Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Grandy on June 10, 2009, 05:58:00 PM
-
Quite frankly, latelly there has been a tendency for people to compare stuff nowadays with the so-called classics to prove their points. Recently a dude told me, upon the subject of if popularity can be used to measure how good something is:
"What, do you think Harry Potter is better than Shakspeare?"
...
Yes, yes I do.
You see, after reading Shakspeare, most of his works, it struck to me: Shakspeare is not a good writer.
He might have been, in his time, but nowadays he would hardly survive out of writing.
Examples of his works? Take the Comedy of the Mistakes: It's an 80's sitcom episode applied to Middle Ages. Oh look, the guy's have a look alike, ooops it looks like his family and friends are mistaking them for each other.
Yaaaay. I really can't express how much that was shallow. The jokes were predictable and the plot didn't move.
You see, nowadays, his work is... trivial. With so many writers writing books, his ideas were unique for his time, because at his time there were not many writers. Nowadays his work would be shoved in a bookstore, half-hidden between other books with similar plots like that one recently made into a movie, about the daughter and the mom who switched bodies.
Other example is a Midsummer Night's Dream: The plot is about two couples who get lost in the woods and a third couple, this time a magical couple, happen to make a love potion, which through Three Stooges-like confusion is thrown around and everyone falls in love randomly.
I'm pretty sure I once saw an episode of Rescue Rangers like that.
See, Shakespeare is nowadays THE Shakespeare because he aways was THE Shakespeare. It's cool to like him, because smart people say they like him, so if we say we like him we may look smart like the smart people. His works fit the modern times like a victorian era chair would fit a techno rave. And he's not the only one:
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was a great writer with Sherlock Holmes, I'm pretty sure he would be able to work in a script for The Mentalist nowadays. If he cut down his massive racism.
Edgar Allan Poe was a great mystery writter. But how far would you get nowadays with such plot twist as "it was an orangutan"?
Seriously, people, Shakespeare is a classic, yes, but he is not good.
-
Ah, finally a topic of interest!
I know I shouldn't be judging an author by one book. But if "A Farewell to Arms" is any indication, Hemingway was a terrible, terrible writer. Nothing interesting happens for 90% of the book...the two leads are devoid of any actual chemistry and mostly just say "Do you love me, darling?" "Of course I love you." "Do you love me?" "I love you, darling" back and forth for pages and pages of soul-destroying ennui. Oh, and there's much listing of various alcoholic drinks. That's it. That's what stands out in my mind. So whenever anyone says of someone's writing ability, "Well, it's no Hemingway," I feel like forcing them to read "A Farewell to Arms" and then tell me again that this man is the pinnacle of literary prowess.
-
Everything you say is quite founded. People just credit him as one of the originals; if it wasn't for him, many ideas seen in todays writing wouldn't be seen. He's not great, but he was very influential.
For example, West Side Story is basically taking the ideas from Romeo and Juliet and putting them in contemporary setting. There are bits of inspiration from Hamlet seen in the lion king. His ideas were not stereotypical; they were archetypal; some of the first. Of course, many people recognize this, and have some really great respect for it.
What do I think? Well, Shakespeare's alright. Some stories, like Othello, were pretty neat to figure out, and had some good tidbits in them. I also had a role in our schools production of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', and when it started out, I had no clue how the hell we were going to make it funny, at all. When it came down to it, all the comedy came from subtle direction of movement and the way lines were delivered, rather than what was being said. The last part of the play, where the Pyramus play was held, was damn hilarious, though.
-
I had something insightful to say, but my brother's idiocy devours all intelligent thought within a quarter-mile.
-
But what tickles me off is just that: People try to make him sound the maximum authority, like's he's untouchable.
They put him above all other books, like the supreme name.
I'd try to write more but I'll have to go travelling. I expect 6+ pages of off-topic when I get back.
Get down to it, chop-chop.
-
So how about them cougers?
-
Ah, finally a topic of interest!
I know I shouldn't be judging an author by one book. But if "A Farewell to Arms" is any indication, Hemingway was a terrible, terrible writer. Nothing interesting happens for 90% of the book...the two leads are devoid of any actual chemistry and mostly just say "Do you love me, darling?" "Of course I love you." "Do you love me?" "I love you, darling" back and forth for pages and pages of soul-destroying ennui. Oh, and there's much listing of various alcoholic drinks. That's it. That's what stands out in my mind. So whenever anyone says of someone's writing ability, "Well, it's no Hemingway," I feel like forcing them to read "A Farewell to Arms" and then tell me again that this man is the pinnacle of literary prowess.
The thing about Hemingway is... he really had no imagination. Everything in his books happened to him, and thus, to make sense of his books, you need to know about his life, and read the others.
But what tickles me off is just that: People try to make him sound the maximum authority, like's he's untouchable.
They put him above all other books, like the supreme name.
I'd try to write more but I'll have to go travelling. I expect 6+ pages of off-topic when I get back.
Shakespeare, in terms of his wording is terrible. I hate the style of writing he used, but in terms of his stories, he's the originator. Sure, people have done it better, but he was the original.
Have you ever read Dracula? Same thing. Pretty boring book really. I mean it's like 'Oh, the girl is kidnapped... we should save her... But first, we need to have some tea!' but it still is good because it was the original.
I understand your point, Shakespeare would fail in today's book-world, but for his time, his plays were shocking, and new. To look at him in today's light is not truly fair. I mean, it's like comparing a movie from 1950 to one from now, and talking about the special effects. People have learned from Shakespeare, and they have taken his craft further. That doesn't make him a bad writer.
And btw, Harry Potter is GOOD, but it's best thing is it gets kids to read. In terms of story... it's meh, and the last book was so horribly anti-climatic.
-
Have you ever read Dracula? Same thing. Pretty boring book really. I mean it's like 'Oh, the girl is kidnapped... we should save her... But first, we need to have some tea!' but it still is good because it was the original.
This is the only thing in this thread which I disagree with. I personally feel that Dracula is a fantastic book and it is better than any contemporary novel which I have read for quite some time. That said I don't remember any kidnapping in the plot; Jonathan goes to Transylvania and runs away after the Count turns out to be wacko, Mina and Lucy are courting various men, Translyvanian ship runs aground, weird stuff starts happening, plot spoilers occur, and then they all band together and go after Dracula. Having tea in the process, of course.
But still, to each his own. I enjoyed it a great deal. Your mileage may vary.
-
Well, I can't remember the plot, I just used the kidnapping as an example. I just remember something important is happening, and they need to do something about it quick... but they have tea-time instead.
Good story, just can't stand the writing.
-
Yeah, I'll go with that.
-
Oh, another wall-banger: "Things Fall Apart" by Chinua Achebe. It's not really regarded as an outstanding literary classic, but it was required reading in high school. The book's about an African tribe whose culture is slowly eroded by the arrival of white missionaries. The central character is Okonkwo, a brute who beats his wives constantly and gets away with it. He ends up getting banished from the village after he accidentally shoots someone during some sort of tribal ceremony. Achebe is trying to say that if the white folk hadn't brought guns around to Africa in the first place, this wouldn't have happened, but it also might not have happened if Okonkwo weren't such a damned idiot.
The book never misses a chance to point out how masculinity was prized in the tribe's culture and how anything remotely female or feminine was worthy of disdain. And yet we're supposed to boo and jeer the missionaries who come along pushing their culture onto these people, when maybe their own culture may not be all that fair to everyone anyway. Sure, the missionaries may not be any paragons of virtue, but they just might offer Okonkwo's wives a better life than getting beaten senseless for every minor slight.
On top of that, Achebe's prose is utilitarian to the point of being absolutely dull.
-
You know what the worst book I've ever read is? The Great Gatsby. How the HELL is that the greatest American Literature ever written? Sure gives a bad name to Americans...
-
I enjoyed Gatsby...
-
Never heard of it.
-
You know what was required reading for me? This crap (http://www.andyandrews.com/store/bestsellers/product/the-travelers-gift/)
Bland, tasteless self-help book/religious propaganda disguised as a fiction novel. It was fucking terrible, at least, as far as I read. Because I refused to read the whole thing.
-
Lol Ayn Rand.
Oh, wait, that's not what you read?
-
You know what was required reading for me? This crap (http://www.andyandrews.com/store/bestsellers/product/the-travelers-gift/)
Bland, tasteless self-help book/religious propaganda disguised as a fiction novel. It was fucking terrible, at least, as far as I read. Because I refused to read the whole thing.
Andy Andrews?
Is his middle name Anderson?
-
And And And?
-
Andy Andrews?
Is his middle name Anderson?
Now I'm curious as to what his middle name is...
-
Shakespeare gets a lot of love not only because he was one of the first (which, really, would have been enough to get him on the "notable writers of all time" lists) but because his stories contain layers of detail and character motives that are rarely seen in a novelist, especially an old world one. It's how they're able to do modern-day renditions of things like Romeo and Juliet still make sense. The story of two people in love in a world that disapproves is about as timeless as it can be.
Harry Potter doesn't have any of that. Mysterious things start happen. Potter investigates. Teachers give him a lot of crap. Turns out Potter was right all along! Repeat six or seven times. BOSS BATTLE series is over. Everything you need to know is basically told to you. It's decent fantasy fiction and makes some pretty flashy movies, but I'm not so sure about the long-term appeal there. I read all of the books, once, and have no compelling desire to go back.
-
Where are my 6+ pages of off-topic? I can't believe it, this is the first time you guys ever disappointed me.
-
Speaking of Dragonball, what's your favorite colored people?
-
I must echo Sai's words. Shakespeare is about as timeless as it is possible to be, the themes of his work often centering on human fundamentals; themes that will be echo throughout the ages until the great augmentation in which we all assimilate into the masterbrain and become one with the cosmic psychoscope.
There is also a great deal of poetry to Shakespeare's work, something which Rowling absolutely lacks. The gulf between his and Rowling's mastery of wordcraft could fit two of your mothers.
Also, something which people forget is that his works were intended to be acted, not read. They are plays.
The Great Gatsby is one of my favourite books.
-
There is also a great deal of poetry to Shakespeare's work, something which Rowling absolutely lacks.
Also, something which people forget is that his works were intended to be acted, not read. They are plays.
I never intended to say R was good and S was bad, even though I'm afraid that's how it came across. Rather, both are hmm... mediocre is the word. People tend to treat Sheakspeare as the Ultimate God of Literacy. Every work is bound to be comapared to his.
He's like the Godwin's Law of Literacy, if you can follow my logic.
-
I don't know what Godwin's law is.
Everyone is going to be compared to Shakespeare because he's an original. Rowlings is ok, but it's recycled. Shakespeare wrote plays that had ideas that no one had before him. That's what makes him great.
But reading it is annoying. I love some of his stories (Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear being a few great ones) but to read them is terrible
-
Godwin's Law states that the longer a discussion about politics lasts, the highers the chances Hitler will be brought up, as he is the "Ultimate Evil" of politics. "At least he's not as bad as Hitler." "Hitler had such habits." "The nazy party would love this."
Whereas I reckon the longer we talk about books, the higher then chance someone will bring out Shakespeare as the "Ultimate Writer" of books. "But he's no Shakespeare." "Shakerpeare wrote stuff like that." "Would not please Shakesperians."
-
While Harry Potter may not be regarded as highly as Shakespeare, it is infinitely more readable to the modern eye. Try inserting those puns, sly references, and the unnecessary iambic pentameter into any modern work, and see if anybody gives a rat's ***. I also suspect that because it is so unreadable, we're less likely to notice any logical or stylistic hiccups. Any complaints about the bard's plays can easily be attributed by elitists to the lack of literary savvy and sophistication of the uninitiated.
I just know that I won't read any of "Shakespeare's" plays (Some insist he didn't actually write them). I have bad memories of footnotes that take up about a quarter of each page explaining away all his archaic references and obscure Elizabethanspeak.
Also, something which people forget is that his works were intended to be acted, not read. They are plays.
I agree, which is why they shouldn't even be compared to Harry Potter.
-
That's true, in terms of the wording, it's ****. But have a modern writer write the stories in modern language, and they're infinitely better.
-
Tl;dr anything except the first post, so this is a direct response to Grandy's first post only.
While I agree with you that he wouldn't survive in today's world as a writer, I disagree with calling him bad.
For one, you can't do something as simple as take a writer, artist or something similiar and put it in a different time frame of the world. Like Shakespear would be overlooked in today's world, Rowling would be put on the stakes in his. Comparing the two is like comparing apples with beef. It's from two different worlds.
Secondly, he created the basis of many of today's scripts and novels. Many idea came from his original works. But if Shakespear did not exist, someone else would have put up this basis. There has to be a basis and it has to be made in some period. Most likely, Shakespear's stories came from other writers or perhaps stories he heard.
This being said, I do agree with you on some part. His writing sucks. Now his stories are good, but I just can't get into his writing style. I know he wrote theatrical plays and stuff but it's just godawful in my sight.
-
For one, you can't do something as simple as take a writer, artist or something similiar and put it in a different time frame of the world. Like Shakespear would be overlooked in today's world, Rowling would be put on the stakes in his. Comparing the two is like comparing apples with beef. It's from two different worlds.
Agreed and then again not.
Sheakespeare wrote a lot about stuff that theorically should make him staked, such as pagan forest Gods and what not. But that's another stuff.
Thing is, I didn't bring up the comparison, someone else did, to prove that, if Mr. S was better than Mrs. R, who is in turn more popular nowadays, it would mean that FF7 was worse than FF6, because all it had was popularity.
Oh, I forgot to add: Yes, this was born in a gamefaqs discussion about what Final Fantasy is better.
-
"Edgar Allan Poe was a great mystery writter. But how far would you get nowadays with such plot twist as "it was an orangutan"?"
...with me very.
*loves Edgar Allen Poe stories*
EDIT: Ayn Rand's Anthem = Amazing
-
This thread is null. Shakespeare never existed.
-
This thread is null. Shakespeare never existed.
Agreed.
-
Silly me, and all this time I thought Rowling was a woman!
-
This thread is null. Shakespeare never existed.
and the 9/11 was done by the fake moon landing NOTHING IS EVER REAL
-
"Edgar Allan Poe was a great mystery writter. But how far would you get nowadays with such plot twist as "it was an orangutan"?"
...with me very.
*loves Edgar Allen Poe stories*
Yes. Hell, if it weren't for all the "borrowing" that so many other fiction used from Poe's works, he'd still easily be original and haunting.
The old man's heart beating, even in death, just to drive the guilt-ridden young man into the clutches of madness... Chilling.
-
TWILIGHT.
-
*ass flies away in distaste*
-
EMERATES DO NOT SPEAK OF SUCH ABOMINATIONS OR I WILL HAVE TO DESTROY YOU THANK YOU KINDLY SIR.
-
I AM SUPRISED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP BY NOW SINCE WE ARE DISCUSSING 'BAD WRITING' (AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEIR ATROCIOUS FILM KNOCK-OFFS) AND FURTHERMORE I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT SHAKESPEARE
-
"THAT SHAKESPEARE"?
That he what? Wrote? Lived? Loved?
Did those three things simultaneously? With a robot wife?
Ol' Billy Shakespeare is suddenly much, much cooler in my book. The one I wrote whilst making love to a robot wife I brought life to with my writings.
-
WOOOT ALL CAPITALS AND NOT FINISHING OUR
-
Forsooth, the purple monkeys brillig.
-
I have to say i sense something wrong here.
As Drace and others stated, Shakespeare was from a different time frame.
Not only he wrote plays and not books, but he wrote them for peoples of his time.
What i really find fascinating is to read how modern a "writer" who lived between 1564 and 1616 could be.
With all of our modern experience it's just too easy, just like saying we all perfectly knows Earth is not flat.
However, the simple fact we still know who he was should mean something.
While i agree that Rowling's style is more readable by actual generations, i would be curious to see if, around year 2509, she will still be known.
It's not just a matter of writing style: it's also about being creative and "cool" for your times.
Undubitably Shakespeare's subjects are immortal: lovers, liars, traitors, etc are still a core part of our modern movies and novels too. But that's not enough, the "Columbus egg" (as usual) is just to be the first one leaving something that deserves to be remembered.
Talking about something more recent, You may say that Finding Nemo is far better than Toy Story: but Toy Story still is the very first one entirely made with computer graphics only, and everyone looking at it should always consider how beautiful it was for its times.
For the very same reason i surely like much more the 1st Neverending Story movie against all of the Harry Potter's ones.
Same rules would apply to modern music: today everyone would be able to do Pink Floyd's like music, but by their time...
This thing is really true for every Art genre, at the end: books, paints, music, moviles, theatre works, poetry.
Such a subject would require pages over pages to be fully explained, so i would just set one general rule i feel very important.
I think the only way to fully appreciate past artists is not only to compare them with today's examples, but especially to try turning our mind and knowledge into the average ones the audience that specific Artist was creating his works for had.
At the end, try to become one of his usual listener to understand for real what he was able to say.
P.S.: one of my "modern" favs will always be Michael Ende, dear Rowling! :)
-
I AM SUPRISED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP BY NOW SINCE WE ARE DISCUSSING 'BAD WRITING' (AND SUBSEQUENTLY THEIR ATROCIOUS FILM KNOCK-OFFS) AND FURTHERMORE I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT SHAKESPEARE DID NOT EXIST.
True. But, there are just some lows no one should ever bring up. Like discussions on fighting for polygamy/gay marriage.
-
Alex posting.
Good point.
-
It's like everytime Alex actually posts, it is insta-awesome.
-
It's like everytime Alex actually posts, it is insta-awesome.
I support this.
-
fighting for polygamy/gay marriage.
wat
not synonyms
EDIT: Grandy deserves a medal or something for creating a thread that actually drew the attention of god alex.
-
wat
not synonyms
Not true. Legalize gay marriage and see for yourself what happens next.
-
However, the simple fact we still know who he was should mean something.
While i agree that Rowling's style is more readable by actual generations, i would be curious to see if, around year 2509, she will still be known.
Quite true, and my point is that by the year 2509, Frollock McCulligan, the writer everyone will read, will be the greatest writer, not Rowling.
EDIT: Grandy deserves a medal or something for creating a thread that actually drew the attention of god alex god.
Just doing my job.
-
Quite true, and my point is that by the year 2509, Frollock McCulligan, the writer everyone will read, will be the greatest writer, not Rowling.
And Frollock will be compared to Shakespeare.
-
Grandy deserves a medal or something for creating a thread that actually drew the attention of god alex.
He creates all the threads around here, anyways. It's bound to happen every so often.
-
He creates all the threads around here, anyways. It's bound to happen every so often.
Oh no, you didn't!
-
Didn't what?
-
PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS OR ANYTHING ELSE IN MY MOUTH ED.
-
Yeah! That's my job!
Not so much the words part, but yeah.
-
I need to break out into laughter, but I would wake my family at 2:03 AM by doing so.
-
You're in the future?!
How's like about an hour from now?
-
You're in the future?!
How's like about an hour from now?
I hear it doesn't have flying cars yet. :(
-
So this is the magic of the Shakespeare Effect...
Not what I was expecting, but cool nonetheless.
-
Flying cars will totally be compared to old-fashioned Ferraris in the future.
-
Would it not be more fair to compare modern cinema and broadway shows to Shakespeare? As others have said before, he was a play writer, not a novelist, and his works are meant for performance, not reading.
OT: Flying cars will probably run on hydrogen fuel cells, have incredible amounts of thrust, and be quite hard to maneuver, resembling controls more akin to helicopters than traditional cars. That's my prediction.
-
Would it not be more fair to compare modern cinema and broadway shows to Shakespeare? As others have said before, he was a play writer, not a novelist, and his works are meant for performance, not reading.
OT: Flying cars will probably run on hydrogen fuel cells, have incredible amounts of thrust, and be quite hard to maneuver, resembling controls more akin to helicopters than traditional cars. That's my prediction.
Eh, people crash enough nowadays. But then we can crash with style!
-
OT: Flying cars will probably run on hydrogen fuel cells, have incredible amounts of thrust, and be quite hard to maneuver, resembling controls more akin to helicopters than traditional cars. That's my prediction.
We have something like those. They're called hovercrafts.
-
Eh, people crash enough nowadays. But then we can crash with style!
Falling with style vs. flying?
-
I hadn't even thought about that.
-
Do we need the cowboy outfit or is Woody just trying to be snazzy?
-
The hat and boots supply the perfect levels of aerodynamics and wind resistance to not only sustain stylish falling, but to remain in-control during the experience.
It's required.
-
Indubitably
-
Same here
-
When you were a kid? I watched it up until the day the VHS caught fire and the VCR failed to eject it.
I need to get this on DVD. It's been at least three years since I've seen that movie.
-
OH AND DID YOU GUYS HEARD, THEY ARE MAKING A THIRD ONE.
I am so going to watch it. I dont care if I ll be the only person in the movies that is older than 10, but I am going to see it. x)
I thought the same thing too. :D And this is BIG because I never see movies in the theaters. NEVER. This movie may finally be my c-c-combo b-breaker!
-
It's gonna suck like Shrek 3 sucked.
-
It's gonna suck like Shrek 3 sucked.
DON'T JINKS IT GRANDY!!
-
It's Pixar. They haven't failed yet. They are the Valve of the movie world.
-
It's Pixar. They haven't failed yet. They are the Valve of the movie world.
"They havent failed yet?" *goes to look up the list of movie pixar made to prove Archem wrong*
*comes back*
You're quite correct, Archem.
-
When Pixar fails a comet will strike into the Earth and kill us all just to hide the atrocity.
-
Oh dear, it's bound to happen too. O_o We're doomed...
-
You're quite correct, Archem.
Wasn't it obvious from the start?
-
Wasn't it obvious from the start?
No.
-
I think Shakespeare is highly overrated. I think some - not everyone - but some people
seem to almost pretend to understand love Shakespeare with this pretencious, pathetic act
of being intellectual. I dunno... he's quite a statement-creating type of author who makes
people all "arty-farty". I also think that his "genius" and "compelling" storylines could be
thought up by just about any average Joe.
-
Good points about the thing about playing smart and artsy for liking Shakespeare. It actually looks lame IMO. It is like using Picasso to prove you have "class". It just doesn't make sense and is rather annoying.
-
No.
*eyes narrow*