Where is Shakespeare

For an anglocentric board who sucks off the canon so much there is a suprising lack of supposedly the greatest english writer. Is he overrated? Has no one here read him? Is there a chart?

Shakespeare is discussed fairly often on here. You must be new. Welcome! Now fuck off and start with the Greeks.

Whenever there is a thread about the greatest writer of all time, a bunch of anglos pop up and imediately say his name. There isn't discussion as much as just praise

His works are too great and lacking in memes for lit's puny brain to handle. Also, lit loves gossiping about an author's personal life and since we know virtually nothing about Shakespeare, there's nothing to say.

The things that happen in his plays are so unnatural, I find them impossible to really get immersed in. For instance, King Lear, the king never recognizes Kent in disguise. How could that be possible? This trope of disguise appears often in Shakespeare and is always unbelievable. It is simply ridiculous they would never, after repeated instances and long conversations, recognize the person in disguise. Shakespeare always relies on these absolutely impossible situations to tell his stories.

Tolstoy pls go and stay go

It is really unfortunate that Tolstoyevsky somehow survived the 19th century.

I think it's just a stylistic thing derived from light comedy, it's like in Cosi Fan Tutte how none of the women recognize their fiancés just because they put on turbans and fake mustaches then claim to be albanian, he's taking that and intentionally breaking immersion by highlighting the artifice of theater.

>Is he overrated?

The thing with Shakespeare is that his tragedies no longer have the same impact on modern readers that they had on readers of the time. A part of this is because his stories have become over-saturated into pop culture, such that any five year old kid already knows the basic plot of Romeo and Juliet before reading it. So even though you're supposed to cry at the end, it's hard to do so now.

With that said, many of the character monologues in the plays are fucking amazing even if the plots themselves are less interesting from a modern perspective. I'm especially partial to the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech from Julius Caesar.

I completely disagree. I've seen Hamlet performed about six times, but none nearly made me shed a tear except when I saw it this past summer because the performance and setting (a Norman cathedral surrounded by a forest) really took me there to Elsinore.

On the other hand, when I saw Macbeth at the same location, I had to repress laughter when this horrible neckbearded Macbeth kept grabbing Lady Macbeth's fat arse and chunky thighs.

>"read shakespeare, he's the greatest!"
>"a master of verse and language!"
>decide to read his sonnets
>literally tries to rhyme 'die' with 'mystery' in the first four lines of the opening sonnet
>line 12: "niggarding"
>...

Anglo "literature" was a mistake

The problem is that anglo lit is all by small-souled cosmopolitan nerds, and not ultra-high IQ warrior Chads like Goethe

This first paragraph is just painfully dumb. This has to be trolling, there can't be an adult with an interest in reading who thinks Hamlet is diminished by plot-spoilers. wtf is this, the result of a 70IQ or something?

Is this generally Veeky Forums though? When does anything really get discussed? Honestly the only time you see it is about George RRR Martin or Stephen King. With literature its always just 'this is better than this', and shitposting etc

We know a shit ton about Shakespeare. Go ahead and ask. I know most of it.

where you from, is shakespeare not rated?

>yfw you realize nothing and no one could ever be successful writing something where the characters don't recognize a disguise
feel bad man...

This user fucks.

>Is he overrated?
No, he's really good and ahead of his time, but I do think people have a tendency to overanalyze his plays, particularly Hamlet, looking for a 2deep4u hidden meaning.

Too lazy to read the whole thread, has Pynchon posted yet?

Not really. His life is similar to Jesus' in that we don't know what he was doing between childhood and midlife.

>really good and ahead of his time
Can you stop writing in hackneyed cliches?

>Can you stop writing in hackneyed cliches?
It's called plain English, you twat.

Is my criticism 2harsh4u?

Get some balls.

loser

there was a shakespeare thread like two hours ago wtf are you talking about

>666
Satan is the biggest loser of all.

Just because Shakespeare didn't have a thread today doesn't mean he doesn't get threads.

Plenty of people here read him. Some would argue he's overrated and some would argue you should avoid some of his plays, but works like Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet (despite it being overrated, frequently inspiring lesser works, studied in school, etc - it's a near perfect tragedy), Titus Andronicus, King Lear, Coriolanus, etc are almost essential reading (or viewing) for anyone interested in literature or theatre (or just good storytelling in general).

I was never too keen on his comedies to be honest though.

Shakespeare didn't sound like a modern American, HunterTravisBradleyBurger

Cringe. Goethe sucked off Shakespeare more than anyone and tried desperately to argue that he "must have totally been german, right guys??!" Germany's "greatest literary hero" was in Shakespeare's shadow the whole time and you don't even know it lol.

Midsummer Night's Dream is proto-Pynchonian, and therefore right up Veeky Forums's alley. Characters have ridiculous names (bottom), get into wacky hijinks, make frequent innuendos, etc. There's also strong themes about human subjectivity and what is/isn't real, as well as our own inability to control the things we create (though instead of technology, Willy uses magic). I'm amazed nobody's come up with a way to Puckpost yet.

>If my memeing has offended,
>think but this, and all is mended:
>that you have but slumber'd here
>while these shitposts did appear.
>And this weak and idle bait,
>no more enraging than a cate.
etc.

Seriously, I love this play, and you should too.
>pic unrelated

This season they are staging Titus Andronicus, King Lear and Richard III in my city and they all look very promising (excellent directors and actors). The last two stagings of his plays here were artistic failures, so I'm honestly hyped about these new ones.

Anyway, is there a recommended path for approaching his historical plays? Would reading them in the historically chronological order add to the experience, for example, or are they entirely self-contained?

bump

>Titus Andronicus
>essential reading
Reeeeeeeee

what's up with his histories.

why didn't he write them in order? why did he include the one about richard and the other one that wasn't part of the war of the roses sequels/prequels trilogies?

Also, can anybody say anything interested about the troilius and cessida one?

Meant king john

>why didn't he write them in order?
Each work is its own whole and does not require the others though some of them carry on from each other. So there is no particular reason for writing them in order. He probably wrote whatever one he thought would make him the most money at the time.

Probably had something to do with popular demand. I know that he kept writing the ones with Falstaff to meet popular demand. Writing and planning for it is sort of irrational. Why write about one period of a king's life you find boring?

I just got into Shakespeare. I read sparkntes side by side translation online because it was too hard to understand for me.

Is there something like that in a book form? Is it too pleb to read it like that. I mean i am sure i'll come back to them again in my life. I just want to enjoy the plot first time around. Am i an idiot?

Just keep reading him and eventually you'll understand him. I came somewhat late to Shakespeare at about 18 or 19 because I went to a shitty high school. I'm 26 now and have absolutely no trouble reading his plays but when I see them performed I still stumble over some of the meaning.

My British friends say they read him when they're 14 or 15, so I reckon you could do it if they can.

Thanks. I'll try to not to waver.

English is not my first language so i struggle sometimes. But i am certainly better than a 15 year old kid in Britain.

I've seen Hamlet a bunch of times and every time it's been shit. Don't get me wrong I love the text, it's the productions were awful. Even pic related, while he was great as Hamlet, the production was so completely stupid it was almost unwatchable.
Hamlet came back from the dead at the end[/spoiler
I think modern directors get so carried away with 'errmagerd I'm directing fucking Hamlet! I must make this a definitive statement about everything!' and it gets bogged down and moves away from Shakespeare's drama

Macbeth>Richard III>King Lear>Julius Caesar>Coriolanus>Henry V>Titus Andronicus>Hamlet>The Tempest>Merchant of Venice

Prove me wrong. Das rite, you can't

I agree with you on productions of Shakespeare. I've been to several, but only ever genuinely liked one performance and surprisingly enough they were all amateurs. I'm not sure who or what to blame for it.

I'm British. I'm often surprised when people say they find Shakespeare difficult because we have his work drilled into us every year between the ages of 11-16. I forget that for an adult just discovering his work early modern English isn't all that easy.

The Damned United on the other hand is a fantastic film.

Amateurs were probably just happy to perform Shakespeare and just got on with it. I wouldn't be surprised if the professionals wanted to put their own stamp on the work.

There is this meme that 'to understand Shakespeare you really need to see a performance' but it's balls. It's complete pot luck whether it will be any good. When it's great it's great, but you see a lot of stinkers.

>put their own stamp on the work
Problem is most of the professionals aren't as talented as Shakespeare, so generally they end up diminishing the work

If you go to a symphony concert they'll play you Beethoven pretty much straight. They don't insert a bit of rapping in the 4th movement to make it funky and relevant to a modern diverse audience. But Shakespeare isn't treated with the same respect.
I saw AMSND at the Globe last year and the director had inserted some lines about 'why does everyone care so much about the fucking text'. And you couldn't help but think 'because the text is by Shakespeare.You aren't adapting Dan Brown sweetie'

I reckon you're right. Coincidentally most of the Shakespeare I've seen has been in America where they had ridiculously ornate sets while the amateur performance I saw was in the South West of England. Considering how bare the stage was in Shakespeare's time, I've always felt there's no need to dress it up much.

I forgot to write that the performance in England was on a stage without any props in a forest by a Norman abbey. It was a nice setting, but obviously without any stupid distractions such as an Ariel painted like an Avatar character.

>an Ariel painted like an Avatar character.
Did you see the same RSC Tempest this year with Simon Russel Beale as I did?

The best Shakespeare adaptation(Macbeth with Ian McKellen, Judy Dench, Ian McDiarmid by Trevor Nunn) had literally one dark stage and that's it. Granted, it sets the mood perfectly for the Scottish Play but the barebone feel of it worked.

>Problem is most of the professionals aren't as talented as Shakespeare, so generally they end up diminishing the work
Agreed. And which your Beethoven point. I don't mind a modernised setting as his work is timeless, but to many liberties and the production always comes across as somewhat cringeworthy.

Love that film. Based Bob Peck as Macduff

Auden knew about adaptions:

A work that lasts two hundred years is tough,
And operas, God knows, must stand enough:
What greatness made, small vanities abuse.
What must they not endure? The Diva whose
Fioriture and climactic note
The silly old composer never wrote,
Conductor X, that over-rated bore
Who alters tempi and who cuts the score,
Director Y who with ingenious wit
Places his wretched singers in the pit
While dancers mime their roles, Z the Designer
Who sets the whole thing on an ocean liner,
The girls in shorts, the men in yachting caps;
Yet Genius triumphs over all mishaps,

I believe that's something to do with the audience for classical and opera having very high standards whereas most of the people who go to plays are plebs, liberals, or both. In either case, the performers are just meeting their audiences' standards.

I did not go to that play, but I considered it. I've been to RSC in Stratford-upon-Avon before, though. It boggles the noggle to realize user is everywhere.

That's a great poem. Maybe I'll go pick up some Auden at ye olde book shoppe. It's been awhile and he keeps appearing in the New Criterion.

>lacking in memes
I sincerely hope you're joking

I sincerely hope you choke on BBC.