Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:42:02 PM No.24484546
Was he the world's first industry plant?
Replies:
Thread 24484546 - /lit/ [Archived: 947 hours ago]
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:56:13 PM No.24484563
>>24484546 (OP)
It astonishes me how nobody but a few great men (Tolstoy, Wittgenstein, among others) could see through the cult's lies and realize that he was nothing but a good poet, by no means superior to some of his contemporaries and most of his more illustrious predecessors. Not even in England, in his own time, was he the greatest.
It astonishes me how nobody but a few great men (Tolstoy, Wittgenstein, among others) could see through the cult's lies and realize that he was nothing but a good poet, by no means superior to some of his contemporaries and most of his more illustrious predecessors. Not even in England, in his own time, was he the greatest.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 1:58:30 PM No.24484568
Explain further please.
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:36:35 PM No.24484636
>>24484546 (OP)
He is actually Marlowe and many others. So you'll have to look elsewhere.
>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/oct/23/christopher-marlowe-credited-as-one-of-shakespeares-co-writers
He is actually Marlowe and many others. So you'll have to look elsewhere.
>https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/oct/23/christopher-marlowe-credited-as-one-of-shakespeares-co-writers
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:44:36 PM No.24484657
>>24484563
>by no means superior to some of his contemporaries and most of his more illustrious predecessors. Not even in England, in his own time, was he the greatest.
Supply these names (you won’t)
>by no means superior to some of his contemporaries and most of his more illustrious predecessors. Not even in England, in his own time, was he the greatest.
Supply these names (you won’t)
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:47:13 PM No.24484666
>>24484546 (OP)
I would say Francis Bacon was one of the first modern day plants
I would say Francis Bacon was one of the first modern day plants
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 2:59:20 PM No.24484699
>>24484563
>Tolstoy, Wittgenstein, among others
What did they say about him exactly? I want to hate him too
>Tolstoy, Wittgenstein, among others
What did they say about him exactly? I want to hate him too
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:21:53 PM No.24484744
>>24484699
Every critic of Shakespeare is either a filtered ESL or a major canonical writer coping that they are lesser than him
Every critic of Shakespeare is either a filtered ESL or a major canonical writer coping that they are lesser than him
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:24:15 PM No.24484748
>>24484744
True man people don't have different opinions it's all malicious attacks born of insecurity. You're right on the money and not projecting your own neuroticism onto the world at all very good.
True man people don't have different opinions it's all malicious attacks born of insecurity. You're right on the money and not projecting your own neuroticism onto the world at all very good.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:26:42 PM No.24484754
>>24484748
Thanks
Thanks
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:27:53 PM No.24484757
He was literally a lord of the land and one of the most powerful men in the queen's court
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:47:06 PM No.24484789
nigga what
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 3:51:16 PM No.24484796
>>24484789
wassup?
wassup?
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 5:58:41 PM No.24485148
>>24484563
Tolstoy was a shit writer with horrible takes.
Tolstoy was a shit writer with horrible takes.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 7:10:01 PM No.24485295
>>24484657
John Donne
Lancelot Andrewes (orator, oversaw the translation of the King James Bible)
Francis Bacon (philosopher)
Among others who were arguably either equal or superior to Shakespeare, of whom George Chapman and Thomas Hobbes are some of the most prominent.
Nobody can offer a convincing argument as to why Shakespeare is a better writer than these men. I do not even compare him to Ovid, Homer, Plato. No, let us compare him instead to England's own authors. Why is Shakespeare better than Donne? Or Chaucer? Or Dickens? Nobody can make a convincing argument, and when they try they begin to produce lies ("Shakespeare's characters are so true to life!" "Shakespeare's stories [sic] are so wonderful!" "Shakespeare's mastery of verse is unparalleled!" "Shakespeare invented the human!").
>>24484699
Read the whole book, it's around 60-70 pages long, you can read it in one sitting:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm
Ignore the moralist sections at the end. Tolstoy was a ridiculous moralist, but first and foremost a great artist. Focus on the direct criticism of Shakespeare's dramatic writing.
>>24484744
Every critic of Homer is a filtered GSL, every critic of Virgil is a filtered LSL, every critic of Dante is a filtered ISL...
That argument makes no sense, and it's not true. Shakespeare was not considered the greatest writer of all by the English until the mid or late 18th century, when the propaganda starts. Milton thought the Greek tragedians were superior. Pepys disliked him intensely. In more recent times, Shaw considered him highly overrated, and Borges, who admired Shakespeare, nevertheless once suggested him as "the most overrated writer" and complained that, when reading him, one has to make too many concessions due to his many flaws. TS Eliot and Ezra Pound both seem to have preferred Dante, with the latter in particular placing also several other authors, such as Homer and Chaucer, above Shakespeare.
Tolstoy was fluent in English and in other languages, and highly praised many English-language authors, had many English-language friends. Wittgenstein was a professor at England's most famous university for almost twenty years.
Bardolaters like you are so ignorant that you really seem to think Shakespeare's language is difficult. It is not. Reading Homer in Greek is difficult. Reading Shakespeare in English would be laughably easy if not for the fact that it's so boring. 99% of Shakespeare's "difficult words" are nothing but dated slangs that you can check in a dictionary, Latin terms that the well-educated reader knows because he knows Latin, and terms deriving the French, which the reader also knows. His syntax, like all English syntax, is primitive and demands no effort of attention on the part of the reader. For you, however, Shakespeare is probably the most difficult thing you've read, because you barely read books at all.
>>24485148
Tolstoy's analysis of Shakespeare as a dramatic is correct.
John Donne
Lancelot Andrewes (orator, oversaw the translation of the King James Bible)
Francis Bacon (philosopher)
Among others who were arguably either equal or superior to Shakespeare, of whom George Chapman and Thomas Hobbes are some of the most prominent.
Nobody can offer a convincing argument as to why Shakespeare is a better writer than these men. I do not even compare him to Ovid, Homer, Plato. No, let us compare him instead to England's own authors. Why is Shakespeare better than Donne? Or Chaucer? Or Dickens? Nobody can make a convincing argument, and when they try they begin to produce lies ("Shakespeare's characters are so true to life!" "Shakespeare's stories [sic] are so wonderful!" "Shakespeare's mastery of verse is unparalleled!" "Shakespeare invented the human!").
>>24484699
Read the whole book, it's around 60-70 pages long, you can read it in one sitting:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27726/27726-h/27726-h.htm
Ignore the moralist sections at the end. Tolstoy was a ridiculous moralist, but first and foremost a great artist. Focus on the direct criticism of Shakespeare's dramatic writing.
>>24484744
Every critic of Homer is a filtered GSL, every critic of Virgil is a filtered LSL, every critic of Dante is a filtered ISL...
That argument makes no sense, and it's not true. Shakespeare was not considered the greatest writer of all by the English until the mid or late 18th century, when the propaganda starts. Milton thought the Greek tragedians were superior. Pepys disliked him intensely. In more recent times, Shaw considered him highly overrated, and Borges, who admired Shakespeare, nevertheless once suggested him as "the most overrated writer" and complained that, when reading him, one has to make too many concessions due to his many flaws. TS Eliot and Ezra Pound both seem to have preferred Dante, with the latter in particular placing also several other authors, such as Homer and Chaucer, above Shakespeare.
Tolstoy was fluent in English and in other languages, and highly praised many English-language authors, had many English-language friends. Wittgenstein was a professor at England's most famous university for almost twenty years.
Bardolaters like you are so ignorant that you really seem to think Shakespeare's language is difficult. It is not. Reading Homer in Greek is difficult. Reading Shakespeare in English would be laughably easy if not for the fact that it's so boring. 99% of Shakespeare's "difficult words" are nothing but dated slangs that you can check in a dictionary, Latin terms that the well-educated reader knows because he knows Latin, and terms deriving the French, which the reader also knows. His syntax, like all English syntax, is primitive and demands no effort of attention on the part of the reader. For you, however, Shakespeare is probably the most difficult thing you've read, because you barely read books at all.
>>24485148
Tolstoy's analysis of Shakespeare as a dramatic is correct.
Replies:
Anonymous
6/21/2025, 9:53:51 PM No.24485687
>>24485295
In an attempt at a minor defence of shakespeare he was a playwrite not a writer, his work was intended for performance in public not private readings.
But I would assume that the more studued critics of the works to attempt to take that into account in their criticism.
In an attempt at a minor defence of shakespeare he was a playwrite not a writer, his work was intended for performance in public not private readings.
But I would assume that the more studued critics of the works to attempt to take that into account in their criticism.