What is so good about Shakespeare?

[Mise]

@Mise, I asked about your familarity with rap only as a way of clearing away the possibility that you might already know the one I was asking you to listen to: Eminem’s Rap God. I need for it to be your first listen, as your recent experience with Much Ado was your first listen to that play. (I should add that it has no shortage of reprehensible language. You come across as someone who, for purposes of the investigation we’re conducting here, could bracket that, but if that is not in fact true, let me know and I’ll see if I could think of another example. Incidentally, if you’re willing, it’s better if you don’t listen to it on YouTube; the blanked out vulgarities will introduce needless impediments to your ability to absorb what is being said.) All I’m trying to establish is that there are verbal artforms that do not expect one to have 100% comprehensibility on a first listen. Would you spare me another 6 minutes of your time? I suspect you’ll report that you take in more than 25% but less than 100%. But if you understand, by your definition of understand, 100% of it, you should feel free to say so.

I'm not disputing that the beauty of some works, or indeed the comprehensibility of some works, requires multiple listenings/viewings/readings. I'm not disputing that there are verbal artforms that do not expect 100% comprehensibility on first listen. What I'm disputing is your assertion that these artforms are accessible. I don't believe that an artform that requires multiple viewings (a significant investment of time and effort) can be called accessible. One wonders what would count as inaccessible to you, if not something that requires multiple repeat listenings and hours of dedicated study to understand. Is Latin inaccessible to someone who can't speak Latin? Is machine code? Is modern art? What could possibly be considered inaccessible to you?

But by the way, is that a hard and fast standard of writing excellence for you: full comprehensibility on a first experience? Are there texts that you’ve re-read, or songs that you’ve re-listened to, or films you’ve re-viewed, finding more in them on a second experience than you did on a first? And do you regard a text that yeilds up its full meaning on a first experience automatically a better text?

No, I don't hold "full comprehensibility on first experience" as any standard of excellence. I hold it as a standard of accessibility.

I’m going to try to make the case that Shakespeare’s excellence lies in the relation between the 25% one does take in on a first listen and the 75% one doesn’t.

Yeah, I guessed as much. I can see where this is going

 

[Gori the Grey]

@ Pangur (Mise slipped in): When a kid listens to a new rap for the first time, does he go back and listen for a second time because he found it mysterious? in the sense of mystery cult mysterious?

 

[Pangur Bán]

@ Pangur (Mise slipped in): When a kid listens to a new rap for the first time, does he go back and listen for a second time because he found it mysterious? in the sense of mystery cult mysterious?

I'm assuming you think he doesn't, right?

 

[Mise]

@ Pangur (Mise slipped in): When a kid listens to a new rap for the first time, does he go back and listen for a second time because he found it mysterious? in the sense of mystery cult mysterious?

In the sense that it is a cultural clique that they want to buy into, yes, I think that this plays a huge role in whether a kid listens to rap music a second time, or says "ugh, this is awful" and goes back to Green Day or whatever. All musical genres are more or less just as artistically worthwhile as each other; there's really not much separating rap from rock or classical or pop music in terms of musical attributes that a child might appreciate. The only difference is the culture they grow up in and the cultural clique (which in this thread we've been calling a "cult") they want to buy into.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm assuming you think he doesn't, right?

Right. I think he's heard some cool lyrics that he couldn't fully take in, and wants to listen again to take more of it in, plus just the fun of re-enjoying the wordplay he did catch the first time round.

But you'd give Mise's answer: that that too is "mysterious" and "cultic" in the sense you're using those terms? Yes?

 

[Tarquelne]

It's a bit of a strain to use a binary opposition - "accessible" or "inaccessible" - to describe something that, as implied by the % values being bandied about, works on a continuum.

No, I don't hold "full comprehensibility on first experience" as any standard of excellence. I hold it as a standard of accessibility.

If you mean that every nuance of language, plot and character - not to mention every joke or reference - must be understood on first reading or seeing for a work to be "accessible," then I don't agree.

If, as I suspect, you simply mean one needs to understand enough to follow along with the story and appreciate the language - "basic comprehension" - then I agree.

I'd use "inaccessible" for works that require enough effort to achieve basic comprehension (as defined above) that people generally don't bother trying. It'd vary from somewhat from individual to individual, but be reasonably true enough across broad classes/categories of people to have descriptive power.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Right. I think he's heard some cool lyrics that he couldn't fully take in, and wants to listen again to take more of it in, plus just the fun of the wordplay he did catch the first time round.

But you'd give Mise's answer, that that too is mysterious and cultic in the sense you're using those terms? Yes?

Depends on the associated processes. Shang Oracle bones are difficult to read, they were even produced for religious reasons, but the act of deciphering them today isn't part of a wider process I'd be comfortable describing as a cult (like, for instance, a central personality).

 

[Gori the Grey]

Depends on the associated processes. Shang Oracle bones are difficult to read, they were even produced for religious reasons, but the act of deciphering them today isn't part of a wider process I'd be comfortable describing as a cult (like, for instance, a central personality).

Huh?

Is rap "mysterious" and "cultic" in the sense that you are using the terms?

@Tarq: yes, we'll eventually get accessible-inaccessible established as a continuum rather than a set of poles. In fact we already do have that, I think, with Mise's 25%-75% report.

 

[Mise]

@Tarquelne: I don't know precisely what I mean, but it is neither of those definitions really. I mean that, at minimum, a "literate" person should be able to understand the actual sentences being said, without having to read/listen to it multiple times. When I said 25%, I literally meant that I caught 1 out of ever 4 lines (on average of course) that the actors were saying. The other 75% simply sounded like noise to me. They weren't words or sentences that I understood at all.

I also don't mean this to be exhaustive; I'm sure there are things where I understand literally what each word means, but don't understand what the sentence is saying. Many Continental European philosophers and pre-20th century novelists are guilty of this.

EDIT: To be clear, with the 75-25% thing, I don't mean that the remaining 75% is "meaning" or "nuance" or "reference". I simply mean that, at 100%, I understand every word or sentence. The first 25% are words. The remaining 75% are also words. Nothing special here. You could say that at 150% I understand the wordplays and double entendres, and at 200% I understand the themes and motifs or something. But at 25%, I understand just enough to get the gist of the story and sort of guess at what the characters are saying to each other in broad terms ("she's angry at him", "he's making fun of her", "other people are laughing, I think that was supposed to be a joke", etc).

 

[Gori the Grey]

But at 25%, I understand just enough to get the gist of the story and sort of guess at what the characters are saying to each other in broad terms ("she's angry at him", "he's making fun of her", "other people are laughing, I think that was supposed to be a joke", etc).

That gist is what I'm calling accessibility. We'll get the right words for these things. So, to your earlier question, a person who didn't speak Latin wouldn't get even that gist from a play in Latin, so I would call Latin inaccessible to a non Latin speaker. I am claiming that Shakespeare is accessible (in this definition of the term; we'll get to your other levels of understanding, whatever we'll call them) to modern English speakers.

I really do wish you'd listen to Rap God and report the percentage of it you feel you take in. I think you'll report that you get its gist also, but that you don't get all the things that would put you at the 150% and 200% as you above imagine you could reach for Shakespeare. If Mise is reluctant, I guess anyone who hasn't heard the song could do so, but it would be better if it were from a single consciouness's standards of comprehension.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Huh?

Is rap "mysterious" and "cultic" in the sense that you are using the terms?

I just answered the question.

 

[Mise]

That gist is what I'm calling accessibility. We'll get the right words for these things. So, to your earlier question, a person who didn't speak Latin wouldn't get even that gist from a play in Latin, so I would call Latin inaccessible to a non Latin speaker. I am claiming that Shakespeare is accessible (in this definition of the term; we'll get to your other levels of understanding, whatever we'll call them) to modern English speakers.

I really do wish you'd listen to Rap God and report the percentage of it you feel you take in. I think you'll report that you get its gist also, but that you don't get all the things that would put you at the 150% and 200% as you above imagine you could reach for Shakespeare. If Mise is reluctant, I guess anyone who hasn't heard the song could do so, but it would be better if it were from a single consciouness's standards of comprehension.

Well, yes, and like I said, I can't countenance a definition of "accessibility" that only requires you to understand 25% of the actual words being said. I can get the gist of Much Ado About Nothing from reading the plot summary on Wikipedia. At minimum, I expect an accessible film or play to use words and sentences that a literate person can understand on first listening without difficulty - as every single Hollywood film currently does! If your argument rests on such a loose definition of accessibility that only texts that are literally written in a foreign language can be considered inaccessible then I won't ever be able to agree with it. Are you seriously saying that anything written in English is accessible to English speakers?

For the record, I can't get the gist of Rap God at all. I assume from the chorus that it's about Eminem beginning to feel like a rap god... but that's about it. It's completely alien to me and I don't understand it at all.

 

[Tarquelne]

I mean that, at minimum, a "literate" person should be able to understand the actual sentences being said, without having to read/listen to it multiple times.

I like that better than anything using the term "100%. I was imagining a 100,000 word novel with simple characters, a simple plot, but a single non-essential word that, as it happens, is very obscure. (Perhaps even protoust.) It'd be accessible despite not having 100% comprehension.

That gist is what I'm calling accessibility. We'll get the right words for these things.

So by your definition, Shakespeare is indeed accessible. At least to Mise.
I very strongly suspect that, by his own definition, Shakespeare remains inaccessible.

By my definition, too, as it happens. (I'd put getting the gist as necessary, but not sufficient, for "accessibility".)

Maybe now is the time to get to the right word?

 

[Gori the Grey]

1) Well, yes, and like I said, I can't countenance a definition of "accessibility" that only requires you to understand 25% of the actual words being said. I can get the gist of Much Ado About Nothing from reading the plot summary on Wikipedia. At minimum, I expect an accessible film or play to use words and sentences that a literate person can understand on first listening without difficulty - as every single Hollywood film currently does! If your argument rests on such a loose definition of accessibility that only texts that are literally written in a foreign language can be considered inaccessible then I won't ever be able to agree with it. Are you seriously saying that anything written in English is accessible to English speakers?

2) For the record, I can't get the gist of Rap God at all. I assume from the chorus that it's about Eminem beginning to feel like a rap god... but that's about it. It's completely alien to me and I don't understand it at all.

2) So, less than 25%? But did you get the impression that, if you saw the printed lyrics, he would be saying sentences that communicated meaning? And did any of the soundplay seem just fun, if not comprehensible? You can listen a second time in order to locate an example, if so.

1) I'm only saying that Shakespeare (not anything written in English) is accessible, (and by my definition of that word). But you can't use the word that way. So, ok, can we call the experience you had of Much Ado gist-able? gist-get-able? Can we call the full comprehension you assume you might get if you studied the text carefully "full comprehension"?

If you're okay with those words, you'd be saying that Shakespeare is gist-get-able to modern audiences on a first listen, but not fully comprehensible, and unless he's a good bit closer to fully comprehensible on a first listen that you wouldn't call him accessible? Does that work?

@Pangur, so your answer was "Depends"? Does Shakespeare's status as a mystery cult depend on the same things in the same way? (and can you help me with your Russian Roulette metaphor? how both skill and luck play into Russian Roulette; I thought it was all luck.)

@ Tarq, is there such a novel? with the word protoust, I mean. Are you thinking of an actual novel, is what I'm asking?

 

[Mise]

@Gori: 2) Less, yes. I'm sure everything he says is understandable if I had read the text. Maybe I'd even understand it first time round, though I doubt it. I didn't find it fun or enjoyable, no. It's not my cup of tea I'm afraid. I'm sure if my friends and I had been listening to Eminem when I was 12 instead of Green Day I'd have a different opinion.

1) I'm happy to go along with all of that, sure.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I think music is a really problematic comparison to make point, because music is a lot more carried by its music - which is extremely accessible - than its lyrics. Germans love a lot of English music - many Germans don't know at all or really what the songs actually are saying. The same doesn't work with Shakespeare.

 

[Gori the Grey]

@Gori: I didn't find it fun or enjoyable, no. .

Here's a line: "Only Hall of Fame I'll be inducted in is the alcohol of fame."

Do you have a relish for that kind of word play at all, even if not this specific instance? If rap is not your thing, could you provide an instance of word play, or sound play in language that you do find enjoyable?

I took my son along when I went to get a mortgage and when I introduced him to the loan arranger, he asked, "Where's Tonto?"

"Cindy Loo Who"?

"There once was a man from Nantucket . . ."?

Anything? If so, what's your example? I'd rather work with your example. I don't know Green Day, or I'd scan through their lyrics for something that might serve as an example.

@Terx, I actually think the music might be serving as an impediment in the case of Mise and Eminem.

@all: For purposes of this argument, when I say rap, I mean rap in the line from Rakim: rap with all the intense internal rhyme, multisyllable rhyme, word-flipping, rhymes on odd syllables in a word. If there's a name for that particular style of rap, I'd love to learn it. Most rappers do it in some degree; it seems an expected element of the genre now. But there are some who do it in a more intense degree.

 

[Traitorfish]

Being a fan of Shakespeare is in NO WAY equivalent to worshiping Mary, or anyone else.

Please stop ascribing religious meanings or connotations to what is basically a liking for the works of a poet/playwright who lived 400 years ago.

Nobody worships Shakespeare. Nobody prays to him. If someone wins a competition or lottery, they don't clasp their hands and reverently proclaim, "Thank you, Shakespeare!"

Catholics venerate Mary, they don't worship her; she's a saint, not a deity. (Have you ever actually met a Catholic?) Shakespeare is also a venerated figure, and given his all-but-official status as one of the Great Men of Western culture, I don't think it would be tremendous overstatement to describe him as something amounting to a secular saint.

 

[Mise]

Sure, I like puns.

Incidentally, I don't think your argument even requires Shakespeare to be accessible. You can just say "no, it's not accessible, but the 75% that is inaccessible is where the artistic merit is found; it is in this 75% that Shakespeare's hype is deserved". Then it's an argument about whether those who think that Shakespeare's admirers are "cultish" are missing something that is there, or whether the members of Shakespeare's cult are seeing something that isn't there. Which would be a much more difficult argument for me to have personally, being as I'm naturally starting from a position of ignorance. I would have to retreat and insist that we talk about the role that Shakespeare actually, in reality, plays in our society, rather than some hypothetical way (e.g. I admit that it is possible for Shakespeare to deserve the hype that he actually receives now [a modal statement], but the actual hype he receives is from something else - snobbery, elitism, etc [a weaker proposition than I started with]).

Is this where this is going?

 

[Gori the Grey]

You are sensing where I’m going, Mise, though I wouldn’t express it just as you have in the quoted section. There’d be some different phrasings that would matter to me, and that I think would make for an actual substantive difference from what you say here. So would you bear with me for a while longer? (You’ve been very patient, and very accommodating so far. Thank you.)

We’re about to examine a passage from Much Ado. But before we do, could I try out another metaphor. Do you, does anyone who’s following this thread, find some modern special-effects-based movies visually overwhelming: providing visual information that is cool and impressive and enjoyable, but that on a first viewing you feel like you get just the gist of it, and that if you watch it a second time, you notice more things about it? and if you watched it in slow motion, you’d notice even more things that the CGI guys had included in the scenes? and if you freeze-framed it and watched it frame by frame, you’d maybe notice even more elements of its visual effect and impressiveness? Will someone grant me that this represents how some graphically intensive movies operate and how their visual information could be appreciated?