Is he as good as Shakespeare?

Is he as good as Shakespeare?

my dad?

better, in technical writing ability
shakespeare understood humanity better though, he invented the human.

why joyce and not someone like yeats?

Joyce was a novalist and Shakespeare was a poet.

Probably true, ja. Curious, though, that James had such difficulty turning out a proper verse (though I haven't checked out Pomes Penyeach). I mean, the last two poems (more properly songs) of Chamber Music are pretty damn good, but still pretty stunted in comparison with his mature work. 'Gas from a Burner' is funny and well done, but obviously not a masterpiece. Also, Shakespeare does reveal in, for example, the player scene in Hamlet that he can lovingly parody a style to give Joyce a run for his money; he just doesn't utilize that ability as readily as Joyce does. Still, Joyce could labor over 600 pages for 17 years, so of course he ends up with the better-crafted linguistic object since he was a genius in the vicinity of Shakespeare, if not actually on a par with him.

But ultimately, only time can tell us these things. 700 years on we can safely say Dante outdid his master Virgil. Perhaps, given 600 more years (if we make it), we'll be able to say the same of James. Or perhaps not. It's all a matter of influence, in the end.

Shakespeare was a playwright. John Donne was the superior poet of that era.

Because Yeats is very obviously not in league with Shakespeare, genius though he was. Yeats is immensely enjoyable in the deepest sense, but Shakespeare is simply beyond. Finnegans Wake shows that Joyce at least thought himself quite beyond, and I generally think Joyce's self-evaluations are some of the most accurate of any writer, so I'm inclined to believe him. That would put him on a par with the sublimely mysterious Man from Stratford, in spite of how much we know about Joyce biographically.

I feel that if Shakespeare had been born much later and become a writer in the modernist era he would have been an innovator and genius on par with Joyce and probably churned out something like Ulysses.

>better, in technical writing ability
lol no
>Shakespeare was a playwright
kek, he's revered only for his poetics

Do you tryhard faggots even read?

The reasons for someone to decide to write in a determined style are just too many and variated. If Shakespeare would have been born in XIXth century, keeping things like his exact genetic code, although not much more, would have the potential to develop in many different things, maybe not even in writing. Just imagine: Shakespeare growing up in an Anglican family, wanting to be a minister of state for the queen. The poin being that culture is and upbringing are far more determinant in a person's life than most other factors. Why am i saying this? I don't even remember and i am too lazy to read and edit what i just wrote. God save queen Victoria though.

>he's revered only for his poetics
Wrong. He is revered primarily for that, and I agree he is first a foremost a great poet, but it is only by the interaction of that poetry with the stage that we get the profound depiction of humanity that we do. There is a reason nobody regards the Sonnets as his best work, great though they are.

>shakespeare understood humanity better

>but it is only by the interaction of that poetry with the stage that we get the profound depiction of humanity that we do.
Nope lol, Hamlet's soliloquy would still be brilliant as a stand alone
>There is a reason nobody regards the Sonnets as his best work,
Because poetically, they're simply inferior.

absolutely not

No. Joyce was a novelist. That's like playing on easy mode compared to Shakespeare, who was equally adapt at both prose and verse.

Perhaps brilliant, certainly very good. But its power is lent in large part by its being presented as something to be read on stage, intensely, by an actor. They require you to conjure up a face and a movement for Hamlet, and yet Shakespeare gives little in the way of character description, as that would horribly detract from the drama. You may have been so blown away you didn't realize this at the time. But I think if you thought about it hard enough, you'd see that unconsciously it is important that they are lines for the stage and not the study.

>They require you to conjure up a face
Nope, its beauty is purely platonic senpai
The plot is just a shitty excuse to meditate as a poetic genius

Completely wrong. You are isolating only the one part of a complex artistic artifact with many moving parts. It's as I said Ulysses is really a tribute to the Odyssey. Well, yes, in large part it is a reworking/homage to it, and by extension the whole Western literary tradition. But still it is so much more. Just so, Hamlet is (not uniformly) an awesome piece of verbiage, matched but not clearly exceeded anywhere else in English. And yet it is still so much more. And to say that its beauty is 'platonic' is quite meaningless here. It does not moralize, as do the Myths of Plato, and if you mean to say it accesses the Forms, then I would agree, except that it is really more Aristotelian in that it arrives at them only through a hylomorphic realization in the individual reader, where the Form of the text and the matter of the interior reader meet (the text could be considered matter and the reader Form equally well, but you've arbitrarily chosen the metaphysics to work out a certain way). And Hamlet cannot be internalized merely as a disembodied Eliotic struggler: he is an actual person. To analyze him any other way is to do a violence against him far worse than anything Claudius did.

In Shakespeare, as I see it, there is a trinity: there is Shakespeare the Father, who bequeaths his only begotten Reader his own being; from both of them emanate the eternal Stage, which is exactly the sort of Crossroads where, for example, Robert Johnson or Faust might meet the Devil.

as IF I said Ulysses is really a tribute to the Odyssey*

>Completely wrong. You are isolating only the one part of a complex artistic artifact with many moving parts. It's as I said Ulysses is really a tribute to the Odyssey. Well, yes, in large part it is a reworking/homage to it, and by extension the whole Western literary tradition. But still it is so much more.
A nonsensical comparison
>Forms, then I would agree, except that it is really more Aristotelian in that it arrives at them only through a hylomorphic realization in the individual reader, where the Form of the text and the matter of the interior reader mee
There no reason whatsoever to see it this way. You yourself don't seem to understand the theory of Forms. You confound this failure with arbitrariness on my part.
>And Hamlet cannot be internalized merely as a disembodied Eliotic struggler: he is an actual person. To analyze him any other way is to do a violence against him far worse than anything Claudius did.
>In Shakespeare, as I see it, there is a trinity: there is Shakespeare the Father, who bequeaths his only begotten Reader his own being; from both of them emanate the eternal Stage, which is exactly the sort of Crossroads where, for example, Robert Johnson or Faust might meet the Devil.
Jesus, is this really how you humanities majors write? This is metaphor decapitated.

>You confound this failure with arbitrariness on my part.
Well, that's really your fault for being so arbitrary, isn't it? I'm only following your lead, bub. Also, it was not my purpose to give a lecture on the theory of Forms, since you yourself are using that concept pretty loosely, it seems.

>Jesus is this really how you humanities majors write? This is metaphor decapitated.
>This is metaphor decapitated.
This is metaphor decapitated.

I gave you a serious response and all you gave me was the typical Veeky Forums coyness, self-confusion, and, ultimately, pragmatism, which is really the ultimate sin of today. We're done here.

>say I wasn't arbitrary
>"Yes you were!"
>Say your metaphors are shit
>"Your metaphors are shit!"
Your posts are just large versions of "no you"
You made some good points actually, but you seem to be too vain to have a discussion senpai
>We're done here.
One of us never started bb

Here, take this rare Faulkner and meditate about it.

Faulkner is much better than Joyce. People are only swayed towards Joyce cause "muh doorstopper."

You've said nothing.

Shakespeare was a far better poet than he was a playwright cmon

>Faulkner
>better than joyce

Wew

Are there seriously people on Veeky Forums who don't think Shakespeare is a poet? I mean come on he's known as The Bard, and The Poet. The very first thing you're taught about in highschool is that he wrote all his plays in meter.

> hey man it's a long novel that I probably will never admit to fully understanding but I KNOW it's better than those shorter novels!

Oxen of the Sun chapter alone demotes the novel to light 8/10 at best.

>i'm too stupid to understand it so everyone else must be pretending as well

a day in the mind of a pseud

As far as I know, Joyce and Whitman were the only two heavyweight/big time western writers to insinuate/subtly declare they were better than Shakespeare (not that I believe either were necessarily).

Are there any others?

> hurr durr watch me write in every english dialect before we get out of the hospital
> haha better leak the sparknotes TWICE to some friends

The Beatles probably

Tolstoy did but Tolstoy actually was a lot better than Shakespeare.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Tolstoy. I don't think you could even make the comparison due to the style differences. I think they're in two different family trees, so to speak.

Joyce and Whitman definitely fall under the Shakespeare tree. So, I guess I should probably try and redefine the question before I ask it again.

just how autistic are you?

All your posts made me cringe so hard that I forgave all my past mistakes and now love myself that much more.

This post made me cringe. It reminds me of those grammarless posts made by pubescent girls on tumblr

It's weird that my demanding an actual response makes you cringe. I wish I could forgive your parents for their mistake

better

**farts**

No. He is an overhyped pretentious cunt revered by a cult of pretentious cunts.
His style is boring and full of empty imagery and references to show you just how smart he is. In terms of content he has nothing. It's like taking some classical masterpieces and shattering them to form some postmodernist abomination that pretends to be too deep but fails to understand human nature.

I do love postmodernism, though, just not this guy probably because it made me suffer from Paris syndrome.

Shakespeare had style and good ideas executed in a clever way. Outdated? Only in style, perhaps, but it still holds in today's world.

George Bernard Shaw did

>he invented the human
Cervantes explored the flaws of humanity before him. But Shakespeare wrote about many more.

>Joyce
>postmodernist

He is tho. Some of his novels at least.

You don't know what you are talking about. Kindly fuck off.

this

He is. Derrida said his two favorite novels were Ulysses and Finnegans Wake.

i would say this has to be bait but Veeky Forums is so garbage now that this might be serious

> fails to understand human nature
Oh please tell us how you got to be such an expert on the understanding of human nature.

Nah, it's that "Derrida" documentary, I'm pretty sure. Some Asian guy asked him for what books he'd take with him to the moon, or something. He said Ulysses and Finnegans Wake.

Read the slightest amount of criticism on Joyce and you'll find it's basically divided into Derrida and Lacan.

Joyce was po-mo (aka Weird for the sake of weird)

He wasn't weird for the sake of being weird. A large theme in Ulysses was to show the weird in the ordinary and the ordinary in the weird.

>postmodernism is being weid for its own sake
>Joyce was po-mo

Jesus Christ, why do people think they have the right to talk when they know next to nothing about a subject?

Also, what does it matter what Derrida said? And how does his saying that he liked Joyce's novels make them postmodern? That doesn't follow. Just go read something instead of saying bullshit.

ITT: People who like to pretend to know what they're talking about but really don't.

Oh ok you're baiting

nicely put

You sound like someone who hasn't read Joyce.

please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait please be bait

Not only is he as good but he proves by algebra that Hamlet’s grandson is Shakespeare’s grandfather and that he himself is the ghost of his own father.

IMO they were on similar tiers of genius. Doing radically different things though. Shakespeare wrote for an audience that demanded plots, the incredibly rich verbal texture was probably an added bonus. Versus Joyce who (between sponging on his poor parents, teaching lit courses, and getting advances from Sylvia Beach) was able to spend almost a decade on a single novel that displayed every single known literary technique and then some.

Methinks 'tis merely alpsey oranges

just noticed that kid is standing on the densha tracks

...

>In Shakespeare, as I see it, there is a trinity: there is Shakespeare the Father
The humanities are dead

>Crossroads for HS
>Cross
filioque checks out though

but it sucks. it's inaccessible. what's the point?

>reading for cheap entertainment
back 2 game of thrones

I love how this "invented the human" phrase gets thrown around on Veeky Forums despite it never being followed by anything else.

Almost smells like someone who read the sentence somewhere and keeps repeating it, despite the fact it completely ignores other writes much more preoccupied with humanity (like Cervantes or Villon). Unjustified anglocentrism is one of the main reasons why people hate murricans.

Joyce's favourite books were Hamlet and the Odyssey therefore Shakespeare and Homer were po-mo

I am going to stop coming to this board that post was so bad. Holy fuck.

I'm out of here.

in case you're serious it's a bloom meme quote m8

pretty sure the bible documents the invention of the human m8

It's always great to hear criticism of Joyce in the total absence of any textual evidence to support themselves. Please, do tell us what makes you think Joyce is 'contentless'

never mind, I see you've already disavowed any pretence of intellectual responsibility you put on in your previous posts. Good show!

>falling for bait