What is so good about Shakespeare?

[warpus]

Hell, I had one of my coworkers ask me what era and what years Game of Thrones took place (!!!!!!).

Does he know there are dragons?.. on the show but not in real life?

 

[Borachio]

He pretty much unified the English language... pretty important.
While some of it is archaic today, it set the stage.
He (or whoever) also came up with some seriously amazing phrases, etc.

I've found it interesting that a lot (well, a bit) of the language that Shakespeare used was archaic then. Deliberately so.

I'm not quite sure that's it right to say he unified the English language, though. What do you mean?

I do think he (along with the King James Bible, other authors and playwrights) contributed immeasurably to the development of the English language in the Early Modern Period.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Just scanned the new posts. Let me be clear, I didn't say that Shakespeare's cult was unwarranted. What I was getting at was that his status fulfills a role in Anglophone society. On being warranted / unwarranted, that sort of misses the point, if it wasn't Shakespeare it would be someone else fulfilling that role.

Don't forget the religious undertones of "Genius" especially before it got it's up to date eugenics based undertones. That one crops up a lot with Shakespeare.

 

[Borachio]

I'm confused. What's Amlaib Cuaran got to do with Shakespeare? (Or rather, vice versa, if you prefer.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amlaíb_Cuarán

 

[Pangur Bán]

Long story ... basically, lots of the traditions about this guy are behind Hamlet.

 

[Borachio]

OK. That's news to me.

I thought it was based on the legendary Amleth.

There's no reason Amleth couldn't all be based on Cuaran, of course.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I actually edited that out so it wouldn't start a conversation. But, yeah, Amleth is a creation of Saxo Grammaticus, who used traditions about Amlaib emanating from the English Danelaw (where he ruled for a time). Saxo's Amleth is a bit like Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthur, small part legend, tiny part real guy, chief part literary fiction.

 

[Gori the Grey]

On being warranted / unwarranted, that sort of misses the point, if it wasn't Shakespeare it would be someone else fulfilling that role.

I don't think it does miss the point. I understand it as the point of this whole thread insofar as I understand the OP to be asking us if S's "hype is deserved."

Your answer tends in the direction of suggesting it is not deserved: the elites needed something to mark their greater culture, so they picked Shakespeare and turned him signifier of culture(edness) ("culture" by itself would once have been the word for this, but that word has been now pressed into other uses). Your "something else" claim here suggests that it is not because of his own merit that Shakespeare has the hype he has; that his canonicity is largely or wholly a result of extrinsic factors rather than intrinsic ones. At least it seems to me that it tends in that direction; you've certainly never flatly answered Terx's question in the affirmative.

I'm making the opposite claim as I understand you to be making, but let me make it more bluntly than I have so far made it: Shakespeare is the greatest user of the English language ever. He is so great at using the English language that an institution for studying his works has grown up, primarily or wholly as a result of those superior language skills. One's mastery of Shakespeare does serve as a cultural marker; I'm not gainsaying that. But the hype is deserved. In fact, I believe he deserves a good deal more hype than our culture presently affords him, if you can believe that. (I gave a hint as to why on the recent Racism and the Politics of Grammar thread.)

The OP asked us whether S's hype is deserved. If you had to give a simple yes/no answer to that question, which would you give? I've been reading you that your answer would be no. But, of course, I'll let you answer for yourself.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I don't think it does miss the point. I understand it as the point of this whole thread insofar as I understand the OP to be asking us if S's "hype is deserved."

Sorry, to be clear then, my point.

Your answer tends in the direction of suggesting it is not deserved: the elites needed something to mark their greater culture, so they picked Shakespeare and turned him signifier of culture(edness) ("culture" by itself would once have been the word for this, but that word has been now pressed into other uses). Your "something else" claim here suggests that it is not because of his own merit that Shakespeare has the hype he has; that his canonicity is largely or wholly a result of extrinsic factors rather than intrinsic ones. At least it seems to me that it tends in that direction; you've certainly never flatly answered Terx's question in the affirmative.

I'm making the opposite claim as I understand you to be making, but let me make it more bluntly than I have so far made it: Shakespeare is the greatest user of the English language ever. He is so great at using the English language that an institution for studying his works has grown up, primarily or wholly as a result of those superior language skills. One's mastery of Shakespeare does serve as a cultural marker; I'm not gainsaying that. But the hype is deserved. In fact, I believe he deserves a good deal more hype than our culture presently affords him, if you can believe that. (I gave a hint as to why on the recent Racism and the Politics of Grammar thread.)

The OP asked us whether S's hype is deserved. If you had to give a simple yes/no answer to that question, which would you give? I've been reading you that your answer would be no. But, of course, I'll let you answer for yourself.

You're entitled to your opinion, as we all are. I remain to be convinced that a guy dramatizing pop history for some Londoners around 1600 was the 'greatest user of the English language ever', esp. as very few are known and because the writing industry is so big today by comparison. It's pretty implausible. I am also far from convinced there is anyone alive today familiar enough with early modern English, spoken and written, to formulate a competent or reliable opinion of Shakespeare's talent relative to his own day. You may like the way things are phrased in Shakespeare, but that's about you not necessarily Shakespeare's 'genius'.

But my answer is not yes / no. It's like a tournament of Russian roulette, is the winner good at sensing the location of bullets, or just lucky? Who knows, all we know is that he won. 'Hype' is not meritocratic and never has been, hype is about when you write, where you write, who you are, and so forth; 'canonicalness' partly down to the momentum of history, and partly down to who you are useful to later (not necessarily distinct). .

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I said that your position wasn't based on falsehoods.

Thank you for clarifying.

I think we are forgetting that the thing 21st century people don't understand about Shakespere are based on the fact that people read about these plays in some massive textbook without actually seeing them. 16th century common people understood these plays mostly because it was displayed in front of them, you think if you handed Piers the poor Hereford farmer a copy of Troilus and Cressida he would know what was going on? Most likely not, but that's because people didn't read about these plays in 1578 or whatever, they went to see them. Let's also talk about the fact that if you put on a display of one of Shakespere's history plays, 21st century people aren't going to get it most likely. Hell, I had one of my coworkers ask me what era and what years Game of Thrones took place (!!!!!!).

Yeah, I seem to recall mentioning that seeing them performed makes them easier to understand than just reading them. As for 21st-century people not understanding the historical plays, that's not necessarily the case. While it does help to have some familiarity with the historical period, it's not crucial. I had no problem understanding Henry V, and neither did my grandmother.

I have never watched Game of Thrones.


EDIT:

Let me be clear, I didn't say that Shakespeare's cult was unwarranted.

Let me be clear. There is no cult. Shakespeare is a literary figure, not a religious figure.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I remain to be convinced that a guy dramatizing pop history for some Londoners around 1600 was the 'greatest user of the English language ever'

See, I look forward to convincing you, and Terx, and any others who are following this thread. That's what I see Terx's question as providing an enjoyable opportunity to try to do.

And I, for my part, am not convinced that merit is so inconsequential to an artist's status as contemporary theories of canonization suggest--the whole, if it wasn't Shakespeare, it could have been someone else, claim. There were someone-elses available, still are. Shakespeare strikes me as a good case study in this issue because, until very recently, his non-university-educated, son-of-a-glover status made him as a person an embarrassing figure for high-canonical status. I'm convinced that his writing is just so good that when anyone who bothers to read him against the contenders (and I don't mean just his fellow dramatists, but Milton, Chaucer, Joyce, who you will), his skill with words just makes its force felt. It's a case of the cream rising to the top, and as natural (i.e. not culturally determined) a happening as that.

I like Stephen Booth's colorful way of putting it: Saying Shakespeare is greater than other poets is like saying King Kong is bigger than other monkies.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Keep in mind, Gori, the thousands of court, household, village and itinerant bards who have been replaced by the literary cult heroes of the English of the winner-take-all age of print. These guys had the qualities you are talking about and praising Shakespeare for, but almost every single one of them is unknown.

EDIT:
Let me be clear. There is no cult. Shakespeare is a literary figure, not a religious figure.

Well, that sorts that out.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The greatest poet in the history of English? Almost certainly not, but who cares:


Link to video.

 

[Mise]

I watched Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, and it was indeed orders of magnitude more accessible than Hamlet. I understood exactly zero of Hamlet without reading the SparkNotes; I understood about 25% of the language of MAAN, which was quite sufficient to understand the plot. In terms of the language, I could understand things in a broad sense, e.g. "oh she's bantzing him off now, that was probably funny" or "the music's gone evil, I guess he's plotting something nasty?". There were a lot of sentences that I understood completely, though, which surprised me after my disaster with Hamlet. Overall, it was pretty easy to follow, but difficult to understand in its full linguistic glory.

However, the plot was terrible It made no sense! Why did they fake Kate Beckinsale's suicide/death? What was that all about? And why did Evil Keanu come back at the end? Seemed like a silly Disney movie plot, or an Adam Sandler film. Hardly the pinnacle of English storytelling! Then there were the characters... Half the characters had motivations that were frankly inscrutable. Perhaps their motivations were explained in the 75% of the words that I didn't understand, but I have absolutely no idea why Evil Keanu was so evil. Was he in love with Kate Beckinsale? If so, why didn't he tell Wilson (Claudio I think?) to ditch her before the marriage, publicly, at the party, so that he could comfort her and marry her instead? And why did Wilson keep believing whatever Evil Keanu said, without even questioning it? I guess the first part where Wilson is jealous of Lord Blackguy is just to show the audience that Wilson is a jealous person, but no rational human being would just believe Evil Keanu without even confronting Lord Blackguy first. Especially cos they're supposed to be BFFs! And then, afterwards, why did Wilson trust Evil Keanu? Surely he knows now that Evil Keanu is a massive ****-stirrer? And why didn't the maid say anything at the wedding?! She looks all guilty and runs off, but she's supposed to be, like, Kate Beckinsale's servant or whatever, surely they have a good friendship/relationship? I see no reason why she'd not just say "what? No! That was me! I was banging Borachio!" "But... you were in Hero's window! And he was screaming Hero's name!" "Yeah I thought that was a bit weird."

This whole misunderstanding could have been sorted out if everyone had just acted in the way that human beings normally act. I can suspend my disbelief to a certain extent, if I consider that this is a silly Adam Sandler film or Disney children's comedy, and say that they are acting nonsensically because otherwise it wouldn't be a funny film. But this is no Hamlet; I'm not left with a greater understanding of the human condition -- on the contrary, I'm forced to suspend my beliefs about the human condition and accept that people are acting incredibly bizarrely for the sake of comedy.

I don't think it's fair to criticise Shakespeare for being unoriginal, trite or passé, but on the basis of this film, I honestly can't see how the hype is in any way deserved. The plot doesn't make any sense, the characters don't make any sense, so all we're left with is the language. Perhaps the hype is the result of the 75% of the language that I simply didn't follow -- the no doubt clever wordplay and legendary puns?

Overall, I enjoyed watching it, but I wouldn't recommend it to a friend. 3/5

 

[Borachio]

Wow!

There's a lot one could say. And no doubt Mr Grey will say it. And better, too.

<snip>

It's just entertainment. Either you enjoy it, or you don't. Much like anything else.


<snip>

 

[Mise]

I see, so he's a literal bastard? I think someone called him a bastard but it sounded to me like he was just saying he was a bastard for his part in Kate Beckinsale's death, not that he was an illegitimate son. Still, him being a bastard doesn't make his character any less silly. So he's just evil for the sake of it? We know he's evil because he's a bastard? That's poor characterisation right there. That's just twirly-moustache, English accent, "dog with shifty eyes" level of characterisation. Perhaps the book is better than the film

I have no idea why the shock of being accused of infidelity would cause Kate Beckinsale's "death". I suppose back in the 16th/17th Century this sort of thing was common, and women would often drop dead when they were accused of being unfaithful. I can suspend my disbelief for that, I suppose, as a sign of the times, but I found it hard to understand. As a plot point, it certainly doesn't hold up well.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I see, so he's a literal bastard? I think someone called him a bastard but it sounded to me like he was just saying he was a bastard for his part in Kate Beckinsale's death, not that he was an illegitimate son. Still, him being a bastard doesn't make his character any less silly. So he's just evil for the sake of it? We know he's evil because he's a bastard?

Illegitimacy doesn't matter much nowadays, but back in Tudor times, it mattered a lot to the nobles and royalty of Europe. It was just an accepted thing that children born to lawfully married couples were better and more deserving, both in material comforts and in terms of honor, social status, and friendship than children born to unmarried people. So yeah, Don John was a bastard both in terms of his birth and his personality. He was jealous of his half-brother, and apt to take any opportunity to ruin other peoples' happiness, just for the hell of it. Some people are like that - not happy until they've made everyone else miserable.

I have no idea why the shock of being accused of infidelity would cause Kate Beckinsale's "death". I suppose back in the 16th/17th Century this sort of thing was common, and women would often drop dead when they were accused of being unfaithful. I can suspend my disbelief for that, I suppose, as a sign of the times, but I found it hard to understand. As a plot point, it certainly doesn't hold up well.

It seems an extreme reaction to modern audiences, but Hero's honor was besmirched in a despicable way, and shock is not an inappropriate reaction.

 

[Borachio]

No. I wouldn't say the "book" is better than the film!

In fact, Branagh's version is pretty close to the original script. Except that there's no balcony scene in the original. I'm not sure why Branagh had to telegraph it like that, tbh.

But what about the Benedict and Beatrice set-up? Isn't that the central plot of the film? Two people who, unknown to themselves, love each other, and have to be tricked into admitting it? Hero and Claudio are just a side-show. With don John a long way third.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Keep in mind, Gori, the thousands of court, household, village and itinerant bards who have been replaced by the literary cult heroes of the English of the winner-take-all age of print. These guys had the qualities you are talking about and praising Shakespeare for, but almost every single one of them is unknown.

Well, fair enough. I'll settle for calling Shakespeare the greatest user of English whose works are available to us.

Do keep in mind, though, that if you are a great enough oral bard, a civilization will invent an alphabet to record your literary works!

Thanks for watching MAAN and for your detailed report, Mise.

It may take me a while to unpack all of what you've said, but the first thing I want to hone in on is your saying that you understood enough of the language to follow the plot. When I say Shakespeare is accessible, this is all I mean: that when even a 21C audience views one of his plays, they can--with all of the help that the actor's inflections, and body language and stage interaction (and as you point out music, etc.)--follow the plot. I may have one or two follow up questions on this point in my next post.

I'm glad, further, that you report feeling as though you understand 25% of his language, but not feeling like you understand it in its full linguistic glory. I have a pet theory that S's original audience would have understood about 25% of the language of one of his plays on their first viewing of a play. My analogy is really intricate rap lyrics. Who expects to be able to take in really intricate rap lyrics on a first listen? You walk away with the gist of the song (my b**** has a really big a**, or Imma pop a cap in your a** or whatever), but you have to listen to it again and again before you can unscramble all of what is being said so as to understand it in all of its linguistic glory.

It's that full level of understanding that I think you have in mind when you say Shakespeare is inaccessible to swathes of people and Pangur has in mind when he speaks of the hidden meanings of which lit profs are mystery-cult-like custodians.

Hopefully, we&#8217;ll get a chance to unpack some instances of S&#8217;s full linguistic glory, but for now we won&#8217;t feel the play was inaccessible just because you didn&#8217;t take in its full linguistic glory on a first listen, agreed? No one can be expected to do that. (If they could, why would they come back to the theatre next week for a second listen?)

What I&#8217;m saying is that I think S&#8217;s plays are linguistically super-charged, deliberately so, and that the response it invites is, on a first viewing, to let it just flow over us, to enjoy the surplus of meaning as a surplus, then, on future viewings, to take in more and more.

Enough for one post. If forum posts get too lengthy, they turn off the tl;dr crowd. But I'll have more to say, and ask, while your experience is relatively fresh.

 

[Farm Boy]

Enough for one post. If forum posts get too lengthy, they turn off the tl;dr crowd.

You're worried about turning us off? I thought you declined Mr. NoFuzzycuffs?