First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Shakespeare gone?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

n0odle wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


n0odle wrote:


Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us.


I lol'd at that line. Right back at ya.



Oy, I'm an turbo hypocrite for that...



Sarcasm is a mark of an idiot.


I wasn't being sarcastic... Once again, I’m not going to fight with random kids on the net. If you want to debate please feel free to continue on the net. If you want to continue with your one lined and pointless insults please do so in another thread. This one is for educated discussions over the given topic to be held on a mature level…


@Everworld- Good point. The classics have withstood the testimate of time. This being said they clearly have something that makes them great... Even if it is just historical value like a lot of the old Greek plays and stories..
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

Well, I do think old English should be taught in school. However, I think that there are better selections that can give you a more profound look into the culture and language of the time. After all, Shakespeare is famous for inventing words that nobody else used. For example: Assassination. (Which actual has the most interesting history of all words! Ultimately it comes from Assassin which comes from Hash-hash-en, [not sure on the spelling of the last.] which comes from hash heesh. In other words…pot. :p)


Shakespeare isn't old english... I don't even think it's middle english to be honest. Old english is along the lines of Beowulf. I think Chaucer would be considered middle english. Shakespeare is remarkably similar to modern english in the grand scheme of things to be honest.

I do agree that "star crossed lovers" isn't an original concept, but shakespeare is as much poetry as it is narrative (in fact, I'd say more so). I don't think his originalty in story themes should be held against him.

I don't necessarily agree with your statement that High School's "sole" purpose is to prepare people for college. A LOT of people don't ever go to college. I think it's important to give people a good solid foundation in history and language/literature. I'm not saying at the expense of science and technology, but don't just sweep it under the rug. For most people out there, high school is the only real exposure they get that sort of thing. And really, unless you major in it, you don't deal with it much in college.

I'm only recquired to take one english class for my major (and it's just writing). All my other liberal arts elective classes are going to be foreign language. If it wasn't for high school, I wouldn't have developed my love for literature. I was fortunate enough to have a gifted charismative english teacher for two years straight to help the old dusty pages come to life. It would be a shame if we lost any more of our past because detatched educators deemed it "irrelevant."
8385 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original.


wasn't it because back then, creating your own original piece was thought to be prideful? so what writers did was recycle stories that have already been written and kind of made it their own xD (i don't know if this applies to Shakespeare's work though.. but this was the case for Chaucer)

but if you meant not original as in .. we see lots of those stories similar to his nowadays.. well then, did you ever consider that maybe it was shakespeare's plays that inspired many of the plays and movies we have today? (plot wise of course)

ANYWAY!!!
it was his birthday on the 23rd
and his date of death =(


ahhh my bio teacher was reading us this article, something about how reading Shakespeare's work makes your brain waves jump? xD hahahaha so yes.. reading/studying about Shakespeare and his many plays IS GOOD for you. its like brain exercises! =P so yes there is more than one purpose why they teach us Shakespeare in school.

288 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Washington DC
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


peregrine829 wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

I just read a news paper that is saying most high schools and colleges no longer requires students to study the playwright Shakespeare. Personally I’m all for this. There are so much more important things you can teach students about than some unoriginal playwright. I’ve always considered him a master of literature but to be honest I don’t think he’s as great as many people consider him. His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original. Many people say that he was a master of the foote and meter, but he invented words so of course it was a lot easier for him to capture a beat… Anyway, that’s off topic. Some people are getting mad. They say Shakespeare is one of the most important figures in literature and that literature is an important subject. I agree with their later proclamation but no the former. I think literature should be taught, however I think there are more important figures to focus on than Shakespeare. Maybe he was a prodigy, but he didn’t like… completely revolutionize literature as we know it.

Honestly I’m not quite -for- this, but I’m certainly not against it. I don’t view it as that important. It’s a negligible matter only useful for a good debate here on CR.




Have you ever actually READ Shakespeare? I don't mean read out loud the lines of the character your teacher assigned to you back in English class and then zoned back out into La La Land until your character shows up again. I mean have you ever actually sat down with a copy of Macbeth, The Tempest, Julius Caesar, etc. and just read it? Try it sometime. You ger SO much more out of it.

BTW To everyone who keeps mentioning "Old English." BEOWULF is written in Old English. Shakespearean Enlish might better be described as, say, "Court-Formal"



I've not only read but also studied multiple Shakespeare plays as well as his life. Clearly your own knowledge of literature is wildly finite. Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us. Especially not me, cuz I don’t talk about anything without at least glancing over it first.

Whatever. Doesn’t matter. Yes, I’ve read it. Now if you would go and read over the thread, not jus the initial post, then you will find out what I find unoriginal about his plays. I’m not going to systematically go through and list off the over done attributes of every individual play, but if you’ve studied literature both before and after Shakespeare’s time you will find his stories were not the most evolutionary of stories. It was his writing style and technique that was so amazing.

Well, whatever the case, this is a debate. Not an argument. I’d like to keep it that way. So in the future, don’t be so derogatory in your voice toward readers. I mentioned before in this thread that what I am saying is opinion.



Quite right. My apologies.

I did not intend to appear so acerbic and I removed the originality comment as soon as I realized I had missed it earlier. You've obviously made quite a study of the Bard. Unfortunately many students' only exposure to Shakespeare is exactly what I said: playing Random Servant #2 or Un-named Night Watchman in English class then immediately deciding they don't like him because they haven't really made the effort to understand.

Though I do happen to love Macbeth and Julius Caesar, my TRUE love is the Classics. If you ever feel the urge to debate Vergil, Juvenal, or the like, look me up.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

pootato wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original.


wasn't it because back then, creating your own original piece was thought to be prideful? so what writers did was recycle plays that have already been written and kind of made it their own xD (i don't know if this applies to Shakespeare's work though.. but this was the case for Chaucer)

but if you meant not original as in .. we see lots of those stories similar to his nowadays.. well then, did you ever consider that maybe it was shakespeare's plays that inspired many of the plays and movies we have today? (plot wise of course)

ANYWAY!!!
it was his birthday on the 23rd
and his date of death =(


ahhh my bio teacher was reading us this article, something about how reading Shakespeare's work make your brain waves jump? xD hahahaha so yes.. reading/studying about Shakespeare and his many plays IS GOOD for you. its like brain exercises! =P



Well, there was theatre long before Shakespeare came around. The Greeks anyone? So a lot of his themes aren't original in the least (though some are). However, he elevated theatre into something much different than it had been before, and up until shakespeare the english language was frowned upon for being crude. French was actually the language at court for much of the middle ages if I remember correctly. Shakespeare really brought it into it's own and helped develop it further.

Shakespeare should really be seen to be appreciated to be honest. Reading it only goes so far - I mean you're literally just reading a screenplay. It's quite a challenge to make shakespeare come alive in the classroom, but it certainly can be done.

Honestly... I think they'd be better off showing films and taking students to live plays than just sitting around reading the whole damn thing aloud in turns. A bunch of monotone 16 year old kids reading Hamlet... no wonder so many kids hate shakespeare.

I think the soliliquies (sp?) and the famous exchanges should still be read as a class, but not necessarily the whole play end to end. I mean, hell, even the bard himself didn't mean for his work to be read like that. It was meant to be seen.
6347 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / SDF-1
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:


n0odle wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:


n0odle wrote:


Don’t act like you know -so- much more than any of the rest of us.


I lol'd at that line. Right back at ya.



Oy, I'm an turbo hypocrite for that...



Sarcasm is a mark of an idiot.


If you want to continue with your one lined and pointless insults please do so in another thread.






SeraphAlford wrote:
Oy, I'm an turbo hypocrite for that...

4473 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Mexico
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
I think it will be a while before people actually allow for shakespeare to be taken out of litrature classes in school. I personally think there are better things that can be taught.
Recently i was reading Hamlet, and i just find it kinda boring after they made us analize the stupid thing for like 2 months -_- really anoying.
150479 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Aboard the Hyperion
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

I just read a news paper that is saying most high schools and colleges no longer requires students to study the playwright Shakespeare. Personally I’m all for this. There are so much more important things you can teach students about than some unoriginal playwright. I’ve always considered him a master of literature but to be honest I don’t think he’s as great as many people consider him. His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original. Many people say that he was a master of the foote and meter, but he invented words so of course it was a lot easier for him to capture a beat… Anyway, that’s off topic. Some people are getting mad. They say Shakespeare is one of the most important figures in literature and that literature is an important subject. I agree with their later proclamation but no the former. I think literature should be taught, however I think there are more important figures to focus on than Shakespeare. Maybe he was a prodigy, but he didn’t like… completely revolutionize literature as we know it.

Honestly I’m not quite -for- this, but I’m certainly not against it. I don’t view it as that important. It’s a negligible matter only useful for a good debate here on CR.


I'd just like to argue against the part when you said his works are "unoriginal". In fact that kind of description would most likely apply to any text in the world of literature. Writers are always borrowing; they are related to and dependent upon other texts. In our culture we have tended to stress "originality" as a supreme value in writing. The pressure to be "original" has often worked to inhibit writers and thus prevent them from actually developing their ideas.

Once you realize that all texts are reworkings of other texts, that writing comes out of reading, that writing is always rewriting, you can see that the desirable quality we call "originality" does not mean creating something out of nothing but simply making an interesting change in what has been done before you. Texts are produced through a combination of a writer's experience as a human being and the writer's knowledge of earlier texts.

P.S. I pretty much hailed what starcrossed and azrael said.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
Alright No0dle. You win. Whatever the case, don't waste your time typing posts directed to me anymore. I'll no longer bother reading them, at least not in this thread. Just thought it fair to inform you of this.



CrashAriMP5N2O wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

I just read a news paper that is saying most high schools and colleges no longer requires students to study the playwright Shakespeare. Personally I’m all for this. There are so much more important things you can teach students about than some unoriginal playwright. I’ve always considered him a master of literature but to be honest I don’t think he’s as great as many people consider him. His imagery is great, but his stories aren’t very original. Many people say that he was a master of the foote and meter, but he invented words so of course it was a lot easier for him to capture a beat… Anyway, that’s off topic. Some people are getting mad. They say Shakespeare is one of the most important figures in literature and that literature is an important subject. I agree with their later proclamation but no the former. I think literature should be taught, however I think there are more important figures to focus on than Shakespeare. Maybe he was a prodigy, but he didn’t like… completely revolutionize literature as we know it.

Honestly I’m not quite -for- this, but I’m certainly not against it. I don’t view it as that important. It’s a negligible matter only useful for a good debate here on CR.


I'd just like to argue against the part when you said his works are "unoriginal". In fact that kind of description would most likely apply to any text in the world of literature. Writers are always borrowing; they are related to and dependent upon other texts. In our culture we have tended to stress "originality" as a supreme value in writing. The pressure to be "original" has often worked to inhibit writers and thus prevent them from actually developing their ideas.

Once you realize that all texts are reworkings of other texts, that writing comes out of reading, that writing is always rewriting, you can see that the desirable quality we call "originality" does not mean creating something out of nothing but simply making an interesting change in what has been done before you. Texts are produced through a combination of a writer's experience as a human being and the writer's knowledge of earlier texts.


You’re quite eloquent Crash. Well, let me see here…. Alright:

There was a wise man who once said, “There are no new stories.” I, however, disagree with this quote. Most things the Human mind is capable of coming up with have previously been thought up. This being said the quote appears to be true. However, you can make a new story out of a cliché plot by simple twisting it around, telling it in a different manor, introducing new characters to it, and by doing that last piece change the entire connotation behind it.

This being said Shakespeare characters are certainly interesting simply because the situations they are thrown into, but not complex enough to be unique. This is something that effects most playwrights because they cannot show the audience the character’s mind through anything but their actions. (It is not, however, impossible. Read Mary Chases’ Harvey for a great example of how to show unique characterization though actions alone.) As a direct result of this handicap to writers of this sort many of them simple introduce characters who are extremes. They are completely one way, but in real life people aren’t like that. We contradict ourselves. (Look over my posts for example. You’ll see that amongst my many flaws is pride. I’m arrogant, but at the same time I can admit when I’m wrong.) These contradictions are the civil wars that create new sub-stories within every repeated old story.

Shakespeare doesn’t seem to introduce these new subplots into his stories as much as is necessary for me to consider his writing original. His characters are built up from basic skeletons. Romeo, for example, is your standard rash youth. Of course he doesn't always do this, some of his characters clash with this continuity. His version of Pompeii, for example, is not exactly the common “100% evil” antagonist, but rather somebody who is driven to do something that hurts the people because he believes he is serving the people. Then again, Antony in that play is the common 100% loyal follower character… Though, to be honest, I think it may be impossible to have a good play, novel, or story without at least a few of these characters… So maybe I’m being too critical. Now that I look at this, I think that is almost certainly the case. Moving on…
I’m having trouble putting this into words, my own lack in talent as a speaker and writer coming in here…

Do you understand? I think this may suggest a few things that I don’t mean it too, but I’ll wait for the reader’s response to see…

I suppose you are ultimately right. There are no new stories, but there are new methods to approach a story from. There are also new events, emotions, connotations, and a few other things that can thrive within a story. This being said, it’s only recently that we’ve begun to use such things in our writing so… Maybe this “flaw”, for lack of a better word, is merely the result of the style that dominated in Shakespeare’s time…?


676 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sioux Falls SD
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
i tried reading Shakespeare's work but fell asleep right away so good ridance
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
@Kila, Meh, Shakespeare is not so bad once you break the language barrier... It takes time to get used to their slang...
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

SeraphAlford wrote:

There was a wise man who once said, “There are no new stories.” I, however, disagree with this quote. Most things the Human mind is capable of coming up with have previously been thought up. This being said the quote appears to be true. However, you can make a new story out of a cliché plot by simple twisting it around, telling it in a different manor, introducing new characters to it, and by doing that last piece change the entire connotation behind it.

This being said Shakespeare characters are certainly interesting simply because the situations they are thrown into, but not complex enough to be unique. This is something that effects most playwrights because they cannot show the audience the character’s mind through anything but their actions. (It is not, however, impossible. Read Mary Chases’ Harvey for a great example of how to show unique characterization though actions alone.) As a direct result of this handicap to writers of this sort many of them simple introduce characters who are extremes. They are completely one way, but in real life people aren’t like that. We contradict ourselves. (Look over my posts for example. You’ll see that amongst my many flaws is pride. I’m arrogant, but at the same time I can admit when I’m wrong.) These contradictions are the civil wars that create new sub-stories within every repeated old story.

Shakespeare doesn’t seem to introduce these new subplots into his stories as much as is necessary for me to consider his writing original. His characters are built up from basic skeletons. Romeo, for example, is your standard rash youth. I’m having trouble putting this into words, my own lack in talent as a speaker and writer coming in here…

Do you understand? I think this may suggest a few things that I don’t mean it too, but I’ll wait for the reader’s response to see…

I suppose you are ultimately right. There are no new stories, but there are new methods to approach a story from. There are also new events, emotions, connotations, and a few other things that can thrive within a story. This being said, it’s only recently that we’ve begun to use such things in our writing so… Maybe this “flaw”, for lack of a better word, is merely the result of the style that dominated in Shakespeare’s time…?




I think you're judgeing him too much as a writer... remember, he was the 16th century version of a movie maker. His plays were designed to appeal to the peasants as well as the nobility. It just so happens his dialogue was brilliant enough that we often forget this.

Shakespeare does show the audience the characters mind quite often. That's when the character addresses the audience in the middle of the play, this is usually translated on film as the character talking to themselves.

I wouldn't go as far as to say there are no new stories.. but I wouldn't hold it against someone if they reuse classical themes in their stories. There is a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism.


SeraphAlford wrote:

@Kila, Meh, Shakespeare is not so bad once you break the language barrier... It takes time to get used to their slang...


Don't waste your time. Pearls before swine.
676 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sioux Falls SD
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
i read books from people like R A Salvatore so im not really into Shakespeare im more into fantasy/romance but Shakespeare after i read one of his works i quit reading for a whole year it was so bad to me
676 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sioux Falls SD
Offline
Posted 4/24/07
azrael910 thats quite insulting to me
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 4/24/07

kila1221 wrote:

i read books from people like R A Salvatore so im not really into Shakespeare im more into fantasy/romance but Shakespeare after i read one of his works i quit reading for a whole year it was so bad to me


RA Salvatore is pulp fantasy fiction. He wrote a few fun books a long time ago... but he churns that shit out faster than goosebumps books anymore.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.