>>9778601

Anyone else think that he was clearly really fucking smart, but that his plays have none of the "super deep profound truths" that people (hi Bloom) always say they do? I mean I can appreciate his poetic and linguistic brilliance, but the stuff that Shakespeare shows about humanity is pretty typical, not especially illuminating fare

>inb4 le it was deep for his time meme

not an excuse. the point is that people say that he is one of the profoundest writers EVER, including recent times, when he was mostly just high IQ, clever.

I might just be a pleb though, what do you guys think?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

oh didn't mean to link that thread, my bad

The thing about him is that he says basic human truths using such creative language, that it makes them appear more insightful than they actually are. It's not a criticism, since aesthetic beauty is the purpose of art imho

I'd have to agree OP, not much to add but I did notice the same.

A bad translation of Dostoevsky for me is superior than the best Shakespearean prose.

daww :( did I trigger you by breaking your super secret club rules? :( does bby need some cookies to calm down?

>"super deep profound truths" that people (hi Bloom) always say they do?

Bloom never says anything about "super deep truths" when it comes to Shakespeare. Nearly all his criticism of the plays are based on the characters' psychological depth, and that's why he idolizes him on top of his linguistic exuberance, not "le secret deep meanings."

Why would his idolize him yet criticize the character's psychological depth. Post doesn't make sense.

well "truth" doesn't have to refer to syllogisms or aphorisms about "le life." it can be shown within the psychological depth of the characters themselves, and yet STILL what Shakespeare shows about humanity is not all that incredibly profound

Everyone knows that Hamlet’s grandson is Shakespeare’s grandfather and that he himself is the ghost of his own father. Duh. Even Prospero was just a shitty deus ex machina of a character so little Willy could leave the cringe of theater.

"criticism" doesn't necessarily mean "saying bad things" you dumb fuck

Criticism = expression of disapproval. How can you idolize something you disapprove of? Please go re-read Blood you didn't understand a word he said.

>Criticism = expression of disapproval

stop shitting up the thread with your retardation please

The first definition literally says "the act of saying something is bad". That is the common and most widely used definition.

The word you're looking for is critique, not criticism. Not my fault you use obscure definitions.

>porcodio

Should have known it was an Italian. I've rarely encountered an Italian that speaks English properly.

Why would I think something blatantly wrong?

>The word you're looking for is critique, not criticism. Not my fault you use obscure definitions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism
>Literary criticism
>Literary
>criticism

I got baited pretty hard. Good job, i guess.

please explain to me the profound truths you have discovered in shakespeare

>most people believe thing
>assert contradictory thing
>get asked why one should believe thing
>hurr durr prove me wrong

>but the stuff that Shakespeare shows about humanity is pretty typical

Examples, please.

>O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space -- were it not that I have bad dreams

>There is a tide in the affairs of men
>Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
>Omitted, all the voyage of their life
>Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

>The worst is not,
>So long as we can say, This is the worst.

GONZALO
>I' the commonwealth I would by contraries
>Execute all things; for no kind of traffic
>Would I admit; no name of magistrate;
>Letters should not be known; riches, poverty,
>And use of service, none; contract, succession,
>Bourn, bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none;
>No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil;
>No occupation; all men idle, all;
>And women too, but innocent and pure;
>No sovereignty;--
SEBASTIAN
>Yet he would be king on't.
ANTONIO
>The latter end of his commonwealth forgets the
beginning.

>If all the year were playing holidays,
>To sport would be as tedious as to work.

> Well, 'tis no matter; Honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if Honour prick me off when I come on? how then? Can Honour set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honour hath no skill in surgery then? No. What is Honour? a word. What is that word, Honour? Air. A trim reckoning! — Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. Is it sensible then? Yes, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it: therefore I'll none of it. Honour is a mere 'scutcheon, and so ends my catechism.

DUKE SENIOR
Come, shall we go and kill us venison?
And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools,
Being native burghers of this desert city,
Should in their own confines with forked heads
Have their round haunches gored.

FIRST LORD
Indeed, my lord,
The melancholy Jaques grieves at that,
And, in that kind, swears you do more usurp
Than doth your brother that hath banish'd you.
To-day my Lord of Amiens and myself
Did steal behind him as he lay along
Under an oak whose antique root peeps out
Upon the brook that brawls along this wood:
To the which place a poor sequester'd stag,
That from the hunter's aim had ta'en a hurt,
Did come to languish, and indeed, my lord,
The wretched animal heaved forth such groans
That their discharge did stretch his leathern coat
Almost to bursting, and the big round tears
Coursed one another down his innocent nose
In piteous chase; and thus the hairy fool
Much marked of the melancholy Jaques,
Stood on the extremest verge of the swift brook,
Augmenting it with tears.

DUKE SENIOR
But what said Jaques?
Did he not moralize this spectacle?

FIRST LORD
O, yes, into a thousand similes.
First, for his weeping into the needless stream;
"Poor deer," quoth he, "thou makest a testament
As worldlings do, giving thy sum of more
To that which had too much:" then, being there alone,
Left and abandon'd of his velvet friends,
"'Tis right:" quoth he; "thus misery doth part
The flux of company:" user a careless herd,
Full of the pasture, jumps along by him
And never stays to greet him; "Ay" quoth Jaques,
"Sweep on, you fat and greasy citizens;
'Tis just the fashion: wherefore do you look
Upon that poor and broken bankrupt there?"
Thus most invectively he pierceth through
The body of the country, city, court,
Yea, and of this our life, swearing that we
Are mere usurpers, tyrants and what's worse,
To fright the animals and to kill them up
In their assign'd and native dwelling-place.

DUKE SENIOR
And did you leave him in this contemplation?

SECOND LORD
We did, my lord, weeping and commenting
Upon the sobbing deer.

He's the most perfectly realized of the Renaissance Humanists, as important as Montaigne or Hobbes. Especially in his later plays like Measure for Measure or The Tempest, he has a profound sense of personal morality as contrasted with the social, and the limits and necessity of state power.

There's also stuff like:
>there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so
Predates Nietzsche, Spinoza, Hume, all the post-modernists.
His character psychology is so rich it served as the basis of Freud's thinking.

Shakespeare = first one to express human psyche/motivations/etc. but his characters are still mostly 1-dimensional (i.e. the lover is in love, the villian is a bad dude)
Dosto=first one to discover the paradoxical/unconsious psyche, (i.e. lovers that love because they like the feeling of beeing humiliated/rejected, villians that do bad things with good motives etc.)

>his characters are still mostly 1-dimensional (i.e. the lover is in love, the villian is a bad dude)
lol yeah iago/shylock/claudius/ are just 'bad dudes', totally 1 dimensional characters

One of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on this board.
Literally the opinion of an illiterate teenager.

>inb4 he claims it was bait

Lovers don't love because they like the feeling of being humiliated. It is not humiliation for them. It is glory. To be so denounced and despised, though innocent truly, is glory. As the Vikings fought unto death, high belief in Valhalla firm in their minds; so too do the lovers endure the blows of the public, and revel in their hypocrisy.

Does anyone have a good Shakespeare reading guide? No memes please.

I mean ffs, read Claudius' "O, my offence is rank" soliloquy: I don't want to turn this thread into a pissing contest between two great authors but that one speech is as psychologically penetrating about the nature of guilt as anything Dostoevsky ever wrote.

Read Macbeth, a tragedy. Then Read Much Ado About Nothing, a comedy. Then read Richard III, a history.

If you liked Macbeth most, read Othello next.
If you liked Much Ado most, read Twelfth Night next.
If you liked Richard III most, read Richard II next. Or Julius Caesar idk.