Inspiration - name and explain yours

[Dino Velvet]

The grey zone is a bit of a used up image, I guess, yet I don’t know why there never seem to ever be much of a middle ground for Stavros, or should I say tentatively, because I really don’t want to offend him, much moderation in his always well argued judgements. Often, they have more of the feeling of sentences… Stavros is incredibly articulate and bright, but doesn’t seem like he can consider different view points in the appreciation of artistic expression… Can you, Stavros? For instance, do you believe that pop culture can produce anything artistically beautiful too? Do you think that technical proficiency, and even refinement, is an absolute must for any work of art to find justified appreciation?

I've had many discussions on film with Stavros and find him to be very open minded. Me and him are almost opposites but that's what makes things interesting. We both like Takashi Miike films.

[broncofan]

Are you suggesting that Conrad treated Kurtz sympathetically? Please do not traduce me. Nabokov's description of Humbert is thoroughly sympathetic and must beg the question.

I'm not saying you're not on to something. But let me put it this way. In order for a character with some grossly negative character traits to avoid being sympathetic, the author would have to give them uniformly negative features or risk endorsing their malignancies. A pedophile like Humbert therefore is only properly condemned in literature if he is nasty in every way. If he shows tenderness or has any contradictory qualities, the author can then be accused of associating the negative with those positive character traits to mitigate the former.

This interpretation would have the effect of making authors create very monotone characters who are caricatures, either wholly good or evil. Yet I understand what you're saying and can see how an author who sympathizes with pedophilia or racism can create a character benign in other ways in order to promote (make seem innocuous) what we consider legitimate evils.

But this is the risk of reading too much into the work of authors. They may make a pedophile sympathetic to show that people who do evil things have some non-evil or banal traits. On the other hand I don't deny the power of an author to use his work as propaganda through such techniques and accept your point with a grain of salt.

[broncofan]

My favorite writers: Nabokov, Kafka, Shakespeare. Nabokov is a man who wrote books in a foreign language that he employed with tremendous style. He also had strong opinions about art, and did not believe in creating characters who were mere archetypes, which is one reason he detested Freud and his fixed concept of human psychological tendencies.

I don't know much about Kafka personally but I have read both the Metamorphosis and the Penal Colony. What is striking about these works to me is that the man created all sorts of eery scenarios with the shortest brush strokes ever employed. His sentence structure was exceedingly simple, but he threaded these simple, seemingly inartful sentences into elaborate metaphors that were not quickly revealed. For instance, it is not immediately apparent why Gregor Samsa is a hideous vermin, but we know there's a reason. Yet that reason is not easily articulated nor is it revealed as an obvious allegory.

Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist of all time. When other authors complain that he is overrated, it seems like a moot complaint. Never has a man coined so many phrases, used language so artfully while revealing so many basic human tendencies, captured historical events from scant primary sources and elaborated them into plausible and compelling dramas.

[RallyCola]

Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist of all time. When other authors complain that he is overrated, it seems like a moot complaint. Never has a man coined so many phrases, used language so artfully while revealing so many basic human tendencies, captured historical events from scant primary sources and elaborated them into plausible and compelling dramas.

I disagree completely! While to agree that Shakespeare is the greatest dramatist of all time is easy and to disagree invites criticism from the benign to the divisive

Shakespeare is an overrated idea (since we are not entirely sure if the rural boy genius named Billy was actually the author or not).

Not only did he overly dramatize events and have several contemporaries that did the same, he did so for profit of his theater and not the purity of the art. I am not faulting him for profiting, but rather illustrating that I believe that he was not conscious of the fact that he was creating epic works or art because they were in fact NOT EPIC WORKS OF ART.

It wasn't until a century and a half after his death that David Garrick, another playwright and Shakespearean actor introduced that masses to the plays and helped to elevate the work. David Garrick is to Shakespeare what Paul was to Jesus...what Peter Jackson was to Tolkien...the advertising and brand builder that launched a following.

The same reason why most people consider Shakespeare high art or even elemental to modern story telling is simple...it is the same reason why people think there is a god...indoctrination. You are taught that he as great and that his writing endured because it is so embedded in you from school. Its considered in vogue or that you have cultural cache if you can quote one of the plays, whether you have read it or not.

If you are measuring greatness but cultural influence and how many people remember him/his work...then i can't argue that he was great. if you are measuring greatness as i do...judging the language and quality of his craftsmanship, he is overrated. he writes in superfluous language, which was NOT the language of his day, and he romanticizes almost every aspect of his story with little ability to construct characters that are anything but one dimensional. Too often are the characters stifled and unable to show any emotional range except madness and sorrow. His desire to strictly adhere to this formula makes his plays just that, formulaic, and in that, not worthy of the praise he receives.

From my personal experience, I learned more about literature and effective writing from other authors I was forced to read than anything I have read my ole' billy. I find the plays to be extremely formulaic, and basic. I find the construction of his narrative to be excessively deliberate and simple. I find his characters to be superficial and one dimensional. And I find the obsession with his work to be sickening especially from people who do not understand the history of his glorification.

It reminds me of the movie 2012. In that movie, some dude says that he was reading a book by John Cusack's character and that it will be an enduring part of human history, not because it was good, but because he was reading it and it endured on the arc with him. That's why shakespeare is popular....because someone decided to support it as such and was a better marketer

[broncofan]

His language was often superfluous. The best example of this I can think of is in Julius Caesar when he has Antony say "For I have neither wit, nor words, nor worth, Action, nor utterance, nor the power of speech". I am sure there is some redundancy there even if each comma adds a little content.

However the language and the emotion is beautiful. It was a man speaking extemporaneously at a funeral, sharp as a fox, pretending that he was normally a crude speaker who only appeared eloquent because of how genuine his emotion was. The way he constructs metaphors is otherworldly. Go over some of his most famous quotes from his plays, even the ones most do not remember, such as "brevity is the soul of wit" or the discussion of evil forces winning you over with honest trifles only to betray you in deepest consequence. Yes, these phrases have become popular namely because Shakespeare's work is popular. But how did they arrive in the vernacular? Why has it become so tempting for men and women who have never read Shakespeare to use these original phrases as cliches without knowing who to attribute them to? It's because the man could in a sentence construct a metaphor with complex meaning, poetic structure, and complete coherence within the framework of compelling plays.

I'll give you an example. In Macbeth, his characters anticipate all of the philosophical problems associated with predestination. Macbeth wonders if he is destined to be king, does he not need to act? Is it a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is it a prophecy that requires the minimalist of actions or requires him to seize upon opportunities when presented? We'll never know but every possibility is alluded to. What about the literalness of the witches predictions? They deceive him all the while keeping their promises. I've heard his language was beautiful but his plays sometimes basic, but there was nothing basic about the story of Macbeth's downfall. His wife's conscience finally revealed as she descends into madness trying in vain to wash the blood off her hands. It's very easy to say such a story is pedestrian, but it has not been staged across the world because people have been told Shakespeare was a genius.

Shakespeare may have become immensely popular after his death because others promoted his work, but those who read his work have independent minds. You look at the list of accolades and it would require the duping of an enormous number of brilliant men. Nabokov himself said, "the verbal poetical texture of Shakespeare is the greatest the world has known, and is immensely superior to the structure of his plays as plays." To Nabokov this was a high compliment though it seems to criticize his plays structurally, Nabokov was stylistically pedantic. Was Nabokov the victim of a public relations campaign? Many of the plays of Shakespeare contained language so sublime and such insight into the human condition that their worth is nearly self-evident. Those who have focused so much on the man's foibles, his apparent nihilism or the fact that his work has gotten tremendous hearing are only doing so to prove he is not himself divine. No argument. This was a man.

[broncofan]

Shakespeare is an overrated idea (since we are not entirely sure if the rural boy genius named Billy was actually the author or not).

Though I am far from an expert on the authorship of Shakespeare's works I do believe it was William Shakespeare from Stratford. Why? The other candidates are by comparison pathetic as possibilities. Christopher Marlowe? I have read some of his work and it amazes me anyone could confuse him with the Bard. He also died at 29, when Shakespeare wrote something like 37 plays. I also read that the library at Stratford contained many of the primary sources used in Shakespeare's plays. Though the biographical evidence is not rich, there is some trace contemporaneous with the years he was supposed to be alive and active, his ownership of the globe theater and his last will and testament. It is not ironclad but surely seems stronger than the evidence for any of the other candidates.

Having read seven of his plays personally and only not liking the Taming of the Shrew, I value his work as more than a mere idea. I understand and agree with a lot of your points. This is to undercut only those ones I disagree with.

[broncofan]

Not only did he overly dramatize events and have several contemporaries that did the same, he did so for profit of his theater and not the purity of the art. I am not faulting him for profiting, but rather illustrating that I believe that he was not conscious of the fact that he was creating epic works or art because they were in fact NOT EPIC WORKS OF ART.

What rule of art or nature says that a man has to know he is creating epic works of art for them to be considered such? A great work of art depends on the motive of the artist creating it? Are we reading the work or constructing a biography of the man and all his vices and deeds? Some have said that you need to know about someone's life to put their work in context, but this is going even a step further by qualifying a man's work based on what you think of his motivations.

What plays of Shakespeare have you read if you don't mind me asking? I think if you are going to bring the man back down to Earth you should be somewhat more specific.

[RallyCola]

broncofan....we will have to just agree to disagree because at issue is simply that we disagree on a very basic level and neither of us will sway the other.

where you agree that his language is superfluous but beautiful, i simply just don't find it beautiful. I find his metaphors to be grandiose and his attempts at allegory to be too far fetched. in fact, i can take your macbeth example and turn it around. he paints is characters so one-dimensionally that even though he projects what he knows the story to be by foreshadowing and foreboding, they still fail to act because he renders them powerless to their character type. Moreover, the plotholes of unexplored stories, tangential to the story he is telling are irrelevant because they are not part of the reality he constructs.

let me give you an example. George Lucas penned a tale of the skywalker family and how 3 skywalker kids with mommy issues shaped the course of human history. Lucas created a world and within it gave voices and emotions to his characters to convey ultimately what he found important. does it matter that all story points are not realized? no...so that shakespeare leaves some unanswered story points is irrelevant.

now, as your assertion that nabokov has an opinion i should value...i tell you that i do not. first off, i don't find his work to be that interesting itself so his opinion on literature isn't going to sway mine....but that said, most importantly, yes, he was victim to a marketing campaign because he too was likely influenced by reading shakespeare in school. literature...like all art...be it shakespeare, nabokov or danielle steele, is simply subjective and its reception and retention is solely based on how it is introduced and perceived. i just don't perceive it as you do.

[onmyknees]

The President of the United States
in the name of The Congress
takes pleasure in presenting the
Medal of Honor
to

*COOK, DONALD GILBERT
Rank and organization: Colonel, United States Marine Corps, Prisoner of War by the Viet Cong in the Republic of Vietnam. Place and date: Vietnam, 31 December 1964 to 8 December, 1967. Entered Service at: Brooklyn, New York. Date and place of birth: 9 August 1934, Brooklyn New York.
Citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while interned as a Prisoner of War by the Viet Cong in the Republic of Vietnam during the period 31 December 1964 to 8 December 1967. Despite the fact that by so doing he would bring about harsher treatment for himself, Colonel (then Captain) Cook established himself as the senior prisoner, even though in actuality he was not. Repeatedly assuming more than his share of their health, Colonel Cook willingly and unselfishly put the interests of his comrades before that of his own well-being and, eventually, his life. Giving more needy men his medicine and drug allowance while constantly nursing them, he risked infection from contagious diseases while in a rapidly deteriorating state of health. This unselfish and exemplary conduct, coupled with his refusal to stray even the slightest from the Code of Conduct, earned him the deepest respect from not only his fellow prisoners, but his captors as well. Rather than negotiate for his own release or better treatment, he steadfastly frustrated attempts by the Viet Cong to break his indomitable spirit. and passed this same resolve on to the men whose well-being he so closely associated himself. Knowing his refusals would prevent his release prior to the end of the war, and also knowing his chances for prolonged survival would be small in the event of continued refusal, he chose nevertheless to adhere to a Code of Conduct far above that which could be expected. His personal valor and exceptional spirit of loyalty in the face of almost certain death reflected the highest credit upon Colonel Cook, the Marine Corps, and the United States Naval Service.

[RallyCola]

What rule of art or nature says that a man has to know he is creating epic works of art for them to be considered such? A great work of art depends on the motive of the artist creating it? Are we reading the work or constructing a biography of the man and all his vices and deeds? Some have said that you need to know about someone's life to put their work in context, but this is going even a step further by qualifying a man's work based on what you think of his motivations.

What plays of Shakespeare have you read if you don't mind me asking? I think if you are going to bring the man back down to Earth you should be somewhat more specific. I'll also note that I did not rate your post positively or negatively but chose to try to contend with the ideas presented in them. I also understand the rating system is anonymous, but when we're discussing genuine ideas, don't you think it better to express any objection rather than just hitting the thumbs down button. We all do it to reactionary postings without any thought put into them, but I think it's poor sportsmanship otherwise if it was you.

first off...i am a harsh critic of most "art" because i do consider what I know of an artist and well as what I am able to discover about his intentions when judging their product. that is my criteria. it doesn't have to be yours.

Next, as to what I have read of his...in high school and college, one elective i took in each was Shakespearean lit. as such, i have done extensive research on the man, his process and his works for term papers. i graduated from college 12 years ago so in that time i have not read any more of his work because i'm so turned off to it. if memory serves correctly, I have read the standards...

macbeth
hamlet
romeo and juliet
julius caesar
tempest
much ado about nothing
as you like it
two men of verona
king lear
othello
henry v
winter's tale
midsummer night's dream
merchant of venice
twelfth night
all's well that ends well


i can tell you that my final paper was to contrast shylock and macbeth as equal and interchangeable characters. my paper got an A.