Who are some great playwrights besides Shakespeare?
pic related
Johnson
Beckett
Sophocles
Chekov
>>7725076
No need to know them. The Tempest is the greatest peace of playwright comedy ever created. You may as well as just end your life right now, knowing that it will never be surpassed.
Hebbel is underrated tbqh
>>7725085
>You may as well as just end your life right now, knowing that it will never be surpassed.
why?
>>7725085
Detected.
Seconding Sophocles and Chekov. Euripides is neat, too.
>>7725076
Middleton is really nice. You should begin with Women Beware Women
Aeschylus
Sophocles
Euripides
Aristophanes
Menander
Plautus
Terence
Seneca
Lope de Vega
Tirso de Molina
Pedro Calderón de la Barca
Robert Garnier
Christopher Marlowe
Thomas Kyd
Ben Jonson
Francis Beaumont
John Fletcher
George Chapman
John Ford
John Marston
John Webster
Thomas Middleton
William Rowley
Cyril Tourneur
Philip Massinger
Pierre Corneille
Molière
Jean Racine
Thomas Otway
William Congreve
George Etherege
Pierre de Marivaux
John Gay
George Farquhar
William Wycherley
Carlo Goldoni
Oliver Goldsmith
Richard Brinsley Sheridan
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Heinrich von Kleist
Alfred de Vigny
Alfred de Musset
Henrik Ibsen
August Strindberg
Thomas Lovell Beddoes
W. S. Gilbert
Oscar Wilde
Georg Büchner
Richard Wagner (wrote his own librettos)
Alexander Pushkin
Nikolai Gogol
Leo Tolstoy
Alexander Ostrovsky
Anton Chekhov
Luigi Pirandello
Federico García Lorca
Jean Genet
Jean Giraudoux
Alfred Jarry
Jean Cocteau
Jean-Paul Sartre
Charles Péguy
Jean Anouilh
Eugène Ionesco
Antonin Artaud
William Butler Yeats
George Bernard Shaw
John Millington Synge
Sean O'Casey
Samuel Beckett
John Arden
Joe Orton
Tom Stoppard
Harold Pinter
Edward Bond
Hugo von Hofmannsthal
Bertolt Brecht
Arthur Schnitzler
Frank Wedekind
Karl Kraus
Friedrich Dürrenmatt
Velimir Khlebnikov
Vladimir Mayakovsky
Karel Čapek
Václav Havel
S. Ansky
Wole Soyinka
Athol Fugard
Eugene O'Neill
Thornton Wilder
Tennessee Williams
Arthur Miller
Edwin Justus Mayer
David Mamet
David Rabe
Sam Shepard
August Wilson
Tony Kushner
>>7725203
Fuck... forgot to include Dryden, Schiller, Lessing, Machiavelli and Alfieri. Pls disregard, OP.
Gogol - The government inspector
is a must
>>7725218
You're the guy who always posts these lists in response to these kind of questions aren't you?
If you have actually read all of these people you are my hero. (only if you have an IQ over 100 or else i hate you)
Aeschylus
>>7725858
As is his "marriage" and the historical "Boris Godunov" by his contemporary Pushkin. The "Profitable Position" by Ostrovskiy is another Russian classic play. It is about bureaucracy and features a young idealist (as is the one in Griboyedov's Woe from Wit), a comical mother out to marry off her daughters, it features his boorish colleagues, their lavish family life, his powerful uncle and they're all trying to make him more "sensible". However, I believe the early Soviet playwrights are much better. In general it's kinda pointless to name a play without the central conflict. And: yes, there are no playwrights as universally accepted as canonical as Shakespeare. I've personally heard (we are no anglo speaking place) someone refering to Cordelia and Goneril when talking about workplace hierarchies; The other bits of universal canon are the Roman Emperors, the Pentateuch, the 100-films-you-like-your-friends-do-remember-by-name and Dostoyevsky characters. Everything else is gonna differ by fashion, by place and by personal taste.
>>7725076
Marlowe seemed very much like a hack to me. If anything he's good to understand why Shakespeare should be considered special or where this Faustus plot is from in Goethe.
>great playwrights
in what regard? Without having any special interest you could always just google.
>>7726893
>Marlowe seemed very much like a hack to me
How so? If anything Shakespeare took from Marlowe with The Jew of Malta to The Merchant of Venice. Also most of Marlowe's works are pretty disturbing.
>>7726902
and banal. They're disturbing and they're banal. There is nothing to discuss. "Here is a Jew and he is evil". Or: "this is Faustus. He am play God." It is no better waste of time than any of the classic playwrights of Sanskrit or any fashionable hack you'll see in local theatres.
>>7726922
Not really. Jew of Malta is more of a discussion on the hypocrisy of religion. The jew in that play is portrayed as obviously evil because that was what interested audience, but when you dig a little deeper into the writing you find that every character in the play is almost equally as bad, while Barabas actually has a bit of sympathy in the sense he's not just evil to be evil, but out of revenge for losing his entire estate. There's a reason the play starts with Machiaveli''s ghost and it's to say that the audience becomes a part of the play, so in the end when Barabas is boiled alive and screams "Help me Christians! Help!" he is screaming at the audience, who obviously do nothing because it's the audience, but they are part of the play but it was a technique to point a finger at the hypocrisy of religion and people (which is a constant theme elsewhere through out the play) that was meant to go over most of their heads.
Doctor Faustus deals more with ambition in the acquisition of too much knowledge to the detriment of a person but was also more for show. The play would have Doctor Faustus summoning the devil on stage, which would be extremely controversial at the time and have audiences spooked in case anything was actually happening. People would protest outside of those plays because they felt they were evil.
Marlowe was basically like a rockstar in how he pushed buttons and boundaries constantly while entertaining and understanding what his audience enjoyed.
>>7726940
>but when you dig a little deeper
but you always take your shovel to the other piles of shit. Have you ever read the plays of Gozzi, Goldoni or Molière? That's where you go when you're done with Shakespeare. Except if you're, say, a Venetian nationalist. Then you also read the people who had influenced Goldoni even though they're utter shit. But hey! If you dig deeper...
>>7726962
>but you
*can
>>7726962
I don't know why you have such an attitude over discussing what makes a playwright interesting but it sounds like you have some emotional attachment to disliking Marlowe. I suggest doing some research on him because honestly the first time I read Marlowe I thought he was boring and there wasn't much there, but I had a professor help me see the beauty in him and then when I did my own research I found a vast amount of interest in his plays. It's just that most of it goes over peoples' heads. Shakespeare is great in that there is a little something for everyone, in the sense you can read it on a barely analytical level and find interesting things going on, while with Marlowe you really have to analyze the text thoroughly before you see the beauty in it.
I still don't know how you can consider Marlowe a hack by your logic and not Shakespeare, as Shakespeare has very few original plays and most can be traced back to sources. Marlowe's works obviously has greco-roman influence but he had more original scripts than Shakespeare did.
Have any of you guys read 'Cyrano de Bergerac'?
I never see it mentioned here.
>>7726981
I have nothing in person against the minor writers of each minor minor country in Europe and I didn't mean to Balkanize this forum. You just have to realize there is much more where you could dig and if your navels seems to go over your head there is no need to hire a guru to help you see the beauty in your navel. Each language's academia is mostly concerned with staring at bookshelves of nonsense (vis the Library of Babel) and if you are so affluent (or if your nation is) you could hire a man who gave more hours to make a sense out of, for example, Marlowe than Marlowe had in his entire life and, yes, he will give you an interpretation that will challange even what the gnostics wrote about the bible in it's scope and in it's beauty; if something seems to be dull the reason might just be it IS, that the king is nude indeed.
Old Marlowe didn't live to be much older than the average chantard. What kind of faith can make you beat your head against his books until they seem beauteous?
To me: Shakes is exciting. Chexov the first time you see him, too. Sames for Gozzi. Sames for Brecht & Shvarts & Büchner. But the minor writers are just there to justify the existence of language departments, which are very much a product of the rabid nationalism of the late 19th century.
Shakespeare didn't spend half his lifetime with finding the beauty in Marlowe and Beowulf. He was aware about the fashions on the continent and has been on the Italians an on the French. Sames can be said of Pushkin, Dante, Dostoyevsky, Goethe, Chehov, Mahapandit Rahul Sankrityayan. But in an institution which is mainly ought to educate the teachers of the local native language you'll instead by locked in a cage with all the garbage that was ever produced in your language of choice. And, yes, you'll also learn to sing some dithyrambs about the beauty of that pile.
>but I had a professor help me see the beauty
*sigh*
>>7727069
So are you basically implying that things found inside of his writing are simply from thin air or such a far stretch that they never existed to begin with? If so then we will depart and end the conversation right there, because I cannot argue against someone who will refuse to look at evidence of interpretation and simply say that nothing is there because you refuse to believe. You also speak as if what makes you excited is objectively quality while anything else that isn't your taste is garbage, without going into any real reasoning still as to how Marlowe is a hack. If anything Shakespeare is the hack, as most of his plays were just renditions of earlier plays but tweaked a bit. If you don't know this (and you have yet to mention anything on it so I assume you didn't), then you honestly have not even studied Shakespeare if you think he was even original. Your own argument against Marlowe actually works much more against Shakespeare ironically, yet Shakespeare 'excites' you so you feel he therefor has quality? By the way, most of Shakespeares plays did not even respect the relative geography to where they were supposed to be located, so his awareness of the 'fashions' were not even accurate to location, but again I don't think you even knew this.
>*sigh*
You come off with a pompous arrogance that is also ironically ignorant on what you're even speaking of. I can only bet you've dabbled in Shakespeare because I don't know how in the world you came to the conclusion to suddenly jump to Gozzi, Golodoni and Moliere after Shakespeare. Lastly, you say 'minor' writers are there to 'justify the existence of language departments', but on what grounds? None that you mention except somehow mentioning the study of them was part of the product of rabid nationalism in the late 19th century? These playwrights were just as popular as Shakespeare in their time period, which again I don't think you realized.
>>7727132
>If you don't know this
dude I did mention allude to the pasta from montaign and italian novelettes. now, you seem angry so i won't be talking to you anymore until you have untied that knot in your panies and have reposted that submission in heroic hexameter to prove it's not a rant and you're not angry anymore.
>>7725076
>implying Shakespeare and Marlowe are two different people
>>7727171
>I did mention allude to the pasta from montaign and italian novelettes
>this translates to the same as literally re-using plot lines and making minor changes, while revising the language drastically to make it your own
I think you're grasping at straws buddy.
>now, you seem angry so i won't be talking to you anymore until you have untied that knot in your panies and have reposted that submission in heroic hexameter to prove it's not a rant and you're not angry anymore.
kek you're the one who has been responding with attitude. I just wanted you to tell me how Marlowe was a hack but you can't seem to give any evidence for that, except attempting to discredit him without going into details of what exactly he was a hack of.
>>7726793
Why the fuck would that impress you?
>>7727197
>duddybuddy durr durr
das no hexameter and not dactylus. Ich sage dieses jetzt auf Deutsch da mir dein Tonfall nicht gefällt. Wenn du nicht aufhörst wie ein aufgebrachtest Kind ohne Manieren rumzuheulen rede ich so lange deutsch bis du die Sprache erlernst oder aber Interesse verlierst.
>literally re-using plot lines
That is one reliable case of Greco-Roman influence. Which of the Latin and Grecian tragic playwrights came with an "original plot"? This is also what Old Aristotle suggested in his poetics and I believe it is a wonderful idea. Because drama isn't about making up stories (and, to be honest, Marlowe wasn't too good at it either).
>discredit
no. I just believe it is a waste of time to read people you do not find interesting at first sight. As I said, you can always be nerd enough to read Łukasz Górnicki because he's Baroque and you'll gonna be teaching Polish to Polish kids. I personally think it is a waste of time and I will advise every to use their time for authors that are relevant even without some magickal guru first "teaching" you how to enjoy it. Of course you are free to attack my persona again for a supposed lack of nerdcore knowledge about how much Górnicki was a genius. And it again will not be to the point. I think your big problem was you wasted time on Marlowe instead of the Organon. Now you can't produce one single proper argument.
>>7726793
True. I am the list guy.
>>7727287
>muh german
isn't your country currently being c.ucked right now?
>Which of the Latin and Grecian tragic playwrights came with an "original plot"?
Quite a few since we cannot find a source, but again there was most likely a source from somewhere else. Regardless there is a huge difference between being influenced by sources and straight up taking plot lines. I shouldn't have to explain that
>no. I just believe it is a waste of time to read people you do not find interesting at first sight.
Then why are you even in Literature? You sound like the kids here in burgerland who only read Stephen King and J.K. Rowling because the other stuff doesn't interest them because they have tp put more effort into it.
If it's a waste of time for you, that's fine, but to mock a professor for showing you how to better appreciate literature is very sad and again, arrogant on your part.
>Of course you are free to attack my persona again for a supposed lack of nerdcore knowledge about how much Górnicki was a genius
Not sure how having in-depth knowledge is nerd-core, as you seem to be more of a Sophomore in the true sense of the word: wide read but not well read. You claim to like Shakespeare but keep showing how ignorant you are to any of his background or even of the things that influenced him/his contemporaries that influenced him, one of those being Marlowe specifically.
>I think your big problem was you wasted time on Marlowe instead of the Organon.
I think your big problem is you don't know what you are talking about and are grasping straws in a way to somehow defend....? You were the one who made the claim Marlowe was a hack. I asked how and you still cannot answer, but keep reaching out into left field for some reason. Again it's ironic you're speaking of producing arguments because you still have not mentioned how Marlowe is a hack. You still have not produce an argument. Please get back to me when you at least make an argument before criticizing others ability to argue.
>>7725114
making sense
