Do you know where i can find one site where the complete works of Shakespeare and a full text copy of Jane Austen's Pride and Prgudice
>>By tiny (Saturday, 25 Jan 2003 12:57)
I need an interpretation of the play within the play!!!!!!
>>By tara (Saturday, 25 Jan 2003 12:57)
At the moment I'm writing a paper on the christian symbolic in " A Winter's Tale". I would like to hear from anyone who have any thought on that matter.
>>By Capion (Saturday, 25 Jan 2003 12:59)
hes well wicked! Hes lovely. Were doin much ado about nothing at the mo! We watched the film and the actor who played claudio is well fit!
>>By Da Tuz Master! (Saturday, 25 Jan 2003 12:59)
Man! talk about shakespeare?! Would take far too long! lol.
Recently saw a production of Macbeth, up in London with Sean Bean and Samantha Bond playing the two leading anti-heroes; Macbeth and Lady Macbeth respectively. I have seen many other shakespeare plays staged in different time periods, in relation to the productions costumes, props, scenery, ect. The fact that in this production flashlights and actors dressed as special forces were used, and that more and more theatres and movies are producing Shakespeares works but bringing the action closer to our own time (ever seen Ian Mackellan's "Richard 3rd?") is evidence that Shakespeare is still a literary force of great magnitude even in our times, when such authors who write books such as Harry Potter are acclaimed genuises.
>>By Rob (Saturday, 25 Jan 2003 12:59)
I don't think it is rare. it happens in many arts in our days.
You can see it in music ,ballet ,painting ,ext.
I think there is something wrong in our generation.
Or maybe my perspective is too radical.
>>By Leafe (Monday, 27 Jan 2003 14:10)
Hasn't shakespeare been dead for over 300 years? Shouldn't we just let the old dude die and rest in peace?
>>By Mudvayne (Wednesday, 7 May 2003 17:55)
I think Shiloc was HOT! I forget what movie it was but man was he HOT. I wish that the faires weren't in it though because they were faires. And he should have never messed with the Capulets because they know their shit. And what was Juliet thinking when she started dating Othello which is by the way an awesome board game. But I much preffer Go the chineese game. And the witches were cool. Double Double Toil and Bubble... but MacBeth should have left them alone because he should have known better than to screw with black magic. Isn't that a rock song?
>>By piearesquared (Wednesday, 20 Aug 2003 05:39)
does anybody know the basic story of romeo and juilet , and wot was the main theme?
>>By nat2k3 (Wednesday, 27 Aug 2003 14:24)
Here's a crappy bit of info did you know The Winter's Tale contains the only piece of stage direction that Shakespeare ever wrote:
Exit chased by a bear!
Now hasn't knowing that made your life so much better.
>>By Bethan (Thursday, 4 Sep 2003 13:25)
shakespear's playhs have made a hug impasct on this workd take the lion king for exampeal the lion king is play hamlet. just simba doesn't die the fathers ghost in the clouds father mudered by uncle unncle tries to takeoveer pridge and so on and soforth i cant thinkl of anythig elsde at themoment ive haded two muc to drink goonight
>>By Phobia_killer (Thursday, 12 Aug 2004 07:53)
>>By cointelpro (Sunday, 22 Aug 2004 17:17)
I'm doing an assignment on whether the Taming of the Shrew is offensive. does anybody find it offensive? if so why?
>>By madamecoffee (Thursday, 2 Sep 2004 10:21)
Let's see here... the basic story of Romeo and Juliet........Tragedy......unrequieted love....bad luck...getting the picture yet??
>>By willwrite (Friday, 3 Sep 2004 06:05)
Romeo and Juliet is meant to be considered as mixed-genre play: a comedy and tragedy, where fate and coincidence seem to dictate the affairs of the rival factions. Mercutio's character and the conflicts between the Montagues and the Capulets tend to be seen as comic against the feuding world of cynical Veronese politics; while Romeo and Juliet's love for each other is out of place in the context of their society.
Shakespeare based his play on Arthur Brooks' "Romeus and Juliet" and worked on it along with A Midsummer Night's Dream. The play within the play put on by Bottom can be seen as a parody of Romeo and Juliet
Best book I have ever read about Mr. Shakespeare:
"Shakespeare, the Basics" - Sean McEvoy
>>By mathu (Friday, 3 Sep 2004 11:27)
I'm writing a paper on whether 10 things I hate about you, adequately contemporizes the concerns raised by shakespeare in the taming of the shrew
...I would really like to hear some other opinions on it...
I dont think it does...I think the film follows the teen genre and only uses the idea of a untamable woman being 'tamed' by a man- using shakespeare as a sort of talisman
..i dont think it remakes shakespeare at all...
but what does everyone else think?
>>By madamecoffee (Monday, 13 Sep 2004 03:40)
The most insightful book I have read as of yet re:Shakespeare is "Bottom:On Shakespeare" by Louis Zukofsky. He does praise "The Phoenix and the Turtle" as the greatest "metaphysical" ever written in the English language and I think that judgement is quite justified. Also (as a curious note for those not familiar with Zukofsky's text) LZ's central argument is that there is a unifying theme which is constantly elucidated/tapped in the entire Shakespearian opera....namely:
love:reason::eyes:mind....a double ratio as one can plainly see. There has been some debate, though, over the years....about whether "Bottom" is primarily a presentation of Shakespeare's "poetics" or Zukofsky's (with Shakespeare as the "convenient" platform) vide Browne's ubiquitous quincunxes in "The Garden of Cyrus" for a similar type of obsessive drive which it should be noted, being tinged with a wordsmith's genius, is hard to shake once encountered....in both instances.....ie Browne's and Zukofsky's.
Hope this stimulates some discussion from You out there in the land of the florkants.
>>By satorotas (Saturday, 18 Sep 2004 18:45)
In answer to madamecoffee: The complaint I often hear about the Taming of the Shrew is that it is misogynist. Some people say the play puts down women, because it says wives should be subservient to their husbands. Is this criticism of the play fair? I don't know, but I did a quick Google search using the terms +"Taming of the Shrew" +misogynist. I got 459 hits.
>>By Mikey_Canuck (Saturday, 18 Sep 2004 20:07)
William should have written to all of us (in the future with regard to his time) and given us a bit more information on who he was. Considering the debates that still go on as to whether he actually wrote all of his supposed material, or if the writer was someone altogether different, it would be most helpful in putting some of the interpretations into the proper context. Some believe that only a woman could have written some of the pieces that are generally called Shakespearian Works, especially some of his sonnets, and tragedies. But since this isn't going to happen, we will always have to interpret the words from a very limited perspective.
Whoever did write it all, I wish I could meet them and thank them for providing such timeless and passionate work. Some people honestly do not care for Shakespeare, which is absolutely reasonable. some fret over Shakespeare because they don't always understand it, also quite reasonable. I am of the latter type. I just try to remind myself often that subjects like love, piety, rivalry, justice, human nature, and being are all to be understood subjectively alone, for there is no real measure of such things without the mind to make the measurement. I think Shakespeare knew this above all other things, and what he gave us is his brand of each subject. He was just so damn good and passionate at it that his ideas can sweep up the mind and heart and replace them with his own.
As for being timeless, I think nobody can argue to the contrary. Liking it is different. But the previous people have noted re-workings of his material to fit contemporary values and contexts. However, what makes his work timeless is that chord it strikes in humans regardless of when they live. In Romeo and Juliet there are many issues that still exist today, and which will exists tomorrow. For example, there is the relationship between mother and daughter in which the mother bases her authority over her daughter on the ways she was used to, which conflict with juliet's beliefs on marriage and love. Whereas the mother sees marriage as a means for mobility, Juliet sees it as a means for happiness and love. Religion versus autonomy is an underlying theme in the play and the consequences of free will are intermingled with the fate of determinism. Power struggle is perhaps the most recurring theme in human history in both the micro and macro sense. This play definately exploits the interplay of power in individuals as well as the group dynamic. Benvolio may represent the human desire to at once reach a peaceful settlement while staying loyal to his own party. A few modern politicians are similar in that respect. So as the interpretations get deeper and wider, it becomes more apparent how it is the abstract themes in the play that become what we remember and relate to, I think. The concrete aspects of Romeo and Juliet are brilliant but replaceable in the sense that I could be Romeo and you could be Juliet. But abstractly we are moved by love, revenge, loyalty, fear, lonelyness, and uncertainty to name a few. So Shakespeare was a master of the abstract ideas that most humans encounter in their lives regardless of when they happened to exist. For that reason Im sure my children will someday read his work in school and apply the ideas to their own lives.
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 21 Sep 2004 00:07)
I think it does not really matter who wrote a book after all.
What counts is the book and not the person behind it.
Does it make any difference who Homer was, if he existed, if he was blind??
And who told you Shakespeare was good and passionate? There are sources that clearly state that the person who we assume was Shakespeare, was quite a bastard at times.
And yes, I agree that Shakespeare is one of the most outstanding playwrights, but much of what he has written has been said in Ancient Drama already.
To me Shakespeare is only Hamlet. Romeo and Juliet is more than dreadful!
And, I appreciate him mostly for his poetry.
>>By Gabriella (Wednesday, 22 Sep 2004 03:43)
I never said Shakespeare was a good person, but good at writing. And thats an opinion which can certainly be disagreed with, as it often is. As for passionate, also an opinion, but I think the passion is present because he tended to come back to particular themes over and over again. So it seems he had a passion for thinking and writing about those things. As for the person behind the book, I dont totally disagree with you. the person shouldnt necessarily be understood to like the work, but at the same time the author has everything to do with the creation of it. Galileo's work would have been profound even if we never knew much about him, but I believe it takes on an even greater meaning when we do because it puts the work in a historical context. Similarily, the context of Shakespeare's plays can offer a great deal of insight into the intended meaning of passages or works as a whole. But context isnt a requisite, I agree.
Im not a scholar by any means on Shakespeare, but I have also heard that a lot of his work is derived from previous writings. I wouldnt give him credit completely for anything because I wasnt there, but I still think it is worth crediting him for at the minimum giving his own (and I believe excellent ) versions of previous tales. Afterall, a great majority of timeless pieces are nearly impossible to narrow down with regard to location of creation and the context of that time. Tar-baby tales, fairy tales, folklore and mythology are all based on archetypal motifs that date back so far we can only guess at their true origins. Similarily, I would guess that some of theideas Shakespeare used in his work were merely reworked and not created by his own mind. But what I love is his version, not so much the origin. That is also interesting and important for complete context, but it is also not something we will be able to determine to satisfaction.
I think as a whole Hamlet is a better play than romeo and juliet, of a play can be said to be better than another. Thats me opining again. I know many people who think Romeo and Juliet is cheesy and worthless. It is kind of cheesy but Im personally not as moved by the concrete as much as the themes presented. I think some of the themes that I mentioned (conflicts in many humans lives) are relevant to the now as well as then.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 24 Sep 2004 23:37)
Wow I wanna write just like him and I'm trying my best to do good, but some people like others better I'm still trying though.
>>By Kandy14 (Saturday, 16 Oct 2004 20:33)
Heh, Hume Ungus, most great writers understood the concept of paragraphs...You should look into that.
>>By Just Jon (Sunday, 17 Oct 2004 02:04)
Im not a great writer, Im a shitty non-paragraph type writer. But Ill try to take my cues from your writing, heh!
>>By Hume Ungus (Tuesday, 2 Nov 2004 12:45)
I shouldn't have phrased my comment above the way I did, obviously...Hume Ungus makes great points, I just wish it was easier to read.
I'm happy to encounter any and all Shakespeare enthusiasts, I truly hate it that I sounded like a dick because I typed without thinking.
Sorry to all, I'd love to see more discussion here, and I just made this board look bad. Won't happen again, really.
>>By Just Jon (Friday, 5 Nov 2004 00:55)
Of the many issues raised by William Shakespeare's plays, one of the most intriguing is the question of resolution. Since disorder is almost always prevalent, it becomes of great importance to consider not just how social restoration is achieved within the plays, but whether the resolutions are convincingly accomplished. Interestingly, the cumulative source of social restoration employed in Richard III and A Midsummer Night's Dream comes in the form of marriage, highlighting Shakespeare's unending fascination regarding the mutability of masculine and feminine love. Indeed, taking into account the changeable nature of human beings, relying on the utopian concept of marital harmony, appears to involve more risk than certainty. Yet a tenuous form of harmony does exist at the end of both plays, that this has been accomplished in the face of such weighty sacrifices, is what so forcefully detracts from the persuasiveness of their respective resolutions.
>>By Mme Bovary (Saturday, 4 Dec 2004 16:06)
If anyone wishes to know what more I have to say on the matter - just shout!
>>By Mme Bovary (Saturday, 4 Dec 2004 16:11)
what is the moral of King Lear
>>By mon_ange (Wednesday, 22 Dec 2004 21:20)
The moral of King Lear? Don't divide up your kingdom between two thankless daughters and overlook the one genuine child.
As Lear's fool so pertinently states, even the humble snail has his own home and is not so cerebrally lacking that he gives it away.
Lear is my favourite play because of the 'pelting of the pitiless storm' - how many of us have felt like that from time to time .....
>>By Mme Bovary (Tuesday, 4 Jan 2005 16:55)
I have never read Lear before but I saw it once...Superficially, he reminded me of the father of a friend who cared more about being told I love you than actually being loved. For some the words are preferred despite the fact that words alone prove nothing. The main difference in my comparison is that my friend and her sisters all love their father.
>>By Hume Ungus (Friday, 7 Jan 2005 23:31)
The discussion board is currently closed.