According to this list, seven of his novels made the Top 10 list for the year they were published
Here’s a glitch with defining “quality” by ticket sales: things that we pay for are things we have not yet seen/read/heard/judged for ourselves. So why should we judge Star Wars Episode 1 as one of the “quality” films when an overwhelming amount of those who paid for it decided they didn’t like it? They had already paid for it, right? It was “popularly successful”. If we go by your rubrick of popularity, it means that all those who paid for a ticket and didn’t like it are “voting” that it’s quality.
Obviously, this is ridiculous, and we can’t go on sales or popularity to judge quality. We have to, at the very least, read reviews. And that leads us back to personal opinion. Engendering personal opinion in a general positive tone for hundreds of years seems to indicate that the reviews on Shakespear are overwhelming proclaiming it to be of good quality. That doesn’t mean you specifically have to like it.
I personally don’t like brick houses. Think they look cold and sterile. But that doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge the quality of brick construction. I just like the look of wood better. Similarly, you could acknowledge the quality of Shakespear’s writing in , while confessing a preference for Tom Clancy and be in complete integrety.
As an aside, one of the reasons playhouses were feared was simply biological - they were often closed due to worries about spreading plagues and sickness. Sick people packed in with healthy people = more chance of spreading disease. Shakespear was hugely popular in his day with the (literally) unwashed masses. He *was *the Stephen King of the sixteenth century.
And this establishes that popular taste is superior – how?
The principal objection to the theatre by Puritans (yes, it was the Puritans) was that it was too popular, and that young people were skiving off work to attend.
Unfortunately, you’re quite simply wrong in your facts.
Unfortunately for you, you’re not God.
You won’t, of course, but to those others following this thread, I strongly recommend reading C. S. Lewis’s An Experiment in Criticism.
I see John W. Kennedy has already responded to this, but to clarify my experience: When I took a quarter of Shakespearian acting classes way back in 1990, my instructor described the “Classical British Style” of acting Shakespeare - it essentially boiled down to these steps 1. Make you entrance, walk directly to your mark and stand facing your audience 2. Clasp your hands together in front of your chest and remain standing still 3. Deliver your lines directly to the audience. Don’t look at the other actors. 4. All your acting should be in your voice and from the neck up. Don’t involve your body. 5. Diction is more important than acting.
I actually saw one production like this, a version of King Lear which was, unfortunately, the first Shakespeare I was ever exposed to. It was beyond terrible. My instructor’s explanation for this awful style of acting was that British audiences only want to hear the words recited, they don’t want their Shakespeare polluted by needless theatrics. Shakespeare should be performed the same way as Schubert’s Great Mass is sung - somberly, with all the focus on lyricism and pronounciation. The British, according to my instructor, bring their Shakespeare scripts along to performances and read through them, following along with the actors. Any deviation or mispronounciation is met with boos.
My instructor ended up the lesson by saying “…so if you want to do Shakespeare right, the way Shakespeare himself staged it, with all the fights, emotion and gut churning drama, you need to do it in an *American * theater.”
Since then, I’ve broadened my horizons a bit, and I know all British theater isn’t that way. As a matter of fact, other than the old BBC broadcasts already mentioned, the King Lear I saw, and anecdotes from other actors I’ve spoken with (there are *millions * of stories about productions like these,) I haven’t personally seen any evidence of this “Classical British Style” at all. Thinking over the memory of that King Lear performance, it’s a miracle I ever allowed Shakespeare back into my life again. Especially since my next experience with Shakespeare was reading Romeo and Juliet in high school, with an instructor who seemed to be determined to make the experience of reading and understanding the play as dry and unfulfilling as humanly possible. I can’t blame someone whose had similar experiences and now avoids Shakespeare passionately.
Since when is Red Lobster a cut above McDonald’s? The “masses,” indeed.
kind of…
Um, ok. I won’t turn down a free meal, though I share EJsGirl bafflement at Red Lobster being considered some sort of elitist restaurant.
Boy do I have the critics….
To NAF1138 and the Mr. Kennedy
Yes, to make money shows traveled because small communities couldn’t support a theatre company. But that same traveling brought with it the “luggage” of an unsavory element that took advantage of the mobility. It is this element that stigmatize traveling shows not only in English but the Gypsies of Eastern Europe, 19th Century circuses of P.T Barnum, and pretty much all traveling enterprises. Communities throughout English ban theatre companies, and when theatres were being built neighborhoods objected. It wasn’t just about rowdy patrons and youthful activities, but a serious crime problem. A large segment of the patrons were nothing more than thieves, rogues, and prostitutes. Doubt me if you wish but its easy to validate, checkout the history of the Globe Theatre.
To my Steinbeck critics
I originally was going over the writers I remembered from my literature courses; I remembered Faulkner, Dickens, and Cheever. But I felt wrong including Cheever because I like the Swimmer, so I had to think of another to make three. I then remembered Steinbeck and how I hated his depressing The Grape of Wrath and Of Mice And Men. I like stories that leave me wanting more, both of these stories left me wanting less. Yes, Steinbeck had a very successful career. But to help my critics neither Dickens, nor Faulkner were unpopular either. On the other hand, Wells, Doyle, and Verne were no slackers either. The differences between the two groups I named were over subject matter, the last three, fantasy-fiction.
The greatest of art should be enjoyed by the greatest number of people. Why is that so hard to believe? To some, Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” (often claimed to be Mapplethorpe’s) and Cristo’s wrapping of Central Park are great art. But to most Americans, great art isn’t used you vaguely. I don’t like Kelly Clarkson, but apparently some people do. I never have watched an episode of Survivor, Big Brother, or the dozen or so CSIs, but who am I to say that we don’t have good television. To each his own. Unless my critics know otherwise, when did we elect one group to speak for everyone?
I haven’t claimed I knew who is the best writer, I just don’t think we should hand out the crown just because it is taught that way. I don’t know of one student group, one parental group, or even one “future” employer group that ran to the schools demanding that students learn Shakespeare. Shakespeare is drilled into students like some elitist propaganda. Shakespeare’s plays are performed in colleges and major cities, but rarely come to small town America. Small towns have playhouses and high schools have their own plays, but how often do they perform Shakespeare? New York City has Broadway, why isn’t there a permanent Shakespeare theatre? I don’t think the people said that Shakespeare was the greatest… I think some group of elitist did. I never said Shakespeare was a bad writer, just his fan base wasn’t deserving of the clear title of the greatest. And as the original question was Why is William Shakespeare considered the greatest English language writer of all time? … If he is considered the greatest is writer, its because of his ability to convey his message to the greatest number of people. The only way he is doing it right now is by force. I can honestly say that neither in high school nor in college did I ever feel me or my classmates were ever moved by Shakespeare.
I openly admit…I am not an expert on William Shakespeare nor have I lived my life in the New York City Library. I have read only four Shakespearean pieces and I wasn’t really impressed. I am not encouraged to read more. In fairness, I have never read Stephen King or Tom Clancy, I have only heard first person reviews.
The latter two are to me far more entertaining in a movie format. If a Shakespeare troup come throught town I promise to give it another type. But short of Richard Burton rising from the grave to play Hamlet, I doubt the rest of my community will turn out.
As for Larry and Red Lobster, if I do get any free meals you may have them, but please let me apology. I wanted to leave with a bit of humor and sadly it backfired. Food isn’t art in the meaning that I was describing. I apologize again to anyone who might have been mislead into eating Big Macs at McDonalds because of its artistic qualities.
Another Challenge : Who is to decide who is the greatest English language writer of all time?
Again…sorry for my poor writing style.
And this is because you’re continuing to stick to the “Shakespeare’s considered a great writer because we’re forced by some elitist cadre to consider him a great writer.”
We have been telling you why we consider Shakespeare a great writer. We have also told you that we don’t kowtow either to popular opinion or the opinions of the “elite” you persist in talking about.
It’s also because you continue to carp about popularity being in any way related to quality. You know that’s total BS, because you know that Mickey D’s 99 billion whatevers do not mean that the stuff they hawk is good food. It’s fast, cheap, convenient food, but I would not believe anyone who claimed to prefer a Big Mac to an 8-oz Coleman beef burger, grilled over hickory chunks, with a few slices of maple-cured bacon, a slab of Cabot cheddar, and a slice of Vidalia onion. Or, rather, I’d put both of them on the table in front of him, offer him the choice (free), and see if he was willing to put his money where his mouth was.
Some, perhaps. Most consider it marginal, and many consider conceptual art in general to be marginal.
Okay, let me take this from the top.
Because Shakespeare’s English is archaic, and he makes references that are not generally familiar to modern readers (e.g., “Hyperion to a satyr”), he’s not as approachable as a modern author, and it requires a bit of effort to appreciate his work. Many people who have made the effort have come to appreciate his writing. Teachers are not forcing students to think that Shakespeare is a great writer because of some elitist plot: they are teaching Shakespeare because they consider his writing great, and are trying to give students the equipment to appreciate it.
Who is in a better position to evaluate the quality of writing than other writers? And most writers you ask will tell you that they consider Shakespeare to be a great writer; some will say the greatest writer. And they say that because they’d give their right arms to be able to write as he did – not what he wrote, but the way he wrote.
Me, me! I prefer the Big Mac!
(not really—I’m just saying that so you’ll put both of them in front of me!)
I found I wan’t able to completely enjoy Shakespeare until recently – because now I speak Spanish , and so can watch a production (on DVD, say) with Spanish subtitles. Thus I can let the sounds of the original poetry wash over me, without missing the meaning. If any of you speak a second language, try out this unexpected benefit. If you don’t, now you have another reason to learn one.
While wissdok’s concept of art is demonstrably flawed, and his understanding of why the works are studied is incorrect, he does, nevertheless, come close to hitting a valuable truth:
Shakespeare often isn’t appreciated by those forced to study it.
Shakespeare is an acquired taste, as is good Chardonnay. It becomes more and more difficult for young students to want to acquire it as time passes and the writing style becomes hopelessly archaic. Often, modern audiences become entranced by the stories of the plays, when they are rendered into a modern form, but to say that this is teaching someone to appreciate Shakespeare is the same as saying that drinking Swiss Miss cocoa teaches us to appreciate fine chocolate.
Now, one can easily get into a bit of a Chicken and Egg discussion about why it is that we are consistently taught Shakespeare in school. However, there are easily demonstrable reasons why his plays and sonnets are required reading in literature courses still, reasons that don’t rely upon the concept of inertia. Unfortunately, the article by “Cecil Adams” did very little to explain this. By focussing almost solely upon the issue of the intricacies of the language used, the author of that StraightDope answer fell right into the trap that allows people like wissdok to assault the whole concept. Frankly, there is nothing inherently superior about the language of the plays; any number of English writers have demonstrated equally capable use of language to make subtle points, to describe things, or to convey a sense of place and action. Still, that fact alone does not mean that Stephen King is a better writer than Shakespeare was, no matter how popular he may presently be.
If we are still reading Stephen King novels in 2400, we can talk about how good he is in comparison.
A couple of lines from Alexander Pope’s Imitations of Horace: First Epistle of the Second Book. (Published in 1737).
“Or damn all Shakespeare, like th’ affected fool
At court, who hates whate’er he read at school.”
This is an old, old story.
Although I’ve read this a few times I still come to the conclusion it’s just a bad generalisation and a condescending one at that.
It may well be your opinion that the BBC/Time- Life series was soporific, I’d agree to some extent, but to condemn the whole of British Shakespearean live theatre as stinking of the Lyceum comes across as pretentious rubbish.
Watching Hamlet at Stratford last year was a theatrical experience I shall treasure, nor did it stink of the Lyceum. Of course, it was only the Royal Shakespearean Company but perhaps they managed to pick up a couple of tips from some passing American Shakespearean actor.
Having recently watched Mark Ryland in Richard the Second I have to say that I thought his performance was impressive and not in the slightest “looney”. Perhaps you might like to descend from your high horse and explain your remark.
I really don’t know where you’re getting this, but it’s more or less complete hooey. As nearly as I can tell, you’ve read some period anti-theatre Puritan propaganda and accepted it all at face value.
Assuming that you are using “should be” in a way that is consistent with what you have said so far, it is impossible to believe, because it is contrary to logic. If you have cancer, do you pick the first person you see on the street and ask him to help you, or do you go to a doctor? If your car doesn’t run, do you go to the bag boy at the supermarket, or to a mechanic? If you’re arrested for something you didn’t do, do you call Andy Griffith, or a lawyer? But it is also demonstrably false. If public taste were anything to boast of, Babylon 5 would have had higher ratings that Star Trek. If the public had any notion of what makes good literature, Harlequin Romances would be out of business. And let’s not even mention Britney Spears.
As several people have already pointed out in this thread, you could start with all the other writers
Of course Mark Ryland may have appeared in Richard the Second somewhere but I meant to say Mark Rylance.
It is, obviously, a generalization.
I can only judge by what I have seen. (That, and that I have it from a reliable source that altogether too many British actors find the stage at the New Globe, with no comfortable proscenium arch to hide behind, terrifying. We learned how to do that sort of thing in the States decades ago.)
Having not seen the particular production in question, I cannot speak to it. The RSC often does quite well.
Similarly, having not seen him act, I cannot speak to his ability as an actor, but some of his direction, as it has been reported to me, has seemed mildly perverse. In any case, he is an avowed adherent of one of the looney Shakespeare-denial cults.
Yes, the sooner Rylance leaves the better for the Gobe.
"EXTRAORDINARY historical evidence suggests Shakespeare’s plays were not written by the bard, but by a Tudor politician descended from King Edward III.
British Shakespeare scholar and former university lecturer Brenda James and university historian William Rubinstein propose that the real Shakespeare was Sir Henry Neville, an English courtier and diplomat.
**Their research is described as “pioneering” by the chairman of the Shakespearean Authorship Trust, Mark Rylance, artistic director of Shakespeare’s Globe theatre in London. **
They will be published in a book due to be launched this month at the Globe."
The man is an embarrassment.
Okay **Japastor **
I could argue the Earl of Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare, but I have no need to. The same stuff that is claimed as evidences for the Oxfordians, Marlowe-ians, or the Bacon-ians works also against Shakespeare even if he did write all his stuff.
These are the facts:
Shakespeare didn’t die rich as would be expected of such a famous and wealthy playwright. What assets he did have appear to have come from real estate transaction. His contemporaries mention him only another playwright, not as the greatest of their age. Neither do the critics of is era. Not only did Shakespeare have Marlowe to contend with, but most historical evidences shows that in Shakespeare’s time it was Ben Jonson that was the truly acclaimed “greatest writer of his day.”
By the time the theatre ban was lifted, not only did Shakespeare’s work have to share the stage with Marlowe, Jonson , and a dozen or so others of his contemporaries, but newcomers like Dryden and Steele. Jonson’s work dominated English theatre till the 1700s. Shakespeare had his 18th Century critics that were far more tasking than his modern critics. It wasn’t till the late 18th Century that Shakespeare’s fame started to grow.
Scholars started to give him more respect in the 19th Century. But his fame truly didn’t start to spread outside the aristocracy till after universal education was introduced into the U.S (MA, 1830s) and England (1861). It wasn’t till the latter part of the Victorian Era that public schools discussed Shakespeare. Most Americans wouldn’t know of William Shakespeare till well into the 20th Century. It was the lack of knowledge of the “great Bard of Avon” that lead to a great debate in Hollywood if Shakespeare should be mentioned in movies throughout the 30s and 40s. {The most famous revolved around Jack Benny’s *To Be or Not to Be* (1942).} Orson Welles’s *Macbeth(*1948) was loved by the critics and still bombed at the box office. People either didn’t know of Shakespeare or didn’t care.
Now over 50 years later,** Japastor**, you seem to think I live in some bubble of society that runs against the grain of the literary world. It was the Hemingways, the Shaws, and the other writers that spoke of the glory of Mark Twain while the elite literary world would not. You seem to think that the great writers and the literary world are “one and the same”, yet to hear the writers speak they are at war with the latter. Twain, Hemingway, Shaw, Vidal, Capote etc…often spoke of the injustice of letting the unqualified, untalented, and self-appointed literary “elite”, define good literature.
You now claim that the writers should be the ones to decide if Shakespeare is king. Does that include King, Clancy, Rice, and Grisham? What about Bradbury or Vidal? What about Winston Groom or Harper Lee? Or maybe we only use long dead ones. Hemingway said that he thought it was Twain that was the greatest writer ever. Twain, on the other hand, didn’t think the Bard wrote any of the work claimed to him. Lord Byron thought Shakespeare’s work was ”much ado about nothing.” Herman Melville said that he expected Shakespeare to be easily surpassed in his lifetime. If you like I can give you a list of a dozen more. I will give you that most writers may think Shakespeare is a great writer, maybe even one of the greatest. But being one of the greatest isn’t being THE GREATEST. I think most writers wouldn’t hand that trophy away so quickly.
I disagree with premise that writers are the experts of writing. Even the best writer has flops, and that shows volumes on their judgment. The audience must judge good writing, and as the whole society is the audience, the whole society should have some say. It is arrogant to say just a select few should seat in judgment over quality. Art isn’t like a kitchen table that can be judged by its sturdiness or a radio that can be dropped to see if it still plays. Quality of art is simply what can be drawn from it. If you think only other writers can draw something from a literature, then why should non-writers read it? And I ask you, do writers only write for other writers? Twain would certainly argue you are wrong.
If Shakespeare has a big audience its not because a large fan base, but because of one thing, schools. Why is every piece of Shakespeare’s work covered by Cliff Notes? Because there must be a large section of the population that just don’t enjoy Shakespeare enough to read the complete work. I can’t imagine that anyone that really appreciates Shakespeare (or any other writing) would have a desire to talk the “short-cut.” If Shakespeare weren’t taught in school you would have to order books on Shakespeare of Amazon, because Barnes & Noble wouldn’t waste shelf-space on books that don’t sell. Shakespeare fits in with sentence diagramming, Algebra, and Biology as unnecessary distractions to the education of the average student. Short of a student planning on breeding rabbits while calculating the per capital income of Belgium and counting the adjectives used in *Othello*…it is a total waste of time. If we really want to teach students, why not kill two birds with one stone, have them read non-fiction history.
The worst part of the Shakespeare argument is that half of his “influence” is draped in myths. He did not add 2000 words to the English language. He did not invent the love story. He did not invent the comedy or drama. He wasn’t the most popular in his day. And he is not revered by the masses. It is not I that live in a bubble, but those who think that everyone else should march to their drum.
As for Mr. Kennedy, as I stated about performers in Shakespeare’s time, actors and theatre companies had a rather bad reputation. The Puritan claim you make was minor until long after Shakespeare’s death. Best I can tell you read some anti-Puritan propaganda and took it at face value. Read the history of the Renaissance and the Globe Theatre. I’m not breaking new ground here, it is a fact.Your other major complaint, about people not having good taste…why because it doesn’t agree with your’s? To paraphrase Liberace, I bet Britney Spears is going to cry all the way to the bank because you don’t like her. But on the hand, maybe its her fans that don’t think you have good taste. Tomato, Toma’to.
Wissdok, why do you insist in lecturing us on English history and literature when you confessedly know little about either subject?
Have you actually read Ben Jonson’s tributary verses to Shakespeare prefixed to the First Folio? Jonson was not given to flattery.
Jonson’s work dominated the stage until 1700? No, it didn’t. Beaumont and Fletcher were probably the most commonly revived in the Restoration period, closely followed by Shakespeare. Dryden wrote his plays beneath a portrait of Shakespeare, not Jonson.
If, as you assert, it wasn’t until the late 18th century that Shakespeare’s reputation began to grow, how would ypou account for the many scholarly editions of the complete works which rolled off the presses from Nicholas Rowe in the first decade of the 18th century, through Pope, Theobald, Capell, Warburton (and they’re just the editions I can recall offhand) up to Malone at the close of the century? How many editions of Jonson’s works do you think there were? Care to hazard a guess? Shakespeare idolatry began in earnest with Garrick’s Shakespeare festival at Stratford in the mid-18th century, but I guess yoiu wouldn’t know about that.
The’myths’ you mention about Shakespeare exist nowhere but in your own head. Who on earth said he invented comedy or drama?
I’d give up while you can still retain a shred of dignity. With each new post you reveal greater depths of ignorance.