The Shakspeare effect.

[Grandy]

 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.

[Valiere]

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.

[Bluhman]

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.

[Legacy of Elecrusher]

I had something insightful to say, but my brother's idiocy devours all intelligent thought within a quarter-mile.

[Grandy]

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.

[Legacy of Elecrusher]

So how about them cougers?

[Shady Ultima]

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.

[Dragonium]

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.

[Shady Ultima]

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.

[Archem]

Yeah, I'll go with that.

[Valiere]

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.

[Shady Ultima]

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...

[Archem]

I enjoyed Gatsby...

[Legacy of Elecrusher]

Never heard of it.

[Uberpwn_w00t]

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.