Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmstinger102 posts in thread
Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmWhen I was in high school and Shakespeare was compulsory, I used to love the stories (plenty of sex and violence) but hated the language. Why could he have not said the same thing in plain and simple words? And why should we Aussies have to learn about old Pommie poets anyway?
When I was at uni in the 70s, I had a small part in the scottish play. I had one long speech to remember. It was most daunting, until it was pointed out to me that it was written in iambic pentameter, so that once the actor got into the rhythm, the actual words just seemed to flow.
As I matured, I began to appreciate the whole canon more and more. I realised that Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person (with the possible exception of Chaucer). Moreover, it was not only great literature, but if you could tap into the language, it was great theatre as well.
Nowadays, it stikes me that any theatre actor worth his or her salt has done, and yearns to do more Shakespeare, as an important aspect of their artistic development. Not only that, but the plays never seem to lose their audience appeal.
Finally, I regard myself as a devotee of Australian dramatic works and historical narratives. I value our national heritage to the point of jingoism. Having said that, I regard Shakespeare as just as much a part of our heritage as Britain's.
I therefore categorically disagree with the above proposition.
Superior being...but superior work?
Mon, 10 Nov 2008, 01:55 pm>>I think the Bible is a far superior work to any mentioned so far. I am sure there are more quotes from that source in modern English than from WS.
William Shakespeare is popularly believed to have contributed more new phrases to common-usage English than any other source...including words he made up. Samuel Johnson's 'A Dictionary Of The English Language' - the first standard English dictionary, published in 1755 - quotes Shakespeare more than any other author. Then it all really spreads from there.
Authors, poets, composers, painters, artists of all kinds since then have been unavoidably influenced by his work. 'Modern English' has been ingrained with his influence since its development, which is why he is still regarded (rightly or wrongly) as such an important component.
Yes, the Bible is a good and obvious example of a text that has been more far-reaching, and used as an inspiration for a collosal amount of popular culture. Shakespeare himself uses it as an influence.
But when you consider WS died in 1616, having exerted considerable influence for 30 years on the development of modern English; and that the King James translation of the Bible (the first version in English) was not published until 1611....there's a good chance that any modern English quotes from the Bible we know today may have actually been influenced by Shakespeare's language!
As for being 'far superior'...I guess you are talking in a general sense, but in the context of this discussion on a theatre forum, I'd disagree. While there are some terrific characters, many memorable scenes, and the basis of a couple of catchy musicals, the scene transitions are too long and it's all too repetitive and predictable. If I had to sit through a performance of the whole Bible, I'd probably have walked out around the Book of Nehemiah.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···