In other (and fewer) words, Shakespeare is considered to be one of the most economical writers in the history of literature by you.
No. I’ve read such sentiments expressed dozens of times by many authors, but I’m not going to go spend hours re-reading books to provide you a cite. Take it for what it’s worth. If you disagree, so be it.
This post is boring.
If it is so common a sentiment, you should be able to google it up in no time.
Yes, I’ll take your statement for what it’s worth.
You are not describing prose when you talk about meter and rhyme. Normally, I would just chalk that up to sloppiness, but in the case of Shakespeare, the difference between the prose passages and the rhymed or blank verse passages is important.
For the point I am making the prose/poetry distinction is entirely irrelevant. Replace ‘prose’ with ‘poetry’ as you wish, if you gain some satisfaction by it. I typically consider most of Shakespeare’s plays entirely prose, despite the oft-iabmic-pentameter and sometimes-rhyme.
I don’t really gain satisfaction from you, no.
Edited after your edit: Oh, well, if YOU consider it “entirely prose” my goodness, who am I and definitions and actual academia to stand in your way?
Oh, you mean that I should be referring to it as verse? If that’s what you meant, then why didn’t you say so? That is certainly distinct from ‘poetry’. And you would be right – in this case I should have written “verse”, but I think that is a bit pedantic because, again, it is entirely irrelevant to the point.
This entire thread – not merely your own utter silliness but also the anger you’ve excite in response – is asinine. Just completely, totally stupid. I mean. Wow.
So I’m only popping in to ask: are you really going to stick to your claim Shakespeare the most “economical” writer in the history of literature? And more – widely considered to be thus? Perhaps Shakespeare could put on a cheap play, I dunno, but to call him an economical as a writer is simply bizarre, unless you have some idiosyncratic notion of “economical writing”.
Not a criticism of Shakespeare, of whom I too have some fondness. But, seriously, economical?
You should be referring to prose as “prose” when it’s prose. You should be referring to verse as “verse” when it’s verse. I understand that you are finding the discussion of the differences boring. Perhaps if you understood the basics, you wouldn’t be so dismissive?
“There’s no accounting for taste.”
Since you also have some fondness for Shakespeare, perhaps you could help me better express the sentiment? Instead of being a total asshole?
I had his sonnets specifically in mind, and I said so in response to Frank. You don’t think they are economical? I think they are obviously so. First of all, they are sonnet form, and the total number of words is tightly constrained. Can you think of a more economical sonnet author. I can think of no one who comes close to expressing so much with so little.
But he KNOWS Shakespeare! How can you claim he’s WRONG about something?
Funny how he can consider something that’s actually verse as ‘entirely prose’, but nobody else can consider something he thinks is interesting to be boring.
You’d think facts would be less susceptible to personal opinion than subjective reactions, but…what do I know? I AM Batman.
Funny how someone can make an honest, stupid mistake when he should really be going to bed (a mistake that is entirely irrelevant to the point he was trying to make – a point that no one has responded to) and still be attacked relentlessly for it by hypocritical jerks.
Paranoid Randroid – i just realized that I shouldn’t have called you an asshole. I misunderstood that your first line was aimed at the thread, mostly, instead of me specifically. Mistake. Got to get to bed. Seriously.
Batman is the king of all Japanese demons? I can see it.
As a partial defense of notbatman, I have met some people who proclaim things to be ‘boring’ and can’t understand how it could ever be otherwise, probably because they are intellectually lazy. An example, “You went to the symphony? That’s nice I guess but classical music is soo boring. I never really understood how anyone can like it.”
I also agree with him that there are a lot of people who find things boring when in reality they simply don’t like it or don’t know much about it. This might be perfectly valid social short-hand for some, but it bothers me. I guess I prefer a bit more precision in language, but whatever it’s really no big deal.
In summary, I’m not really seeing the rationale behind the vitriol in this thread. Hell, pretension is sorta part and parcel here.
Me either. I find iamnotbatman’s position pretty unremarkable.
How we experience a work is the result of the interaction between the work and our aesthetic frame. The same work can be interesting in one frame and boring in another.
So, frankly, it IS kind of annoying when people say something like “Shakespeare is boring”, as though boringness were an intrinsic property of Shakespeare. If you don’t like Shakespeare, just say “I don’t like Shakespeare!” You don’t have to justify your dislike by putting down something that other people like.
How about when someone expresses an aesthetic judgment you just say to yourself, “This is subjective, therefore it is an opinion.” After a while, you’ll even be able to sleep nights without someone spelling out that their opinions are opinions.
Because “there’s no accounting for taste” is an aesthetic dead end. It makes any sort of discussion about art impossible. Every like or dislike becomes merely a personal whim, impervious to analysis or challenge.
I’ll refer again to Mr. Plinkett’s dissection of the failures of the Star Wars prequels. He doesn’t just cavalierly dismiss them by saying “The prequels are boring.” Instead, he takes them apart piece by piece, showing how particular creative decisions by Lucas interfere with the audience’s capability to enjoy the experience. “The prequels are boring” is not merely his reflexive aesthetic response, but an aesthetic response justified by evidence and argument.
If I have a negative experience with a work of art, it may be because the art itself is at fault. It might be poorly conceived or poorly executed, making it very difficult to find any aesthetic frame in which it will yield pleasure. Or, it may merely be aimed at an audience that isn’t me. The thing is, if you’re accustomed to thinking of your default aesthetic frame as privileged in some way, it’s very easy to mistake the latter for the former. “I don’t get it” can easily slide into “there’s nothing there to get”.
If you come at it as you are right and the other person is wrong, then yes. It will be a dead end. If instead you come at it as everyone is bringing opinions to the table, then no, It’s no more a dead end than any other conversation where people are invited to share opinions.
What I’m inviting you to do is to fill in the words you think are missing in order for you to be able to view that person’s opinion as exactly that, an opinion. If someone says “This is boring” they are expressing an opinion. Hear it that way instead of acting as if they have to say the magic words. What they mean is “I find this boring.” You have said that’s an acceptable thing to say, so just hear what they mean instead of the precise words you think they should be uttering and everyone is happy.