Greatness (all remotely relevant usages):
. . .
6. Of outstanding significance or importance: a great work of art.
7. Chief or principal: the great house on the estate.
8. Superior in quality or character; noble
9. Powerful; influential
Source: American Heritage Dictionary
From where I sit, looks like the Bard wins.
However, if someone wrote like him today, he would probably be labeled pretentious.
I don't like Shakespeare's stuff, personally. I find some of the stories to be allr ight but the language is difficult enough for me to wade through to be a put off and it is not of my time.
But of course he's great! Overrated? His work has survived nearly half a millenium. He managed to bring together noble and commoner alike to enjoy the same tales. He has influenced literature and art in the intervening centuries. He is still an inspiration to modern writers and playwrights.
quote:
However, if someone wrote like him today, he would probably be labeled pretentious.
This distrubed me most of all. You can't make this comparison. It just doesn't work. If someone wrote like him today...you mean in the same language? He wrote in a perfectly good style for the people of his day. I may find his language a bit thick to get through today, but had I been born then I would not have had any problems. The language has evolved. Wrote like him today? You mean in a common, if slightly elevated and poetic manner? Hmmm..>I can't think of any fantasy writers who do that! Or are you suggesting that someone write in the style of English centuries ago? But Shakespeare did not do that, or he would have been writing in Old English as opposed to Middle English.
So I say again...WHAT?
As for his contribution to literature, theatre, the arts, the English language, history, I don't think it is possible to over-rate him. Was he the greatest playwright of his time? Well, there are records from his time of people who thought not, but for the most part he enjoyed favour with both the lower and upper classes. In fact King James was one of Shakespeare's patrons and Queen Elizabeth had The Merry Wives of Windsor written at her request.
Is he the greatest playwright ever? If popularity is any measure, then possibly. Few plays are still read from that time, fewer still are performed. I would venture to guess that Shakespeare is probably the most widely read and performed playwright in history. His works have been translated into many languages and have been adapted to the screen in many incarnations (including an amazing Japanese version of King Lear called Ran).
I think that it is possible to overrate Shakespeare, but I have observed a lot more people that underrate him, usually because they don't have a firm command of the English language despite having grown up speaking it. Merry Wives...that's a good one. Ran is also a pretty cool movie, though I like King Lear better (even though that creepy woman gives Edmund a run for his money as the villian).
For Christine's benefit (well, information, you'll have to decide whether it is beneficial), this discussion is carried over from ArCH's "Laziness" thread. Read at your own peril.
I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to disturb anyone. I guess, writers up to and including Tolkien are allowed to do things that are great, but now are frowned upon.
I think when the average people thinks of Shakespeare nowadays, the first things they think of is melodrama. Perhaps, it is not the Bard, but actors who have overdone thier parts.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited December 15, 2004).]
The fundamentals of the fiction we write are all found within his writings. You don't have to like all of his stuff, but you can't deny the solid foundation he laid for us to build upon.
If I could come up with an engaging story like Macbeth or Hamlet in today's society, I would count my self lucky. Nay, even blessed!
No, I don't think this means he isn't the greatest playwright who ever wrote in English.
You see, a lot of people seem to think that he is more than that, that he wrote the greatest literature ever written, that he was this truly original genius who suddenly burst onto the scene and gave all these wonderful plays to the world, that every word he wrote was golden and that nobody has truly innovated since him.
That's what I think is overrating him. Yes, he wrote a lot of great plays. Some of the best plays ever written. But there are plenty of works that surpass them in other fields, I think. And of course his stories weren't originals, coming out of nowhere to amaze the public. Romeo and Juliet wasn't the first romantic tragedy. In fact, my understanding is that it was simply a new production in English of a play that was already popular in Italy (probably written by Luigi da Porto, according to one source I have). Many others of Shakespeare's plays have similar sources.
So, that is why I think Shakespeare is overrated. He was an excellent dramatist, putting together these stories in a form that would eventually make them popular throughout the world. But these days, he is most often remembered for his plots. And many of these were simply adaptations of other people's plots with very little variation from his source materials.
quote:
I think that it is possible to overrate Shakespeare, but I have observed a lot more people that underrate him, usually because they don't have a firm command of the English language despite having grown up speaking it.
Before I started reading Shakespeare, most of what I had heard is that he is hard to read and hard to understand. It made me wonder how his works could survive for hundreds of years and continue to be performed if they were so awful.
So I resolved to find out.
When I was in grade 9 (last year of junior high), we studied a small passage from Romeo and Juliet. I actually enjoyed it, though most of my classmates bemoaned the experience. My Language Arts teacher also did a brief performance of the first scene of Richard III. Finally in high school we got to study a few plays (R&J-grade 10, Macbeth-grade 11, Hamlet-grade 12). I was hooked.
I managed to watch a Stratford, Ontario, production of R&J on television, and later that same year I saw Kenneth Branagh in Henry V (I managed to find a copy of it and it was the first time I read Shakespeare simply because I wanted to).
Since graduating high school, I have encountered more and more people who have an appreciation for Shakespeare, but I still encounter many more people who can't believe I want to read his works without having a gun pointed at me. I would say that counts as under-rating him.
But what I'm mainly talking about is the worshiping of his Holy Shakespeare that goes on amoungst English and drama teachers.
He was good, yes, but I'd much rather watch The Crucible than Hamlet. Give me The Messenger over Henry V any day. Screw a Comedy of Errors, I wanna see Arsenic and Old Lace.
That's not to say Shakespeare wasn't a masterful playwright, but to say he's the best writer in the history of the English language is, perhaps, extreme. What criteria could you possibly use to determine that anyway?
Can't we respect the great writers of the past without making them gods who's shoulders we must walk upon?
For example, many people consider "Citizen Kane" to be the greatest movie ever made -- not because it did things better than they have been done since, but because so much of what has been done since has been influenced by "Citizen Kane."
Sure, there are probably more people who can knowingly quote Arnold Schwarzenegger than William Shakespeare, but consider the following from Bernard Levin:
quote:
If you cannot understand my argument, and declare "It's Greek to me", you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise - shy, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that is the long and short of it, if you belive that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surly you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I was dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinkin idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut, tut! for goodness' sake! what the dickens! but me no buts - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare.
Of course, you haven't truly experience Shakespeare until you've read him in the original Klingon.
It was alright, but it was full of cliches.
I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity. He wrote for his audience. Playhouses in Elizabethan England had a massive turnover - think soap opera today.
Funny thing it that treating something with too great a reverence can ruin it. My husband doesn't like poetry - why? Because of the way he was taught English at school.
R
The point is that when such a vast disparity of opinion about the value of something exists generally, it really is meaningless to say it is "overrated" or "underrated". You could say of a specific person's opinion that it overrates or underrates Shakespeare, but it is meaningless to say that Shakespeare is overrated unless you mean that he is universally overrated, that everyone's opinion of his work is too high.
I will say that I think that ArCH definitely underrates Shakespeare. Perhaps not by a huge amount, since he does compare his plays to other great plays. But he is consistently making the comparison unfavorable to Shakespeare, as if Shakespeare's work belongs in a class below the top rank of playwrights.
I think that it can be argued that Shakespeare doesn't deserve a special rank above the top rank of English playwrights, but anyone arguing that he deserves a place below the top rank is blowing mood-altering smoke.
One of the reasons I know Shakespeare is so good is that most of the people teaching him are dreadful, but in spite of that people still enjoy the Bard. When you are lucky enough (as I was) to have a truly insightful teacher on Shakespeare, a whole different world opens up to you. Not only do you see Shakespeare as you never did before, but you see everything as you never did before. Most people never even scratch the surface of Shakespeare.
quote:
I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity.
Actually, if it got more butts in the seats (or more accurately, more slobber on the stage), he did.
Shakespeare made movies to make money. The fact that it took grandiloquent language to do so is just one factor that goes into his overrating (anyone ever notice how the word grandiloquent is, in itself, grandiloquent?). People went to the theater to hear fancy language. That's why I think more modern playwrights are better. I don't blame Shakespeare for it, for all I know if he were around in the 50s and 60s he could have been a much greater playwright. But he wasn't.
quote:
I will say that I think that ArCH definitely underrates Shakespeare. Perhaps not by a huge amount, since he does compare his plays to other great plays. But he is consistently making the comparison unfavorable to Shakespeare, as if Shakespeare's work belongs in a class below the top rank of playwrights.
But you're not quite understanding my point. I like other playwrights BETTER than I like Shakespeare. I don't like him LESS. He's good. He's great. But I think others are better. I'm not trying to put anyone in any classes. Shakespeare is in the highest class, he's just not at the head of the class. At least IN MY OPINION.
I agree fully that he had a huge impact on our language, but as was said, he just made up words when there wasn't one that fit. Sci-fi writers do that all the time. I bet everyone here can tell me what a jeesh is. But can you point the word out in a dictionary?
quote:
quote:I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity.Actually, if it got more butts in the seats (or more accurately, more slobber on the stage), he did.
I thought that's what I was saying. He wrote to attract an audience. I don't see anything wrong with that. The point that he did so and still produced plays and poetry that survives and is enjoyed to this day speaks volumes about his talent and skill as a writer.
So did Chaucer before him and Dickens afterwards. Dickens even changed the end of Great Expectations because of (ironicly) audience expectations.
An interesting question though - of writers working today whose work do you think will be performed/read/enjoyed 500 years from now? Or another - of writers working today who writes across such a broad range of genres (or is it that he defies genres)?
Speculation of course, but any thoughts? I'm not asking who today compares to Shakespeare, but it kind of puts into perspective what he achieved when you consider that he was a commercial writer.
quote:
I know I've said this before but it bears repeating - he didnt write for posterity.
Actually, if it got more butts in the seats..., he did.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited December 19, 2004).]
quote:
The point that he did so and still produced plays and poetry that survives and is enjoyed to this day speaks volumes about his talent and skill as a writer.
But you're missing an important fact: People liked that kind of poetry. People had different standards back then. People came to the theater to hear fancy language and poetry, see a good fight scene, and according to good Three Stooges formula, to see rich and powerful people in a tragedy.
That's right! People LIKED seeing the Prince of Denmark die. Not because there was tragic irony to it. But because he was a prince. To them it was seeing the people who make them suffer, suffer. And we do it to this very day. Just go watch Trading Places, or Billy Madison, or Black Sheep. In fact, most comedies with former SNL cast members have some rich guy getting cut down to size.
quote:
An interesting question though - of writers working today whose work do you think will be performed/read/enjoyed 500 years from now? Or another - of writers working today who writes across such a broad range of genres (or is it that he defies genres)?
You can't really think that way anymore. The true question is: what old movie will still sell 500 years from now? Movies have changed the way we show appreciation for a good script.
Take the Sixth Sense. I don't think anyone will continue to make the Sixth Sense. There might be one or two remakes, but not anything to compare to the many productions of Shakespeare's plays.
Why? Becuase we have the masterpiece already. The Sixth Sense has been made, and any time someone wants to see it again, they can go out and buy the DVD.
So who do I think will have their movies still selling 500 years from now? Well, the Sixth Sense for one. Star Wars will never die, and I doubt Indian Jones will either. Saving Private Ryan will last a long time, as it is starting to become a tradition to play it on TV on D-Day and/or memorial day.
The movie to have this done first is It's a Wonderful Life, which will also never die. Citizen Kane (SP?) will still be around in 500 years, and so will the Marx Brothers, Three Stooges, Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.
Then there's Mel Brooks. While History of the World Part I and Robin Hood: Men in Tights might fade away, can you imagine a world in which we let our children forget Young Frankenstien, Blazing Saddles, Spaceballs, or the Producers?
Ah... the Producers... perhaps that will still be performed on stage 500 years from now. Heck, for all we know Spamalot will be performed 500 years from now. Surely the works of Arthur Miller, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Rodgers and Hammerstein will not be forgotten.
You really believe that the art of this generation is superior to all that came before and all that will come after.
It's probably the result of living during a cultural decline, people get the idea that the peak their culture is leaving is the apotheosis of human existence. Happens every time.
I do not believe that any art is better or worse than any other art. I just happen to like some things more than others. That does not change their worth.
If you paid any attention at all, you'd know that I don't care WHEN something was made. If I really did only like things I consider modern, Arsenic and Old Lace, Mel Brooks, and Arthur Miller, Charlie Chaplin, buster Keaton, the Marx bros. and three stooges would not be things I like.
I don't like everything I listed (well, I like everything except for a lot of R&H), because the list wasn't of things I like it was a list of things that would last, and if you dissagree, you have no concept of what the populous treasures.
As far as a cultural decline, there's no such thing as a cultural decline in quality. There can only be a decline in how much culture there is. You cannot judge the quality of culture. Culture is a human idea.
All art is equally worthy, but unequally appreciated? I can't believe you typed that (presumably) with a straight face. A Harlequin romance novel is "worth" as much as Hamlet? Every fragment on the F&F thread is "worth" as much as The Canterbury Tales?
In the interest of reason and sanity, I have to disagree. Works of art are not equally worthy. Some speak so clearly and well to something universal in the human soul that a failure to appreciate them exposes a flaw in the reader, and not the book.
Other works of art are so universally meaningless and banal so as to degrade the mind and soul of the reader.
No rational person can assert equality of worth between the two.
Before you respond by claiming that "meaning" is individualistic, reread my post, taking particular note of the use of the word universal.
There is a world of difference between a worthwhile book and an enjoyable one. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, they often have little to do with each other.
For example, if all opinions on the worth of art are to be subjective, then your opinion (that the worth of art is subjective) must also be subjective.
And if the subjectivity of opinions on the worth of art is a subjective subject, then the worth of art itself cannot in fact be subjective.
[This message has been edited by J (edited December 20, 2004).]
Not everything (unless you're going to argue that everything beyond art is subjective, too.) For example, it is fairly easy to objectively compare certain forms of impact that particular works of art or artists have had on culture.
If I claim that the short stories I have written have had as much impact on the development of Western Civilization as the complete works of William Shakespeare, I'm objectively wrong, no matter how high a subjective opinion I may have of my own work.
quote:
But you're missing an important fact: People liked that kind of poetry. People had different standards back then. People came to the theater to hear fancy language and poetry, see a good fight scene, and according to good Three Stooges formula, to see rich and powerful people in a tragedy.
People still do, and you say as much in your post. I wouldn't agree that people had different standards then. Everyone has different standards. We're just exposed to different things. The general population had a deeper knowlege of certain areas that today many of us lack - classics, medieval history, mythology and legends for example - if only through their exposure to the playhouses.
As for remakes of films - sorry, but Hollywood is continually remaking films, or modernising versions of novels etc to make them contemporary. Films also continually pick up and reference other films. Since most Hollywood films follow a formula anyway, you could argue that 90% of what we watch is either a straight remake or modernisation.
I have to agree with the others on the subjectivity of art thing. Surely saying that no one can judge a piece of art is the same as placing art itself (like Shakespeare "The Eternal Bard") on a pedestle and thereby over-rating it. It's good because it's art doesn't cut it as an argument. It's good because it speaks to me, perhaps, but that doesn't make it good for everyone.
(btw Eric,
quote:
There's a difference between writing for posterity and writing for posteriors.
R
[This message has been edited by RFLong (edited December 20, 2004).]
quote:
If all worth in art is subjective then art has no meaning whatsoever.
For example, if all opinions on the worth of art are to be subjective, then your opinion (that the worth of art is subjective) must also be subjective.And if the subjectivity of opinions on the worth of art is a subjective subject, then the worth of art itself cannot in fact be subjective.
If you're trying to be funny, good job
quote:
Not everything (unless you're going to argue that everything beyond art is subjective, too.) For example, it is fairly easy to objectively compare certain forms of impact that particular works of art or artists have had on culture.If I claim that the short stories I have written have had as much impact on the development of Western Civilization as the complete works of William Shakespeare, I'm objectively wrong, no matter how high a subjective opinion I may have of my own work.
You said it yourself. It's not the actual art that is objective, it's the impact it has. Myceneans could have worshiped the "snake godess" statue, but to me it's a crappy statue (or you could go the opposite way: art historians study it every day and think of it as a reflection on that culture, but in reality it was just made to make fun of a snake charmer who fell out of her dress one night). Its worth to me and its impact on that culture are two completely different things.
Going back to the original argument, I don't care what impact Shakespeare had on the price of tea in China. His plays aren't up to the standards of quality I have. If it weren't for his language, I wouldn't like them at all, except for MAYBE Othello.
BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. In my opinion Shakespeare is overrated as a playwright. Why? because most people have a much higher opinion of his plays than I do. That's what I mean by overrated. Of course he had a huge impact on the English language. But what do I care? I'm talking about his plays!
ArCHeR -
quote:
In my opinion Shakespeare is overrated as a playwright. Why? because most people have a much higher opinion of his plays than I do. That's what I mean by overrated
Or maybe you're underrating him as a writer.
And on that note I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
R
quote:But that's not what overrated means. It's not an opinion; it's a statement about opinions, an objective claim that other people's opinions are inaccurate. To say that anyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's is to say that the word "overrated" is meaningless.
most people have a much higher opinion of his plays than I do. That's what I mean by overrated.
Listen, you have every right to hold any opinion you want to about Shakespeare. All I'm asking here is that you use the correct words. You want to be a writer; you ought to be able to manage that.
Many of you, especially the younger ones, will think that I have just agreed that he is overrated but that is not the case. Original does not equal great. I think a lot of the hostility toward him is from those who vainly seek to create something entirely new.
Shakespeare knew how to tap into a story that grabs the mass unconscious, at least for the English speaking world. He was actually skilled at the opposite of originality.
P.S. Anyone who doesn't list Casablanca among the greatest films ever isn't well-watched 
[This message has been edited by franc li (edited December 22, 2004).]
If you watch Casablanca and for some reason don't think it is "among the greatest films ever", are you still well-watched for having sat through it?
------
BTW, what do some of you think about alternative authorship theories? Particularly the Marlowvian theory?
Are alternative authorship theories a way of under-rating the man while at the same time over-rating the work?
[This message has been edited by Robyn_Hood (edited December 22, 2004).]
quote:
I am of the opinion that Shakespeare cannot be too highly rated, as playright or someone who understood the human mind and emotions. It has been said that he was the first psychologist and that understanding is why his plays remain relevant and appreciated.
See what I mean?
quote:
But that's not what overrated means. It's not an opinion; it's a statement about opinions, an objective claim that other people's opinions are inaccurate. To say that anyone's opinion is as good as everyone else's is to say that the word "overrated" is meaningless.
Wow. Ok. In order to think something is overrated, you have to rate it for yourself. You have to have an opinion.
If you think something is overrated, you think that most other people have an opinion that is higher than the opinion you have. What the hell makes you think you can be objective about something like that?
quote:
BTW, what do some of you think about alternative authorship theories? Particularly the Marlowvian theory?
All the arguments I have seen for alternative authorship seem to boil down to:
1. The assertion that William Shakespeare was not educated enough to write the plays
2. Textual evidences that prove too much (i.e., the same textual evidence that "proves" Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays also "proves" that Francis Bacon wrote Longfellow's "The Song of Hiawatha" and Julius Caesar's "Gallic Wars.")
quote:Not at all. I think most people who like classical music (which includes me) have a higher opinion of Beethoven's Ninth than I do. But I don't think it's overrated. I just don't like it as much as they do, even though I agree with them on its quality (at least in general terms). How much I like it is an opinion. What I think of its quality is a judgment. I'll grant that a "judgment" is not fully objective, but it's a long way from "opinion."
If you think something is overrated, you think that most other people have an opinion that is higher than the opinion you have.
The thing is, ArCHeR, that lots of people have at one time or another said they didn't care for Shakespeare. Sometimes they got responses like, "Oh, but I think he's great." In your case, though, there's been all sorts of hubbub, and my judgment is that it's because you made the claim that he's "overrated," which is akin to the claim that all those who rate him more highly than you do are incorrect. That may not be what you meant. In fact, you say that's not what you meant in your post of 12/21. But it is what "overrated" means. I'm just suggesting that you try to be more careful with your word choice.
It's all subjective.
Now, few things are totally objective. On the other hand, few things are totally subjective. To claim that anything not nailed down is subjective is to make meaningless all of language. If that's your intent, why are you even using language? Since you are using language, I'll assume that that's not your intent. So let's drop the "it's all subjective" argument.
Some things are subjective, entirely and without question. Opinions are totally subjective. Ratings, however, are not.
Am I saying that Shakespeare is not "overrated"? I have my opinions on that, but they're not relevant to this post. Am I saying that no one could reasonably say that Shakespeare is "overrated"? No, I'm not saying that either. But I am saying that, to make that claim, you need to back it up with more than opinion. You need to specify the reasons others have rated him highly, and demonstrate why those reasons are faulty. You need to specify what flaws he has, and demonstrate why they are significant. None of that is necessary if you simply want to say that your opinion of Shakespeare is lower than that of the majority of people who have opinions about him. You want to say you like Arthur Miller better? Fine. You want to say Shakespeare's language is too flowery for your taste? Fine. You want to say Shakespeare is overrated? Ah, now you're saying that people who've studied him carefully and have good reasons for their claims are, by and large wrong in their claims and arguments. Might that be the case? Sure. But don't say it if you can't back it up.
Especially don't say it if you mean only that your opinion of his works is not as high as theirs.
Use the right word.
quote:
I do get your point, ArCHeR. You don't seem to get mine, however, which is that you are using the word "overrated" incorrectly.
No. No I DON'T get your point because your point is that apple is bannana.
I'm saying that Shakespeare's works are overrated.
quote:
o·ver·rate; o·ver·rat·ed, o·ver·rat·ing, o·ver·rates
To overestimate the merits of; rate too highly.
It is my opinion that the merrits of Shakespeare's writings are not as good as most people think they are. People rate his plays too highly. His plays are not as good as they say they are, in my opinion.
It is a matter of opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot use any objective device to determine the quality of art. One either likes the piece of art to various degrees, dislikes a piece of art to various degrees, or neither likes nor dislikes a piece of art.
Art:
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
Beauty:
The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.
That makes art subjective! *GASP!*
Hey, what's subjective, by the way?
Subjective:
taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
Why that's what opinions on art are!
quote:I'm a bit puzzled by this. You don't get my point, and yet you tell me what my point is? Which thing is it that you think I'm calling by another name, and what name am I using? I simply said that you're using the wrong word. And, for what it's worth, my argument doesn't depend upon the quality of Shakespeare, or even on whether opinions of him are totally subjective. What it does depend upon (and what I admittedly didn't specify, thinking that you must understand it) is that most people do not think that opinions on artistic matters are entirely subjective, though subjective components are included.
No I DON'T get your point because your point is that apple is bannana [sic].
Let me try to explain this from the ground up. Personal preferences are entirely subjective. If I say that my favorite color is purple, you're not liable to argue with me and say, "No, blue is better." You might say, "I prefer blue," and that would be the end of it. (Small children, of course, might well argue. It takes some time and maturity to recognize that one's own personal preferences may not be universal.)
The word "opinion" is often loosely used to mean "personal preference," as in: "My opinion is that purple (or Shakespeare) is the best color (or writer) ever." This is the way "opinion" has largely been used previously in this thread. However, we all know about "educated opinions" and "informed opinions." American Heritage defines "opinion" as:
quote:Note that the first definition does not simply place a period after the word "substantiated." These are substantially stronger meanings than that of "personal preference," and these are the sorts of meanings most people intend when they talk about their opinion of the quality of Shakespeare's writings. Personal preferences are usually, though not always, aligned with one's opinion.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence, but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. 2. An evaluation or judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert."
Note that I am not saying that opinions of artistic works are anything other than purely subjective. That claim is irrelevant to my argument. I'm only saying that most people believe that reasons can be brought to bear in making a decision about artistic merit. In the case of a writer, those reasons are based on attributes such as: handling of POV (not relevant for a playwright), use of vocabulary and grammar, varied sentence structure, unusual or arresting imagery and metaphors, perceptive characterization, skillful plotting, meaningful conflicts and resolutions, and so forth. Based on such attributes, a person may rate a writer like Shakespeare against other writers. This rating is considered by the people doing it to contain many non-subjective elements. Whether they are right to think so is the subject of a different argument; the point is that they do think so.
Therefore, when you use the term "overrated" to refer to Shakespeare, you have gone beyond stating that your personal preference for Shakespeare is not as high as the people who have "overrated" him. You are claiming that these individuals have made an error. To do this without presenting a supporting argument is rude. It would be somewhat like getting a term paper back marked: "Nope. All wrong. You get an F."
Listen, you can use words any way you want, and understand them to mean anything you please. You have that right, although I don't know why you'd want to exercise it. But the purpose of language is communication. If you're going to insist, when you talk about "rating" works of art, that you mean only personal preference, then you won't be communicating very effectively. And if that's not your concern, why are you bothering to post to a writer's BB?
quote:
rating is considered by the people doing it to contain many non-subjective elements.
But those aren't non-subjective (or as I like to say it: objective) elements. The only thing that is objective when it comes to writing is spelling and grammar. On that point, it doesn't matter when it comes to plays beyond stage directions. Dialogue can have grammatical errors, because the characters can make grammatical errors. Heck, they can make spelling errors (people saying then when they mean than, etc.)
But the whole idea of rating a playwright is subjective. You either like his plays best, or you like someone else's plays best. The fact that I think that people like Shakespears plays so much more than I do makes him overrated to me. Why? Because I have a different opinion than they do. They will all say I underrate Shakespeare, and they're right, because it's their opinion.
So let's stop arguing what overrated means, and do what this topic was intended to do and argue over wether or not he actually is overrated.
Because you are the one that introduced a novel definition of "overrated", it is incumbent on you to defend both the legitimacy and utility of your definition. If all you meant was that you personally held a lower opinion of Shakespeare's work than the majority of other people you'd met who had an opinion on Shakespeare, then you should have said that in the first place.
On the other hand, if you actually meant something more than that, you have yet to lend supporting arguments. Sure, you've reiterated your central point, that your subjective opinion of Shakespeare isn't very high, but you haven't really lent any support to the idea that he is therefore overrated. If you can say nothing more than that your opinion of him is low, particularly in the fact of argument to the contrary, you are only providing evidence that Shakespeare is underrated...by you.
Ultimately, everything is subjective, including grammer and spelling. Whether the sky is blue or the sun bright or water wet is all based on individual perceptions. We eventually quantified these "subjective" observations in much the same way that we eventually established a formal syntax for language and orthography of particular words. In an extension of that process, we quantify more abstract concepts like relevence, imagination and eloquence.
When you make a strong statement, you should be prepared with a better defense than "well, it's subjective." Because if I were allowed to do what I liked as long as I could argue that it was subjective, pretty much everyone else would be dead in short order. Naturally, from my point of view, that's a good argument for why that should be an adequate defense
But from most other points of view, it's a good reason that "that's subjective" doesn't cut it as an argument.
quote:
Because you are the one that introduced a novel definition of "overrated", it is incumbent on you to defend both the legitimacy and utility of your definition.
I didn't introduce the definition! I quoted a dictionary! That's my point! You guys are somehow thinking that a rating of a work of art can be objective.
quote:
If all you meant was that you personally held a lower opinion of Shakespeare's work than the majority of other people you'd met who had an opinion on Shakespeare, then you should have said that in the first place.
Ah, but you see overrated means the same exact thing, and it's only one word.
And anyway, by the very use of the word, I was saying that I believe others have a much higher opinion of his works than I do, not that I have a lower opinion. I think my opinion is just right. That's why it's my opinion. The simple fact is that all this can be most clearly stated by saying that my opinion of Shakespeare is lower than the majority. That statement, however, is highly misleading.
quote:
On the other hand, if you actually meant something more than that, you have yet to lend supporting arguments.
I would have, but no one really argued that! You all just kept yelling at me for using a word. So here it goes...
Shakespeare wrote about three things: Tragedy, Comedy, and History. He mixed the three in practically every play (Ceasar's assassination, Hamlet calling the English mad, Juliet saying a Rose by any other name would smell as sweet). But his plays are all the same essential plotline. In the tragedy a hero is introduced. Some other character plots some evil, usually directly aimed at the hero. The evil character succedes, but at the cost of if not his life, his freedom (as in Othello), and the hero dies. The only exception to the rule is Romeo and Juliet, where there is no one evil character. The evil is spread between their family (mostly Juliet's). Tybalt being the closest thing to an evil character isn't in the last few scenes (I think he gets killed at the end of Act II iirc) and the formula's role is passed on to the parents who aren't killed and don't lose their family. All they get is guilt.
So Romeo and Juliet is his most original play- compared to his other works. Romeo and Juliet is Shakespeare's The Birdcage or Vanilla Sky. The only thing you can really give him credit for in that play is the language.
So what of his language? I think it's okay. It's mostly just a fake diamond set in a gold-plated ring. Sure it seems good at first glance, but any close scrutiny can see it's just there to turn normal language into something that's a little more aurally pleasing. Don't get me wrong, he does a fairly good job at it, but it's not the most engaging poetry I've ever read. Poe has a much more masterful ability to turn out a story and make it sound good.
But what really gets me is that because the technology wasn't there back then, he's able to be called the greatest playwright in history. I might agree that ont many playwrights have been able to bring so many elements together in som many works. But that's because there are no more superstar playwrights anymore. Not like they were back then. Now the focus is on the actors. I can point out scripts that surpass each one of Shakespeare's plays, but they won't all be by the same person. It's a shame, really.
But that's because the great writing isn't done for the stage anymore. The great writing is in the movies. To me, Charlie Chaplin is eons above Shakespeare. M. Night Shyamalan and the Wachowski bros would also surpass Shakespeare if they wrote more movies, but they're still young. And what about TV? The writers behind M*A*S*H Seinfeld, and the West Wing match(ed) Shakespeare weekley. Practically every cast member on SNL throughout its 30 year history wrote for the show, and that's while having to rehearse and perform all in one week.
The fact is not that Shakespeare is a great writer, but a good writer, and there are so many other people who have written much better things. He is not what a lot of people think he is. He's good, but he wasn't the greatest there ever was.
Other assumptions you make are simply false. Shakespeare was not a "superstar" playwright, he was an obscure man who was known to later generations almost entirely on the basis of his work. And not all his work became famous, some of his works have been lost because no one thought to preserve them, others languished in obscurity because they weren't considered really great. The great plays and poems written by Shakespeare have remained famous because they touched generation after generation, speaking to the human condition across ages and cultures.
You speak of writers that have only touched the conditions of their contemporaries, for whom speaking to another generation or culture is only a fancy. They may well touch you more than Shakespeare does, but is that a flaw in Shakespeare or yourself?
I personally find it distressing that you list so many contemporary entertainments as being greater than Shakespeare, it speaks of a narrow mind. You rarely mention any works from more than a hundred years ago, you don't mention works from other cultures than your own.
I also find it odd that you're willing to argue so tenaciously (if rather ineffectually) for a position that you claim is nothing more than your personal opinion. That alone tells me that you don't really believe the argument you make. As it just so happens, I prefer a number of authors to Shakespeare, from a variety of time periods and nations. It is certainly not my subjective opinion that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in history or even the greatest writer in the English language. But putting my personal tastes aside, it is clear to me that Shakespeare holds a deserved place of great importance in the body of English literature.
too many 'you's here
So if your looking at most used concepts or plots then yes, Shakespeare is perhaps the greatest writer.
For me though a scene in Blackadder goes back and forth said quite a lot. He walks up to Shakespeare and punches him in the mouth saying "Thats for all the kids in the English classes."
quote:
See, you're still resorting to simple assertion that your opinion is more correct than any other.
No, I'm not. I'm stating my opinion, like anyone else. The difference is that I realize it's my opinion, and that there is no real way to truly defend an opinion on a piece of art using anything but subjective judgement.
And of course I think my opinion is more correct than any other. If I thought another opinion to be more correct I would change my opinion. The same goes for any rational human being. Who thinks, "Wow. That guy's opinion is much better than mine. I'll still believe mine though, even though I think it's wrong."
quote:
I'm rather offended that you didn't at least go with Monty Python
You're absolutely right. I have no idea why I didn't think of them. I don't deserve to own my special edition DVD of Grail.
quote:
Shakespeare was not a "superstar" playwright
Ah, now that's a point of contingent. If you ask me, anyone who has the ear of the Queen of England for writing plays, and is known around the western world durring his lifetime to me is a superstar. And I meant more that he is now considered a superstar of sorts.
quote:
And not all his work became famous, some of his works have been lost because no one thought to preserve them, others languished in obscurity because they weren't considered really great. The great plays and poems written by Shakespeare have remained famous because they touched generation after generation, speaking to the human condition across ages and cultures.
And Quentin Tarantino made From Dusk 'Till Dawn. Does that make him any less of a superstar? By the way, he goes in the same place I put Shyamalan and the W. Bros in my above post, now that I think about it...
quote:
You speak of writers that have only touched the conditions of their contemporaries, for whom speaking to another generation or culture is only a fancy.
I'm in the same generation as Charlie Chaplin? Woah. Monty Python too? Can I be a hippy!? Oh, right, I forgot to put them on the list 
Why do you think I listed modern people? I could have listed Chaucer. I like him more than Shakespeare. Mark Twain? Let's see.. other cultures? Well if I ever think of a culture that speaks English I'll let you know. Otherwise most of the artistry is lost in translation. Haikus, for isntance, would mean so much more if one could understand Japanese.
But I was trying to stick to people who wrote scripts, and to be honest, there aren't a lot of great scripts between Shakespeare and Miller... at least in terms of my opinion and knowlege.
And a hundred years? You really go biblical when you talk about generations, don't you?
quote:
They may well touch you more than Shakespeare does, but is that a flaw in Shakespeare or yourself?
So is Shakespeare timeless or not? If he is, then any judgement on him is based purely on the quality of his works, and the fact that other works have been written more recently has no impact on the judgement. If he's not, then how can he be considered such a great playwright?
I like to think of his work as timeless. Romeo and Juliet still resonates today. One can still come to a tragic end by being hastey. Hamlet still rings true. Revenge is dangerous no matter what the decade. Othello is still an important play. Racism and jealousy are still facts of life.
But I'd still rather watch an immigration officer get kicked in the rear, and I don't care what Hoover has to say about it.
quote:
I personally find it distressing that you list so many contemporary entertainments as being greater than Shakespeare, it speaks of a narrow mind.
What on Earth can make you think I have a narrow mind? What post on this board could possibly give you that impression. A heterosexual defending gay rights is narrow-minded?
I don't dislike Shakespeare. I read his plays. I'm not immediately put-off by seeing "by William Shakespeare." I don't care when a story was published by whom. All I care about is wether I like the story. I still like Ender's Game, no matter what I think of the author's politics or religion. George Carlin is still one of the funniest men alive, and that isn't changed by his atheism. Othello is still one of the best plays about jealousy, and I don't care how much a bunch of college professors worship the playwright.
The fact that you are calling me narrow-minded for liking MORE contemporary (there are still a lot of old things on my lists) things than Shakespeare speaks more of your attitude than it does mine.
quote:
you don't mention works from other cultures than your own.
As I stated before, it's hard to find other cultures that speak English. But if you're a little more hazy in your definition of culture (I'm assuming you're meaning I'm not going outside Western culture) then I have several different cultures.
I mean, if you really believe what you said then that means I'm comming from the same culture as a poor kid growing up in industrial England, and another kid from India moving around the US and ending up in Philidelphia. I must also be from Canada, New York and New Jersey.
Culture differs from city to city, Survivor, and it doesn't matter what the culture is anyway. An African folktale is the same as an English one. Every story in the world is human and culture only makes a difference if you pay attention to the shallow ends of the stories. Honor is still honor and love is still love no matter what you call it or how you express it.
quote:
I also find it odd that you're willing to argue so tenaciously (if rather ineffectually) for a position that you claim is nothing more than your personal opinion. That alone tells me that you don't really believe the argument you make.
What kind of statement is that? Of course I believe it! What are you thinking? The fact that I realize it is my opinion has no bearing on the fact that it is still my opinion.
quote:
As it just so happens, I prefer a number of authors to Shakespeare, from a variety of time periods and nations. It is certainly not my subjective opinion that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in history or even the greatest writer in the English language. But putting my personal tastes aside, it is clear to me that Shakespeare holds a deserved place of great importance in the body of English literature.
Do I really have to say it again? I am NOT talking about his impact on the English language or English literature. I am talking about his actual written work. The fact that many people don't see the difference is, I think, one of the main contributors his being overrated as a playwright.
It really feels as if you're making this personal Survivor, and I really don't want that to happen. Please, no more comments about narrow-mindedness or any other pretentious rubbish like that. It's not needed in a mature debate.
No reply, or are you just too lazy to go through all that right now?