Do you like Shakespeare? (1 Viewer)

[guidomerkinsrules]

‘He contains the whole of literature’: is Dickens better than Shakespeare?

After rereading the entire works of the great Victorian novelist during the pandemic, Peter Conrad became convinced – whisper it – that Dickens is an even greater writer than that other British literary giant, the Bard

www.theguardian.com

Who is better, Dickens or Shakespeare? We asked nine prominent writers

Elif Shafak, Sarah Perry, Jeffrey Boakye and others tell us which of the two totemic literary figures they favour

www.theguardian.com

I’ll say it again- Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught as ‘literature’ anymore than contemporary TV screenplays should be

The play’s the thing

 

[Sun Wukong]

I’ll say it again- Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught as ‘literature’ anymore than contemporary TV screenplays should be

The play’s the thing

This is the correct response. Comparing a novelist and a playwright is pointless. They're totally different mediums. Shakespeare wasn't writing to have his stuff read by anyone outside of the production.

 

[tenordas]

I’ll say it again- Shakespeare shouldn’t be taught as ‘literature’ anymore than contemporary TV screenplays should be

The play’s the thing

100%.

Commenting on the article: IMHO, Dickens belongs in the literature classes, not Shakespeare. Shakespeare should be studied in drama class (by presenting the plays).

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

100%.

Commenting on the article: IMHO, Dickens belongs in the literature classes, not Shakespeare. Shakespeare should be studied in drama class (by presenting the plays).

I’d actually put Shakespeare (and most playwrights - August Wilson and Arthur Miller in particular) in history classes
To study Elizabethan era obviously - highlighting the contrast of learning through imagination vs learning through information-
But also to look at his takes on history and discuss unreliable narration and art as propaganda

 

[tenordas]

I’d actually put Shakespeare (and most playwrights - August Wilson and Arthur Miller in particular) in history classes
To study Elizabethan era obviously - highlighting the contrast of learning through imagination vs learning through information-
But also to look at his takes on history and discuss unreliable narration and art as propaganda

The last is a fair point, though one has to realize that artists were heavily under the eyes of censors in that era of history. Shakespeare wrote what he was allowed to write in his histories, even though I'm sure he knew some of it was quite inaccurate.

We in the opera world always try to make productions of Verdi's "Un ballo in maschera" closer to what he originally intended before the censors made him change everything from Sweden to Boston. The Italian government of his day absolutely refused to allow his opera to portray the assassination of a Swedish king, especially in the light of said king forgiving his killer, and all being "okay" in the end. They thought it was way too dangerous for the common people to see such a plot.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

I get Shakespeare. I'm in awe of the sheer volume of works he completed. His vocabulary was prodigious (see what I did there?).

But over the hundreds of years since his death, his stories have been adapted, folded, spindled, and mutilated to the extent that most folks are tired of the same old tales being told again and again.

Hollywood of late can't come up with an original idea to save their collective backside. Stories that wouldn't have flown 30 or 40 years ago because they're lame/nonsensical/stupid are going over as acceptable because they're not the same ol' same ol'.