picking them apart and finding out (or rather, being told) what they meant (or what people think they mean). The book we did was 'To Kill A Mocking-Bird', which I haven't wanted to read since. We also did some Twentieth Century poetry, most of which I didn't like, and Shakespeare's 'Henry IV Part I', which almost put me off Shakespeare for life. Fortunately, the previous year our English teacher did 'Macbeth' with us, just to prove that Shakespeare wasn't dull and boring. (My thanks to Mr David Prescott, Bablake School, wherever you are now.)
I didn't enjoy English Literature 'O' Level classes much at the time, but I have read some Shakespeare since. Although the language could be described as archaic, his use of it is beautiful. However, some of the wit and humour does get lost due to changes in language over the centuries.
|  | Subject: Overrated and over here
Posted Jul 22, 1999 by Samson
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 4
|
O thou monster Ignorance, how deform'd dost thou look!
Yes, granted, but most of the time I can tell a hawk from a heron.
Billy Shakespeare has been lauded for centuries, but let's look at it in his time. He was popular because Queen Liz liked him. The only other people in the country who could read owed their jobs to the queen, so they declared him to be the height of prose and poetry. The people who didn't owe so much to Liz couldn't read, and therefore no alternate opinion was available. It thus went into practice that anyone with sophistication and education loved Billy, from that time to this. Even up to the 19th century, people were lamely trying to copy his style, as anyone who has been forced to read James Fennimore Cooper can attest. This in spite of the fact that the language had changed greatly since then, but I doubt anyone ever spoke as he has them speak, anyway. Luckily, literacy began to spread during the late 19th century, and many people now regard Shakespeare as a hack. He violated many of the rules of good storytelling that are practiced today. The biggest one being (a quote from Twain) "5. They require that when the personages of a tale deal in conversation, the talk shall sound like human talk, and be talk such as human beings would be likely to talk in the given circumstances, and have a discoverable meaning, also a discoverable purpose, and a show of relevancy, and remain in the neighborhood of the subject in hand, and be interesting to the reader, and help out the tale, and stop when the people cannot think of anything more to say." Billy violates this rule on every point. Yet the tradition still exists that you cannot be educated or cultured without a profound ppreciation of Billy, and so bright young children are turned off from classical literature every year after exposure to Billy, the alleged pinnacle of literary achievement.
I have drawn these from Mark Twain's review of James Fennimore Cooper, a short work that is both entertaining and informative, which neither Cooper or Shakespeare can achieve simultaneously. Since Cooper dearly wants to be the 19th century American Shakespeare, the connection is relevant. Twain accuses Cooper of violating 18 of the 22 rules for good prose, but Billy violates much fewer. aside from #5, his other transgressions are:
#12: say what he is proposing to say, not merely come near it.
#13: use the right word, not its second cousin
#14: eschew surplusage
#16: avoid slovinliness of form
#17: use good grammar
#18: employ a simple and straighforward style
("Fennimore Cooper's Literary Offenses," Mark Twain, 1895)
Surely he is Shakey, not Billy? 
This one-track appreciation of what is known as 'high culture' has popped up everywhere. If you only learned details about Shakey, Mozart, Rembrandt and Homer (or Burns if you're a Scot), watched 'Citizen Kane' a few times, listened exclusively to BBC Radio 4, refused to watch TV and wore the right clothes you could pretty much conquer the world as a colossus of taste.
I never needed to hear Robert Johnson to dig Jimi Hendrix, so why when I wanted to do an English degree would I have needed to spend a dull year reading Beowulf and Chaucer?
The best thing to come out of the 90's has been a dawning realization that The Simpsons can be as important (and as well crafted) as The Iliad.
Shakespeare copied every one of his plots, but what sold his plays was his characters. He would steal his plot from either an enemy or the Hollingshead Chronicles and then build characters. Hamlet was accually stolen from Thomas Kidd who owned the theater next to his. With his ability to write characters he closed Thomas' production in 10 days. It did not matter whether you were literate or not in order to enjoy his plays because they were performed (not read, where did you guys get the idea that only literate people can understand spoken language??). His language might be a little hard to understand in our day and time, but it is still awesome writing.
Does this mean Enid Blyton reclaims her place as Britain's greatest author?
| | Subject: Overrated??
Posted Jul 25, 1999 by Samson
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 11
|
Get on, Ford! At least someone is defending Shakey (I'll conceed that much). Not only has he penned some of the most soaring lines of verse and intricate characters ever written, but he is also indirectly responsible for my first snog as well as for uniting myself and my current girlfriend. Say that about Enid.
One more thing, I think it is very ironic that the person who created this board named himself "The Wisest Fool." The fool was one of Shakespeare's most famous characters because of the irony of the character being the wisest in the play. The main theme in King Lear is accually about how in madness/foolishness we become wise.
Pr 18:2 A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
| | Subject: Other violations, with help from my good friend Mark Twain.
Posted Jul 25, 1999 by  Cheerful Dragon
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 14
|
Shakespeare may well have violated all these rules, but they didn't exist when he was writing. Playwrights were a comparatively new phenomenon and novellists didn't exist until about the 17th century. Defoe is reckoned to be the first with 'Robinson Crusoe' and he probably violates just as many of these 'rules' as Shakespeare. I can't be bothered to check, because I have a life.
She certainly churned out books faster than anyone else I've ever heard of. Her publisher called her on a Monday (or something) and arranged to meet her that Friday to discuss something over lunch. Ms. Blyton insisted on it being Friday because she had just started on her next book. They met on Friday and Ms. Blyton brought the manuscript for the book along with her. The manuscript was complete!
If anyone knows of another author with a faster production rate (other than Barbara Cartland, who hardly counts) I'd be delighted to hear about it.
you must understand yourself pretty well
My argument was not based on whether or not Shakey is/was a great writer. He/she/they/it certainly was/were.
It was more to do with the fact that Shakespeare's language puts a lot of people off of both literature and drama.
I believe it is taught far too early in English Lit school courses and takes up far too much of the syllabus.
At my old school, 'O' level English Lit. consisted of two Shakey plays, a few novels and some poetry. How can you have a balanced view of over five hundred years of theatre if for two or three years the sole academic emphasis is on one playwright? Especially one speaking an unfamiliar language.
BTW the wisdom of the fool pre-dates Shakey and is to do with bringing a creative force of disorder to an ordered society e.g. the King of the Fools.
About as ironic as an Alainis Morrisette song methinks.
 |  |
I think the best thing about shakespeare is when you take the lines out of context or use old insults in this modern world. e.g.
Richard III:
"Because my name is George"
OR
"arm, arm, my lord; the foe vaunts in the field"
The Tempest:
"A pox 'o' your throat you bawling blasphemous uncharitable dog"
and from a play I can't remember, something like:
"thrice sod stupid"
But that's just my opinion.
| | Subject: P.S.
Posted Jul 25, 1999 by Tas
This is a reply to this Posting.
| | Post: 19
|
Some of my favourites come from King lear, eg:
"Degenerate bastard"
and "with her nails she'll flay thy wolvish visage."
Good stuff!
Was Tom the original fool?
Please note that Not Panicking Ltd is not responsible for the content of any external sites listed. The content on h2g2 is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public. Unlike Edited Guide Entries, the content on this page has not necessarily been checked by a h2g2 editor. In the event that you consider anything on this page to be in breach of the site's House Rules, please
click here
.
|
