are the canon writers like cervantes and shakespeare just too good or is the average person/writer just mediocre as fuck?
I don't buy the genius label people use on them.
I do believe someone in 2015 with enough IQ and really studying the rules of writing, like figures of speech, storytelling, hero's journey, script writing, poetrhy, read the basis of philosophy, economy, psychology, teology, sociology (by basis I mean, intro first year college books at least), have read at least the western canon, etc, could produce something of better quality than older geniuses.
I do believe someone studying hard in some top college could become a better writer than older masters, taking into account now we have the internet and we have better insight and resources on storytelling and writing than older masters.
I do think the 10k hours rule is true though, and I believe someone with a PHD in literature should have better skills in writing than older literature geniuses.
So, do you agree it's possible to archieve greatness or do you believe their work is dependant on some magical god fairy dust?
I'm not saying it would be easy if that's what you're thinking.
>inb4 your taco english suck as counter argument
>>7384930
>hero's journey
>>7384930
Of course it is possible for someone do outdo them, but the average person, no matter the time, will never be capable of doing so.
>>7384939
so, can we agree the average person is mediocre as fuck and don't wanna get gud?
>>7384930
>hero's journey
Your inquiry is missing a factor - time. This isn't all in a bubble. Yes, technically, many people on this planet since Shakespeare's death could have written things that, if put in a time machine and sent back to 10 years before Shakespeare's birth, would be talked about alongside Shakespeare. The problem with your thought is that everything we write now is post-Shakespeare. We have his insight, his ideas, the over 1500 words he invented. That can't be changed, no matter how well people after him write. Shakespeare edited and evolved the way people used the English language more than nearly any other writer.
>>7384942
I agree that the average person is incapable of being anything more than average. Moreover, I agree that people in general are incapable of being anything more than they are.
>>7384930
>with enough IQ
I qualified for mensa
>and really studying the rules of writing, like figures of speech, storytelling, hero's journey, script writing, poetrhy,
I've been reading poetry for two decades >read the basis of philosophy, economy, psychology, teology, sociology (by basis I mean, intro first year college books at least),
I read textbooks, technical dictionaries, and encyclopedias for fun. I speak three languages and am learning two more.
>have read at least the western canon, etc,
I've read every poet you could name and a half a thousand more that you couldn't.
>could produce something of better quality than older geniuses.
Not Shakespeare. Not Whitman, not Dante.
The Cranes, the Brownings, the Yeats and Stevens, the Frost and the Sidneys, the Hopkins, Campions and the Popes. These are obtainable. The Dobells and Patmores, the Aikens, Owens and Lears some would say have already been surpassed.
But the geniuses are one in a billion. It's a freak thing, there's only so much that learning will do for a man if they don't have the inherent talent for it. Ezra Pound was undoubtedly one of the most erudite men (regarding humanities) alive during his time, and look where it got him. Some would argue he didn't know how to use his education. There's a different kind of genius. It takes an intelligent man to first acquire the means to produce masterful work, it takes a genius to produce it.
STEMfag please go.
You just made an equation of what you think to be a good writer, which is ludicrous in itself. There have been great writers that are totally retarded in fields outside of writing, and there have been greats who are skilled in other fields.
Also, you display a total lack of knowledge of writing by thinking there are a set of rules.
But your equation is
IQ+your list of things+being in the year 2015=writer who is greater than someone from the past, many of whom follow an equation of
IQ+your list of things
Why is 2015 so important? It sounds like being in the year 2015 is your equivalent of fairy dust, you think because they're alive today they're better because you perceive modern society as more advanced, and therefore capable of better art.
All of this takes into no account any degree of originality.
Even if a lot of Shakespeare was pastiche of other plays at the time, he did it better, and in such an original manner it is more worth remembering than his more successful contemporaries.
>>7384990
so you believe talent is some kind of magical genetic material non talented people lack?
>>7384986
i think that anon is saying it's basically about being an autist desu
>>7384998
I just don't understand people lack of will to study and analize the work of the masters and they just go on a rant about how writing have no rules or how good writing can't be explained.
fuck sake, is like saying that music can't be analized or explained by theory.
bunch of fags.
>>7384986
>>what's the point of even trying
you're missing the point. People have written as good or better than Shakespeare since Shakespeare, but they're never going to erase Shakespeare's place in literature. He is forever going to be discussed among the upper echelons of writers, and because he was one fo the first to reach that level of reverence, he will likely always be near the top.
>>7385004
my point isn't about replacing shakespeare's place in literature though.
>>7384995
yes
>>7385001
Because we can study all fucking day and say "this is what makes book A a masterpiece" and "this is what makes book B a masterpiece" but the issues are
>having the talent and skill to recreate those things
>having the creativity to innovate those things and make them new because doing the same shit again isn't going to make you timeless
>pure blind luck that all outside factors eg context, influence, legacy, whatever line up
tldr you're a fucking idiot that doesn't understand how literature or its tradition work
you can study music theory all you want but if you simply copied what makes bach's fugues great and reproduced iit in 2015 you wouldn't be Bach because he already fucking did it centuries ago
>>7385010
It's about equaling him, or somehow devaluing what he did, and what you must understand is that the era in which that is possible has long passed. You can't study your way to being the next Shakespeare because the bar for what makes a genius in writing is constantly changing. Someone who simply studies will resemble the past, not their contemporaries, and that will not hold up to criticism. In the 22nd century people will be looking back to writers who revolutionized writing going into the 21st century, not writers who just wrote a good traditional story.
>>7384977
2/10
>>7385041
so you rather say that archieving the same level comes down to:
>I'm too lazy to study and analize the old master works
>I don't care about the theory
>I'm too lazy to apply said theory on my work
that's your entire argument.
It would be like saying that to archieve bach level of quality you don't need to learn the theory.
>legacy and tradition
So you imply that literatura that has the same quality or even better quality than the canon would be simply disregarded?
So your entire argument is because there is a tradition in painting, trying to get to old master levels is irrelevant or useless.
So that somehow Vilppu won't be remembered as an old master that mastered drawing simply because he lived in the XXI century?
>>7385043
you seem to imply I'm talking about being a shakespeare killer.
>some who simply studies the past
when I said that, it's pretty obvious you also need to study the current state of literature.
>creativity
can be learned, is not something magical.
All you fags keep using excuses as to why it can't be archieve the same level of greatness.
>inb4 tu quoque
>>7385001
hehe, analize. It's analyze bruv.
>>7385062
>when I said that, it's pretty obvious you also need to study the current state of literature.
The problem is that at any given time you never know what the next step in literature is. Someone who is part of the pack will never be remembered as an absolute great of their time. If you asked someone in 1960 what they thought of Italo Calvino they would say he's an interesting guy, but they wouldn't be touting him as one of the most interesting writers of all time as was the standard by the 80s. Make sense?
You would have to be able to literally predict the future. In retrospect it seems easy, because you read classic novels and can dissect them in your mind and imagine writing something like them yourself, but to actually do something unique and new and boundary-pushing at the point in time where it has all of those factors isn't something you can force yourself into. Call it luck, magic, brilliance, or whatever else, but some writers do the right thing at the right time and become legends. That's the way it works.
>>7385062
>so you rather say that archieving the same level comes down to:
>>I'm too lazy to study and analize the old master works
>>I don't care about the theory
>>I'm too lazy to apply said theory on my work
Is this bait?
>that's your entire argument.
probably bait
>It would be like saying that to archieve bach level of quality you don't need to learn the theory.
What? Nowhere did anyone say that. This is beginning to smell like worms
>>legacy and tradition
>So you imply that literatura that has the same quality or even better quality than the canon would be simply disregarded?
No, "quality" is tangential. Quality of 2015 and quality of 1606 are completely different things. The point is that there are people today who can write something like Shakespeare of 1606. The problem is that it isn't 1606, and nobody's writing Shakespeare of 2015.
>So your entire argument is because there is a tradition in painting, trying to get to old master levels is irrelevant or useless.
>So that somehow Vilppu won't be remembered as an old master that mastered drawing simply because he lived in the XXI century?
yeah this is bait I'm out. either bait or you're incredibly dense and either way it's a drag
>>7385071
I know, but english isn't my native language, so it's pretty obvious it'll make some typo or weird grammar choice.
>>7385074
I'll think it boils down to the writer having some kind of artistic horizon that is wide is scope, that is, he actually cares about learning and has great observational skills, like he put attention observing his family, classmates, coworkers and even something simple as talking to a shopkeeper will be full of details he will be putting attention.
so in a sense, he will be also a philosopher.
This is not enough I think, but I've seeing geniuses have artistic goals in terms of archieving great technique and having his art have some kind of deep meaning.
This are the special ingredients I keep seeing in geniuses art.
>>7385080
>quality is tangential
sure, if you're measuring average literature that may be popular like harry potter.
but genius quality isn't "tangential", just like a drawing done by a master have a quality that can test the time.
>shakespeare in 2015
you seem to ignore the rules of good storytelling haven't change.
good stories are still based on deep tridimentional characters and deep conflicts that push the character to their logical conclusions.
A heartbreaking plot twist will be still good, regardless of epoch.
Good art will be admired by both the average citizen and the intelectual, because it possesses a passion, an emotional quality, gives an espiritual catharsis, feels emotionally full, imitates real life and nature and have an inherent beautifull quality.
Beauty isn't tangential.
what was beautifull for roman people is the same beauty people today still crave.
we're biologically the same as the romans.
>>7385107
>you seem to ignore the rules of good storytelling haven't change.
We're nearing 100 years since the last traditional story has been something special enough to be considered among the greats in 100-200 years.
>>7385115
this means the average writer is mediocre as fuck.
there is infinite more potential for good traditional storytelling using current events than what old writers had to deal.
I'm sure if you browse pol you'll see plenty of materials for good stories.
>>7385115
To continue this post, the best of traditional stories from the last century were still brilliant insights, images of their time and place. The retrospective novel is gone. You can't write about the 60s and have it matter, because there's tons of writing already from the 60s about what the 60s was. Writers finished writing about the past over two hundred years ago, and there isn't more recorded history to dig up and capture. You're strictly limited to writing about your time, and you need to have one of the most unique and captivating approaches to capturing your own time and place if you're going to be remembered just for writing a traditional story.
>>7384930
Both. The average person has negative discernable talent, even less than DFW.
>>7384930
In my opinion it's culture that effects this more than anything.
Modern "Freedom" could be said to inhibit both creativity and learned skill.
The other side would be the factor of prideful masses; another Shakespeare could do his thing today and be mocked even by academics, as PHDs have become less and less a mark for good judgement.
>>7385126
there's plenty of current material for good traditional stories.
Just open the newspaper, hell even 4chan stories about chris chan would be good inspiration.
Stuff like the last decade wars, the danger of muslims in europe.
Shit like the paris incident last week would make a good tragic novel.
Hell, I dream about making the african lore and black people version of the lord of the rings, using only black people history and black people lore.
There's plenty of materials to make, even deep concerns and fears like machine overtaking makind, space travel, transhumanism, cloning, abortion, gay rights, animal rights, enviromentalism, end of capitalism, latinoamerican socialism, japan clashes with china and north korea, civil rights activism in iran, oil peak in some near future, current economic crysis, videogames adiction, hikkikomoris, weebs irl comedy, somalia piracy.
And those are the top of my head right now.
>>7384930
Obviously. I'm sorry, but I really shouldn't even be wasting my time by replying to your absolutely inane post that has about as much cognitive heft as my little fister's Tickle-Me-Elmo "toy." You talk about 10,000 hours? What do you know about time? About hard-work? About putting your blood, sweat, and tears into a shaker of ice, a tea-spoon of olive brine, half a finger of sweet vermouth, and a shot of extra dry gin, huh? I'll tell you: nothing.
Let me paragraphically demonstrate what you know:
Nothing.
Now, reread everything you've written, and ask yourself: Do you have what it takes? If the answer is no: you're lying. If the answer is yes: you're lying. Because you're a fucking liar. You talk about IQ and you probably can't even count high enough to guess the first digit of mine. Stupid.
And don't even get me started on greatness. I already wrote my memoirs and they were fucking phenomenal. I'll give you a hint: ever heard of Henry Kissinger? Yeah, that's right.
I would tell you to suck my dick, but considering how much you suck, you'd probably just slurp the 3-inch monster right from my torn torso. I'm fucking ripped, you don't even know.
>>7385145
it seems I have enough skill to make some anonymous person on the internet butthurt.
;)
I prefer to think of the word "genius" in the old sense. Instead of a genius necessarily being a larger-than-life figure and an incredibly intelligent and creative individual, I like to think of the term 'genius' as a force that works 'through' individuals
People used to say that someone was inspired, and had the 'touch of genius.' Genius was a trait of art and achievement that shows itself through those most equipped for the task.
Not that I necessarily believe that a higher force can directly inspire achievement (i do, but that's beside the point) what I am claiming is that one's intelligence and predisposition for writing does not necessitate a masterpiece, nor does relatively stunted intelligence or antiquated knowledge necessarily diminish one's potential for achievement.
Many masterpieces have been lost over the years, masterpieces that may have invented more words than Shakespeare, or contained a quest more epic than Homer's tales, or that, had they been preserved, could have inspired millions. We consider the legendary writers 'geniuses' because they are legendary and because our culture and ideals have been inspired by their works, whether they were the first and greatest to set them in writing or not.
simply put, you're looking at this from an individualistic stance. Cervantes or Shakespeare were in the right place at the right time. I'm not discounting the fact that they were brilliant and innovative, but they were in a better position than Student X to spread their particular words effectively. Student X may too be living at the perfect time to gain acclaim for their particular ideas and work, but we won't know that for a while. You cannot quantify a work's reception like you think you can quantify its content.
Shakespeare is dead, Ceravantes is dead. Every great novelist, poet or playwright of some bygone era that has died is dead and can never be recreated. If there was a great new genius to emerge, they wouldn't be called "the next Shakespeare" because they'd be great enough with their own originality. You think that by reading all these great writers' books; analyzing them, writing essays on them, studying them for years along with a myriad of other complex subjects has the power to turn an average Joe from 2015 into someone just as great, or better than, the likes of Shakespeare?
People can study literature and writing all they want, but there's a huge difference between being a smarty pants and being a genius. Without some kind of passion; something that you feel the need to put into the world, without a real talent or desire, books and rules are of little use. And people who would have to try that hard to produce something spellbounding or timeless are usually uninspired. One should never have to "try" to be amazing. True inspiration and passion are the built-in qualities of a genius. It's not something you can really learn.
It's not just for writing, this applies to every skill created by mankind. Science, Athletics, Music, Art, Warfare, Politics, etc. Genius is manifested in everything and everyone is a genius to some extent.It's cliche but true, no human being is "average".
>>7385156
you seem to be ignoring the most important quality of art or mainly the reason why some works are revered is how beautifull they are.
people desperately crave for beauty.
even old shit like a simple teacup could be worth an historical value and be fought violently by collectors, simply because of it's beauty.
my point is, that historical legacy is simply how popular through the ages a piece of work has been, inspiring people because it's beautifull to make derivative shit.
why a person would make derivate art of your work?
just like anime waifus, we feel inspired by beauty, by how it made us feel, how passionate and honest were the piece of art, how trully emotional we felt the conection with the autor.
this spiritual beauty is what people crave.
you're right in the sense most people lack that passion and the motivation to practice and learn the craft good enough to archieve greatness.
greatness isn't about making a legacy and inventing 1.5k words and basically inventing modern english.
greatness is about making beautifull things, to inspire people, to share your passion, to admire every single simple thing that most people ignore.
you know, the smile of a little child that passes in front of your window, making art and great art that inspire people is about capturing those moments, about feeling something deep and reclaiming that elusive feeling you had, that inspiration, that divine muse and capturing it in your pen.
>>7385170
sure, but for archievent greatness you need technicall skills, that can be learned.
Passion, sure, it cannot, but why write and expect to rival the old masters if you're not passionate about it?
why not simply make a cheap tale that will sell millions?
why care about making something beautifull that could save a life, that could inspire a person to change his life, to simply bring that little flame we all have, the reason why human life is beautifull.
Why do we even make art in the first place?
Why just say:
Oh, they're too good, I'll never be as good.
Why never try?
Why live as a loser?
Why give up before trying?
Why not make art because you have something to say?
Why?
>>7385151
>butthurt
>implying
Have you ever heard of Ulcerative Colitis? No? Well its when the entire inside of your fucking rectum gets infected and inflamed and starts growing pus-packed ulcers that pop every time you take a shit. It's like every Taco Bell in the world just decided out of the blue one day to re-open shop up inside your asshole. And they still employ those disgusting negro humanoids with the blotchy skin (I'm not racist though, they're just gross imo).
Anyway, two years ago my asshole got so bad that had to unsleeve the whole thing and replace it with a fucking plastic bag that I have to clean out every other day like I got some Mexican construction site port-a-potty up my fucking butthole that's open 24-7 for all those mouth-wateringly sweaty Mexican manslaves to plop their tragically liquified burrito shits.
So next time you tell someone theyre butthurt, think before you speak because you can really hurt someone where it matters: the heart.
>>7384930
>shakespeare
>good
don't you have school tomorrow?
>>7384930
Shakespeare was not that great; he was just very innovative for his time, and is now a very influential writer. Which is kind of a cyclic process: Novice writers are way too lazy to think critically, and when every single literary expert tells them that Shakespeare was the greatest writer to ever grace us with his presence, their only reaction is to read Shakespeare and learn his ways, and then enforce the bandwagon upon other novice writers. Miguel de Cervantes is a more interesting case. In the end casualty plays a big role in his success: an above average writer happens to write about a timeless theme, masterfully, and before anyone else did. It's hard to top Don Quixote because of these reasons, but anyone can become as good as Miguel de Cervantes as a writer. In fact, many writers have already surpassed Shakespeare and Miguel de Cervantes, although you'll probably get lynched for saying that in public because the bandwagon has grown beyond proportions.
Nowadays, however, it is harder to become a writer as good as the "old masters". You mention the internet, but it serves for an opposite purpose. The majority of the information on the internet is shallow and serves for entertainment, not actual information. Finding reliable sources and useful information on the internet (other than news) is very hard, and in that case you might as well simply read books on the subject, so the internet is not an advantage for today's writers compared to past writers. Most of the writers that we speak about today were born rich and did not need to have a job. If they did, it was mostly so they could get a few kicks out of it, and they would work way less than 8/5, so the rest of their vast free time could be entirely dedicated to the arts and literature. Doing this nowadays is almost impossible, because you'll be labeled as an autistic recluse and will probably be driven to insanity if you don't have anyone else to relate with (this was not a problem back in the days, since these rich intellectuals knew each other, and were always in correspondence about what interested them).
In the end I agree with you, and so do most geneticists that I know. For reasons that I cannot fathom, people tend believe in genetic determinism today, to the point that it has become another trend, but sure anyone who works hard enough can become a great writer. Just keep in mind that times has changed and we are living in the age where, even when people actually happen to have free time, they'll simply waste it with entertainment (video games, the internet, 4chan) rather than dedicating it fully to the arts, so you'll see less worthwhile authors.
>>7385186
My favorite copypasta.
>>7385186
I'm sorry about your colitis, but right now I'm suffering a fucking hemorroid.
everything will be fine bro, don't worry.
>>7385187
I don't think shakespeare is some kind of ancient demigod with infinite powers, just another average person.
He even have a trashy book people keep ignoring.
>>7385188
I do feel this way.
people are way too happy wasting their mediocre lives with more mediocrity.
sure, books are great, but my point about the internet is that we can pirate an ebook in five minutes, unlike previous generations who lacked such resources.
>>7385198
It's *hemorrhoid you filthy liar. You don't think I don't know a two-faced, two-bit, two-horse-town-living-brother-fucker when I sees one?
You have Barney Trouble with subtlety my slam-piece's son.
>>7385184
>Passion, sure, it cannot, but why write and expect to rival the old masters if you're not passionate about it?
That's exactly my point. True "geniuses" don't try to live up to anyone else. Yeah, they may have influences or inspirations from others, but they will have something to be said that stands out, or will one day stand out from all the mediocrity and wannabes.
And I'm not saying illiterates have the ability to compose (eligible) works of literature; for that you obviously need at least an average IQ, common sense, and basic set of skills in English vocabulary and grammar (or whatever language you're writing in).
You can be the smartest student at Harvard and be a genius, you could be the poorest redneck in Middleofnowhere, Mississippi and be a genius; whether or not you can do something impactful with that gift, the fact still remains; your passions and thoughts are still valid even if you die alone with nothing but unattainable genius thoughts in your head.
>>7385186
See? This guy right here could be a genius. He could write some politically incorrect play or book or something that people 200 years from now will be reading and analyzing still. Or he could be a hobo and never write a single sentence again for the rest of his life. Or then again, maybe he's not a genius. We may never know.
>>7385232
I've gotten to know only one person who I believe to be a true genius in my life and from my experience, what you say is correct. Incandescent brilliance manifests itself as pure confidence in one's own opinions, as well as an absolute command and comfort with language that seems to transcend language itself. This sounds wispy and lofty, but it's true; I've noticed that with such people, whatever they do or say is simply a side-effectual by-product of thought, you always get the impression that there's so much more behind what you're seeing. You're right in saying that genius has nothing to prove. I'd even go as far to say that it's those on the dimmer side of genius that indeed do have something to prove: the validity of genius as it is so rarely and exceptionally known. As for your literary genius, I can only say that–despite any quantitative measurements of ability, because those don't matter in lieu of results–one must have the innate ability of either reflect reality as it is with the unique use of words, or be able to reconstitute reality into a wholly new realm of verbal sex.
>>7384930
People don't go sailing the world or going on their own interesting adventures anymore
>>7385242
There is no line demarcating genius; genius is as relative as the smell of body odor. If you're in India, the threshold for both is probably a substantial bit higher than it is in, say, Cincinnati. That being said, I–the man to whom you refer in your post–have met malice with spite, usury with charity, whimsy with mania: with this you must know that there is nothing either one of us can ever say to reverse the tides of time as they lap against the wilting lips of a chorus gone silent in the jet-black diamond-studded sky that we may know no longer in lieu of the global machinations of geo-cannibalism.
As for my shit post shitpost: shit's the shit *toast*Being told you're smart is the worst possible thing to be told if you want to cultivate a healthy work ethic at a young age. Never undeservingly tell your kids they're super-duper! smart or else they'll grow up thinking that they've accomplished everything they've needed to, namely: acceptance and recognition in the eyes of others
>>7385145
>my little fister's
>>7385265
Glad you caught that *clap*
Here's a photo of Steven Pinker translating ebonics into massa' talk.
>>7385274
What's "he be work"?
>>7385264
I wholeheartedly agree. "Genius" along with literally every single other word is only an intangible idea (however important and powerful) that humans can only bring into the physical world by words.
>>7385277
It's "he be workin'" without the "-in'" Or in other words, just not.
>>7385290
At first I read this as "...disagree" and prompted writing a lengthy, but very polite mind ye, response, only to realize that my annoyingly natural defensiveness (which was probably cultivated by 4chan) led me astray.
Anyway, one thing that really bothers me (and shouldn't) in life is the idea that there are people out there that potentially understand things wholly intuitively that I mightn't begin to even grasp the gist of. The number is probably very small, because as reasonably educated presumably white American male adults with access to the web, we have a few statistical legs up on the majority of babymakers out there, but still there will always be that micro-nag in the back of my skull that says: "you'll never be as brilliant as [insert superior mind here]." Like I mentioned, I've closely formed a relationship with only one person in my life whom I consider to be a fully-fledged genius, and whenever I'm ruminating about this or that, and I find myself unable to flesh-out an idea any further, I always find my friend's sly smile silently waiting for me at one of the many dead-end alleys that make up the network of my measly mind. But now I'm just flagellating.
Anyway, just more words to stain nothingness with :)
>>7385331
Well, as I said in an earlier post, I believe everyone has some special gift or quality, call it "genius" if you want, but there are certain variables prohibiting some people from becoming part of history. It mostly depends on how the current society views you and your qualities. You may not even have access to society and they won't even be able to judge you.
That being said, even the geniusiest geniuses couldn't grasp some of the things that may come naturally to you or me. I'm neither fully white, nor male, nor adult, maybe I'll never even leave my town again, but maybe I have thoughts inside my head unfamiliar to the likes of Einstein or Shakespeare. Maybe not. My point is that everyone possesses omething completely original... even if it's only the lenses in which they perceive the world.
>>7384950
>Shakespeare edited and evolved the way people used the English language more than nearly any other writer.
I find this very hard to believe. Shakespeare wasn't even the most popular writer of his era.
If you can identify a single work as having the most influence on English, it would probably be one read by virtually all English speakers at the time--the Bible. Transcribers of the Latin Vulgate, KJV, or some other incarnation definitely butterfly-effect'd the English language much more than Shakespeare
>>7386060
By 'read' I obviously mean 'heard' on top of the literal notion of reading. A lot of people were illiterate but would know scripture from sermons
>>7386063
>he thinks Shakespeare had no discernible talent
>>7386060
Shakespeare helped translate the KJV
>>7386113
No he didn't, unless you believe retarded conspiracy theories like 'Shakespeare was actually [x]!' or
>William Shakespeare lived from 1564-1616. The creation of the King James Bible began in the year 1610, the year in which Shakespeare would have been 46 years old.
>If you turn to Psalm 46 in the King James Bible, and if you count exactly 46 words into the psalm, you find the word "shake." If you count 46 words back from the end of that psalm, you will find the word "spear."
>>7386121
You're using reverse psychology to make us believe he did in fact translate it, aren't you?
>>7384934
Where does it come from?
>>7385140
>Bwana of Rings
Do it.
