The Shakspeare effect.

[Archem]

Lol Ayn Rand.

Oh, wait, that's not what you read?

[FFL2and3rocks]

You know what was required reading for me? This crap

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?

[Archem]

And And And?

[Uberpwn_w00t]

Andy Andrews?

Is his middle name Anderson?

Now I'm curious as to what his middle name is...

[SaiKar]

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.

[Grandy]

Where are my 6+ pages of off-topic? I can't believe it, this is the first time you guys ever disappointed me.

[Archem]

Speaking of Dragonball, what's your favorite colored people?

[Red Giant]

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.

[Grandy]

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.

[Shady Ultima]

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

[Grandy]

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."

[Valiere]

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.

[Shady Ultima]

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.

[Drace]

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.

[Grandy]

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.