- 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.
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.