What do you think the academics would say about Shakespeare, if he wrote today?

Status
Not open for further replies.

MarionRivers

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Let's assume that people can understand the dialogue as easily as they can understand modern English(which some of can do for the most part).

I think this is what the academics would say:

-His stuff is long and self-indulgent, filled with unnecessary sololiquies. dialogues, and monologues that tell what characters are thinking rather than showing it.

-Too much of his dialogue is blunt and cheesy. (I acted in Hamlet recently, and I gave a totally over-the-top campy performance, and it worked!)

-He uses far too many story-telling devices such as letters and messengers, whose sole purpose is to bring word of whatever's going on.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, though. Shakespeare wrote incredible plays, and the academics are hypocrites. Many praise in Shakespeare what they teach is poor writing technique today. I say anything goes in terms of writing technique, as long as it's entertaining and works, and academics really need to start either judging olden work by modern standards or loosen modern standards.
 

alleycat

Still around
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
72,873
Reaction score
12,224
Location
Tennessee
My guess would be that they would be looking for symbolism like they always are. Then they would judge it on its social relevance and political correctness.
 

MarionRivers

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
My guess would be that they would be looking for symbolism like they always are. Then they would judge it on its social relevance and political correctness.
Well, his stuff ain't politically correct nor doe sit fit with the socialist way of looking at the world! It's just good fun.
 

alleycat

Still around
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
72,873
Reaction score
12,224
Location
Tennessee
If Shakespeare was writing Romeo & Juliet today, Romeo would probably have to be confused about his sexuality and Juliet would have to be going through a crisis trying to decide between Romeo and her career as an opera singer. The play might be titled Romeo & Juliet & Bruce.

;-) Just kidding . . . mostly.
 

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Romeo would be a vampire; Juliet would be a werewolf.

Half the women disguising themselves as men would have done so because it was a lifestyle choice. Ditto for the men in dresses.

The dialogue would be dismissed as "cliche" (since most of the cliche's are his anywho.)
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Let's assume that people can understand the dialogue as easily as they can understand modern English(which some of can do for the most part).

I think this is what the academics would say:

-His stuff is long and self-indulgent, filled with unnecessary sololiquies. dialogues, and monologues that tell what characters are thinking rather than showing it.

Actually, I've always thought Shakespeare's plays tend to be fairly short compared to some things written today. And I think a lot of today's stuff is a lot more self-indulgent than Shakespeare.

And the thing about his dialogues and monologues are that they don't tell you what the characters are feeling. Believing that is barely skimming the surface. True, it tells us exactly what the characters are thinking, but we still use that today plenty in 1st person and limited third POV's. In Shakespeare's monologues, we follow the characters' trains of thought, but rarely do they ever come out and say "I am feeling conflicted, angry, and bitter!" or anything like that. Rather, they deliberate over the set of circumstances and possible courses of action, often with much figurative language, and it is through the tone, diction, sound, rhythm, imagery, etc., that we are able to discern how they feel.

This is not the count in the actor's performance as well. With as few stage directions as Shakespeare uses, actors could portray the same character in any number of ways--and though the speeches offer many clues, there is still a range of emotions an actor could use. With the right performance, regardless of what the speech may imply, a Shakespearean character could be feeling many things.

-Too much of his dialogue is blunt and cheesy. (I acted in Hamlet recently, and I gave a totally over-the-top campy performance, and it worked!)

You'll have to give a few more examples on this; I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

-He uses far too many story-telling devices such as letters and messengers, whose sole purpose is to bring word of whatever's going on.

*shrug*

I see no problem with using those today. If it is the only possible way to bring word of something, go for it. Sometimes it's just the most realistic thing possible. I haven't heard that letters or messengers were bad.

My guess would be that they would be looking for symbolism like they always are. Then they would judge it on its social relevance and political correctness.

Political correctness? Huh? I've never had an English professor judge anything on its political correctness...

MarionRivers said:
Well, his stuff ain't politically correct nor doe sit fit with the socialist way of looking at the world! It's just good fun.

Socialist way of looking at the world? Huh? Explain.
 

alleycat

Still around
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
72,873
Reaction score
12,224
Location
Tennessee
Vampire! Of course, why didn't I think of that.

He would also need a cute nickname that all his friends use. Maybe Romey?
 

BlueLucario

Blood Elves FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
2,627
Reaction score
220
Location
South Florida
What the people in Class would say?

What the hell is Shakespeare saying? :LOL:
 

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,618
Reaction score
4,031
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Vampire! Of course, why didn't I think of that.

He would also need a cute nickname that all his friends use. Maybe Romey?

The two of them instantly bond upon discovering that their friends call them both "fang"; then they share in a buffet table made up of their classmates.

Romey is so distraught when Jules gets fixed that he stakes himself at high noon. Luckily the stake is solid silver, so Jules is able to off herself shortly thereafter.
 

willietheshakes

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
726
Location
Semi-sunny Victoria BC
It's a bit of a silly question, actually. Shakespeare was a visionary, yes, but he wrote (largely) within the stylistic milieu of his time, according to audience needs, etc, etc. It's making a huge (and unsupportable, I believe) leap to think that he would write those works in that way in THIS time. And the idea that academics should judge "olden" (btw, wtf?) works by modern standards (ie, your points) is patently ridiculous. Starting from the notion that academia "judges" works like some sort of bookish American Idol...

Shakespeare isn't performed or studied because it conforms to our contemporary structures and expectations; he's studied and performed because there are truths and themes (and fabulous writing) which transcend the of-his-time stylistic approaches.

You don't even have to go as far back as Shakespeare -- look at Arthur Miller, or Tennessee Williams. They feel, in many ways, more dated (and artificial, which seems to be underlying many of your points).

(And, for the record, it seems like you might just have an axe to grind with academics. And that's fine. But painting them all with the "socialist" brush, as if that's the equivalent of baby-eaters? It's a bit silly. And as far as Shakespeare not conforming to that, I'd suggest reading the Histories in regent-order -- Shakespeare says some very subtle and cutting things about the nature of power and monarchy that definitely can be read as supporting a proto-socialist worldview.)
 

maxmordon

Penúltimo
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
11,536
Reaction score
2,479
Location
Venezuela
Website
twitter.com
If Shakespeare was writing Romeo & Juliet today, Romeo would probably have to be confused about his sexuality and Juliet would have to be going through a crisis trying to decide between Romeo and her career as an opera singer. The play might be titled Romeo & Juliet & Bruce.

;-) Just kidding . . . mostly.

Argentine comedic group Les Luthiers did something like that. A faux radio publicity for a Shakespeare's adaptation called Romeo & Juan Carlos
 
Last edited:

KTC

Stand in the Place Where You Live
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
29,138
Reaction score
8,563
Location
Toronto
Website
ktcraig.com
Let's not assume at all. The English language is constantly changing. To remove a writer from their era and compare them to others in different eras is idiotic. It shouldn't be done and it bothers me every single time somebody brings it up. Don't compare eras. Don't compare classics in today's light. There is no need for it.

Having said that, it's clear that Shakespeare is timeless.
 

KTC

Stand in the Place Where You Live
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
29,138
Reaction score
8,563
Location
Toronto
Website
ktcraig.com
I think this is what the academics would say:

-His stuff is long and self-indulgent, filled with unnecessary sololiquies. dialogues, and monologues that tell what characters are thinking rather than showing it.

-Too much of his dialogue is blunt and cheesy. (I acted in Hamlet recently, and I gave a totally over-the-top campy performance, and it worked!)

-He uses far too many story-telling devices such as letters and messengers, whose sole purpose is to bring word of whatever's going on.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, though. Shakespeare wrote incredible plays, and the academics are hypocrites. Many praise in Shakespeare what they teach is poor writing technique today. I say anything goes in terms of writing technique, as long as it's entertaining and works, and academics really need to start either judging olden work by modern standards or loosen modern standards.


This is just insulting.
 

Claudia Gray

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
604
I'm with Willie and KTC. Shakespeare's genius is part of his time -- there's no way to guess what he'd be writing now, because it would be different; also, who's to say what today's drama would look like, period, without the centuries of influence from Shakespeare? Also, not all academics are ignorant Commie bastards out of some '50s movie.
 

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you
Requiescat In Pace
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
20,006
Reaction score
5,352
Location
Going shopping with Soccer Mom and Bubastes for fu
Amen. It's just like the people who used to say that Mike Tyson could take Muhammed Ali in a fight. *My response was always, No. Duh. Ali can take a hit and Tyson can't. Which was proved by Buster Douglas, so I was right, but I digress*

There can be no comparison between Shakespeare and now. Or Jane Austen and now. Or Dickens and now. It doesn't work that way. They wrote classic literature. We write the new classics of literature.

Case closed. Lock thread.
 

KTC

Stand in the Place Where You Live
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
29,138
Reaction score
8,563
Location
Toronto
Website
ktcraig.com
Besides, I honestly don't visualize an 'academic' using the word, "cheesy". I just don't see it.
 

Willowmound

Lightly salted
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
1,760
Reaction score
247
Location
Afloat
This is pure silliness. If Shakespeare were writing today, he would be writing in today's language and style. He might be writing screenplays.

I say Shakespeare is writing today. Don't know his name though.
 

MarionRivers

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I'm half-joking about all that socialist politically-correct stuff, though I mean many of his plays are pro-autocracy and racist (which I don't have a problem with in fiction).

I think Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English langauge, on the basis of how entertaining and affecting his work is, but what I'm getting at is that we shouldn't say that some work is dated and some is not. All work should stand on its own merits regardless of whether its an ancient work or a piece of contemporary lit.

The bard's work is what it is, and if you take the time to learn the language and the history, it has just as much impact. What I'm getting at is that there's no reason for us to think we have to view anything differently based upon when it was written. It degrades the fact that so much olden literature is still extremely good. If the Shakespeare I know lived in today's day, he would not write any differently than he did back then.

Basically what I'm saying is that I object to the fact that there are double-standards in viewing older literature versus modern literature. There shouldn't be.

And by the way, what I mean by blunt cheesey lines in Shakespeare is that he's prone to B-movie style one-liners like "Oh, I am slain" in Hamlet. I love all his dialogue so much, and part of its charm is the fact that it doesn't always take itself too seriously.
 

willietheshakes

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
726
Location
Semi-sunny Victoria BC
I'm half-joking about all that socialist politically-correct stuff, though I mean many of his plays are pro-autocracy and racist (which I don't have a problem with in fiction).

I think Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English langauge, on the basis of how entertaining and affecting his work is, but what I'm getting at is that we shouldn't say that some work is dated and some is not. All work should stand on its own merits regardless of whether its an ancient work or a piece of contemporary lit.

The bard's work is what it is, and if you take the time to learn the language and the history, it has just as much impact. What I'm getting at is that there's no reason for us to think we have to view anything differently based upon when it was written. It degrades the fact that so much olden literature is still extremely good. If the Shakespeare I know lived in today's day, he would not write any differently than he did back then.

Basically what I'm saying is that I object to the fact that there are double-standards in viewing older literature versus modern literature. There shouldn't be.

And by the way, what I mean by blunt cheesey lines in Shakespeare is that he's prone to B-movie style one-liners like "Oh, I am slain" in Hamlet. I love all his dialogue so much, and part of its charm is the fact that it doesn't always take itself too seriously.

Of COURSE Shakespeare would write differently if he were writing today -- to claim otherwise is just silly.

Look, it's as if you're trying to have it both ways, by saying that literature should be judged by a single set of criteria in one breath (ignoring its time period), and then saying that one should get to know the language and history to fully appreciate Shakespeare -- which way do you want it?

OF COURSE we have to view things according to their period -- it's not a matter of making allowances or excuses, but of getting to know the work. It goes beyond that, though -- all works, regardless of time, should be evaluated by their merits, not by arbitrary criteria. Case in point -- which is the better Cormac McCarthy book, Outer Dark, with its labyrinthine sentences and dense referentiality, or The Road, with its parsed minimalism? You know what? It doesn't matter -- both works, ALL works, have their strengths and weaknesses, and should be read for and according to them... It's not double standards, it's process.

(By the way - what Shakespeare plays are pro-autocracy? The Histories? Hardly. I'm genuinely curious.)
 

MarionRivers

Registered
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
"Look, it's as if you're trying to have it both ways, by saying that literature should be judged by a single set of criteria in one breath (ignoring its time period), and then saying that one should get to know the language and history to fully appreciate Shakespeare -- which way do you want it?"

The Roman stuff is pro-autocracy. Read Coriolanus. Even then, I mean there are elements of everything in his work. Some of his plays are very racist, while others are very forward thinking in that regard.

But to answer what you've bought up, I make the analogy of Shakespeare being written in a foreign language and a different society (and it was a different society). We don't judge books from other countries differently because they're not written to our familiarity. Granted, we may have to translate the book (or learn the language) and acquiant ourselves with the culture, but we don't say that one writing technique works in books from Germany but not in books from Mexico or anything like that.

I don't like how some academics ignore clear instances of "sloppiness" in Shakespeare but would criticize the same usage in contemporary works.
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,245
I was in my thirties before I started laughing at some of Shakespeare's stuff. Truly getting it.

He wrote to entertain, not to be analysed.

Plus, if he looked anything like Joseph Fiennes, I would've banged him.
 

willietheshakes

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,661
Reaction score
726
Location
Semi-sunny Victoria BC
"Look, it's as if you're trying to have it both ways, by saying that literature should be judged by a single set of criteria in one breath (ignoring its time period), and then saying that one should get to know the language and history to fully appreciate Shakespeare -- which way do you want it?"

The Roman stuff is pro-autocracy. Read Coriolanus. Even then, I mean there are elements of everything in his work. Some of his plays are very racist, while others are very forward thinking in that regard.

But to answer what you've bought up, I make the analogy of Shakespeare being written in a foreign language and a different society (and it was a different society). We don't judge books from other countries differently because they're not written to our familiarity. Granted, we may have to translate the book (or learn the language) and acquiant ourselves with the culture, but we don't say that one writing technique works in books from Germany but not in books from Mexico or anything like that.

I don't like how some academics ignore clear instances of "sloppiness" in Shakespeare but would criticize the same usage in contemporary works.

Ah, yes. Coriolanus. In which the demagogic anti-plebian is assassinated... Definitely pro-autocratic. I stand corrected.

Sheesh.

As to your point -- my point, which I've mentioned a couple of times, is that we don't judge groups of books in the way you're describing. What you're describing isn't academia -- it's pigeon-holing and reductiveness. People who study literature study literary works. Perhaps as parts of movements, perhaps as parts of time periods, perhaps as reflections of themes or shared elements, but not in the way you're describing.

Look, you're putting up straw men and picking fights where none exist. There's no double standard in how historical works are treated versus contemporary works. IE, no one is comparing The Da Vinci Code to King Lear and bemoaning the lack of soliloquies. No one is criticizing Stephen King for failing to write short stories as "great" as those in Dubliners. Works are evaluated on their own terms and within their own contexts. You're complaining about nothing.

(Oh, and academics ignorning sloppiness in Shakespeare? I'm guessing you haven't read much Shakespearean criticism -- there are whole libraries, and many, many tenures, made on precisely that subject.)
 

Deleted member 42

Let's assume that people can understand the dialogue as easily as they can understand modern English(which some of can do for the most part).

I think this is what the academics would say:

-His stuff is long and self-indulgent, filled with unnecessary sololiquies. dialogues, and monologues that tell what characters are thinking rather than showing it.

-Too much of his dialogue is blunt and cheesy. (I acted in Hamlet recently, and I gave a totally over-the-top campy performance, and it worked!)

-He uses far too many story-telling devices such as letters and messengers, whose sole purpose is to bring word of whatever's going on.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, though. Shakespeare wrote incredible plays, and the academics are hypocrites. Many praise in Shakespeare what they teach is poor writing technique today. I say anything goes in terms of writing technique, as long as it's entertaining and works, and academics really need to start either judging olden work by modern standards or loosen modern standards.

Umm, no, we really wouldn't say that, because none of the foregoing is true.

It really isn't.

Shakespeare is every bit as good as Stephen King.

You need a lot more exposure to "academics," before you can theorize about what we'd say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.