What makes Shakespeare so great? I have read a number of his plays and while they were all enjoyable, I'm not understanding what makes him such a major pillar of English literature.
Not a "Shakespeare is a hack" thread, just legit want to learn what makes him great.
how many words have u invented
>>7458539
Shakespeare in this venture to say that the only thing that is privileged and exempt from my disclosure or distribution is a very nice to have boilerplate reduction of etymology. In other words, get doubles
>>7458577
Witnessed.
>>7458588
Lord Have Mercy
>>7458591
Hail Satan
>>7458597
That's Satine, my friend.
>>7458539
He created the first characters to be truly introspective, the first characters to think over their actions and thoughts, and change because they "overhear" their own soliliquies. He achieved a new depth in the representation of human beings because of this.
Also he's just masterful at using the English language.
>>7458539
Do you think that "greatness" is an emergent quality as it relates to any given work?
That "quality," as it may be agreed upon by consensus, is like the circulation of blood? That is if circulation results from the combined and synchronized effort of all the millions of cells involved to actuate the effect, then is not "quality" the result of all the combined words, lines, scenes, characters, acts, agencies, and themes which combine to create the whole work?
So that if in one era, a consensus forms around a body of work, then another emergent property is the property of transference from one era to the next of that consensus, even if shifted to neighboring ground as regards specific attitudes toward the components of any or all of them.
No such consensus has survived, or even formed at all, in most cases, for his contemporaries of successors. Marlowe? Raleigh? Burbage? John [rat fucking] Webster?
A series of generational elections are what did it. Over and over, he hit the heart of the matter. More bullseyes than anyone else. That's it.
>>7458539
his shit is fucking amazing
>>7458624
>>>7458539 (OP)
>Do you think that "greatness" is an emergent quality as it relates to any given work?
Greatness is a quality of the individual, not the world.
>That "quality," as it may be agreed upon by consensus, is like the circulation of blood? That is if circulation results from the combined and synchronized effort of all the millions of cells involved to actuate the effect, then is not "quality" the result of all the combined words, lines, scenes, characters, acts, agencies, and themes which combine to create the whole work?
The combined efforts of several clans of ape shit and I will be happy to help you sooner than later. Quality has never been a result of the individual or organization, but rather a lack of communication. In the future, cells ought not to mention the fact that the only way to get the chance to look at the end of the day is to be a good person.
>So that if in one era, a consensus forms around a body of work, then another emergent property is the property of transference from one era to the next of that consensus, even if shifted to neighboring ground as regards specific attitudes toward the components of any or all of them.
Specific attitudes and components aside, what makes you feel that way? A body of work, emergent or not, is forever and ever and ever trapped in a few days. One era or the other, employees and their families will be in the future.
>No such consensus has survived, or even formed at all, in most cases, for his contemporaries of successors. Marlowe? Raleigh? Burbage? John [rat fucking] Webster?
This is a preposterous pile of stuff.
>A series of generational elections are what did it. Over and over, he hit the heart of the matter. More bullseyes than anyone else. That's it.
Bull'seyes and hearts collide with the following new or updated properties: set up a time to get the chance to look for a couple of hot babes today!
>>7458539
It's mostly the richness of his figurative language and the depth of the psychology he employs in his characterizations, as well as his masterful command over style and the sounds of the English language, used to paint a still very modern and relatable conception of the human condition.
He basically got the gist of everything literature has been since then - arguably he was the originator of it.
>>7458539
Daily Reminder that Shylock is the Best Shakespeare character
He invented many of the words and phrases commonly used today. "Unhand me", for example, is a phrase that is easy enough to understand now. Shakespeare created it. He took the prefix "Un" and combined it with the noun/verb "hand" to create an entirely new action. He was more of a word chemist, combining various words, prefixes, and suffixes in order to create an aesthetic experience for readers and listeners.
Just read his language, it's absolutely gorgeous. In the history of English literature only James Joyce comes anywhere close.
Should I bother taking a course on Shakespeare and Milton?
he was a balla with words and story
>>7458577
>>7458588
>>7460148
Snap-call imo
>>7460148
Sure, if you can skip the Milton.
>>7460202
They're two different courses and I want to know if I should take both.
>>7460213
Take both if you're up to it. Otherwise Shakespeare, Shakespeare, Shakespeare.
>>7458539
if you've read a number of his plays and don't understand why he's good you either need to reread his work or actually read some of the other garbage that his work is so much better than.
>>7460213
If you are a liberal arts major of any sort Shakespeare is a must. I would only do Milton if you are a Literature major with some kind of emphasis or long-term goal relating to the class.
I like Milton, by the way. I just don't think it is valuable enough as one of your select few electives.
>>7460213
Milton is really auxiliary in comparison. Most actual poets after the romantics call him out as a puffed up poet who could be largely compressed down to 4 of his 12 books in Paradise Lost, and they're right. He's good more for the meat of his poem. But why not focus on Shakespeare, who's great in both respects? Milton is irrelevant beyond English literature, whereas Shakespeare is universal to almost all literature after 1700.
>>7460383
Okay.
I have a course on classical foundations, and three in Greek and Roman Epic, Tragedy, and Comedy.
I presume this is unnecessary? I'm thinking of removing the courses on epic and comedy.
>>7460328
>Milton is irrelevant beyond English literature
Only the dead can know peace from this bait
And I REALLY hope this is bait
>>7460558
How is it not true? What non-Anglo nations study him?
>>7460558
And what's his influence on non-Anglo countries?
>>7458539
You'll really need to see at least one or two of his plays performed, and performed well, in order to "get it" if you don't already.
>>7460396
Do not do this. Greek Comedy is really very good, interesting explorations of the obscene and interpersonal relations, it is also good to think of when you're looking at other comedy, both your basic pantomime type (this is why reading Plautus can be good, even if he isn't terribly) and the more subtle works like Shakespeare's. Further: It's fucking hilarious.
And epic is great, why would you drop epic? Who would not want to study the Iliad?
You shouldn't disregard comedy as unimportant just because it's silly, that is a mistake far too many people make.
It's nice now that we can compare the artistic stylings of Monsigneur Shakespeare with a bit of George B. Shaw, or Philip Mackie's The Cleopatras and The Caesars.
I think they all have their own special talents, abilities and aims, but it's interesting just to see where they just to place their drama on the chronology.
This is taking place around 51 B.C. for example:
http://youtu.be/Y5HGPQtgaic
>>7461304
Imagine being poor Ptolemy XIII, your dad is dead, you've married your sister, and you're being keked by Julius Caesar, all at the ripe old age of ten.
>>7458577
>>7458588
>>7458720
This.
He is on point enough to communicate clearly and elegantly while at the same time leaving enough room for interpretation which is important to the longevity of plays. He generalizes while beatifying. Actors and directors can still take his scripts, put their own vision behind it and have the result be true to both the playwright and the performers. He built a beautiful framework that others could continue to use.
