|
Post by thevikinggoddess on Feb 23, 2006 20:07:52 GMT -5
You have to admire the witticisms and the plays on words all throughout Taming; even when Shakespeare aimed to please a mass audience, he still kept intellectuals in mind. (1.) I can't hate the play because I disagree with the ending. (2.) ... back in Shakespeare's time, the people wanted to see women keeping their places.(3) (1.) This is, if you'll pardon my boldness, like telling me I have to appreciate the fine craftsmanship on a burning cross that's been pounded into my yard. Or the excellent linework of the recent Mohammed cartoons that started the riots in Denmark. (2.) How strange that you have this restriction. It's never been one I've struggled with, myself. Often, it's the ending that spoils an otherwise good work. I can hate the play for its ending. And I do. I also hate it for its beginning and middle. (3.) According to the powers that ruled during a major part of Stratford Bill's life & career, a woman's place was on the throne.
|
|
|
Post by Cortana on Feb 24, 2006 13:32:31 GMT -5
Elizabeth wasn't the only person to reign while he wrote, nor was she the only person he had to please even as she was in power. And to look at a play's ending over its entire content is to not see the forest for the trees. I'm not saying Shakespeare can do no wrong, as I think I mentioned earlier, he has plotlines and story structures in some of his comedies that I consider woefully weak. But the simple fact of the matter is is that Taming personally made me laugh. Even when it was done by a local theatre company with the shabbiest components theatre could offer, there were parts that made me laugh. It's a personal preference, and one that can be ignored. Unlike a burning cross or pointed cartoon, you don't have to see it if you don't like it, I'm just stating the reasons for, again, a personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by Hunessai on Mar 11, 2007 0:26:03 GMT -5
I find many of Shakespeare's plot devices weak or over-used, and all of his work looked into too deeply by scholars. Some of the conclusions drawn by people are so tenuous and fleeting...
Maybe I'm just jaded.
|
|
|
Post by gumby on Mar 14, 2007 12:10:16 GMT -5
I kinda agree with you, Hunessai. Although I dont think I know you. I see shakespeare as just a *tad* (note sarcasm) overused. Yes, some of his things are kinda pretty good. Romeo and Juliet honestly did keep me into it. Of course, till I saw the movie with leonardo dicaprio. ANYWAY, not the point. I find most things by shakespeare that ive seen (minus 12th night) to be very depressing, and well, frankly, id rather read a lot of other things. Maybe its by him that others have been inspired - very good, sure, and although i cant name names because i suck at exampling, I personally, chances are, would much rather read the inspired author than the shakespeare himself. What i do admire is that by him, many of my friends have been brought to loving poetry or plays in some form or another, and ive gotten friends involved in english class (the only one besides art im good at), etc. I thank shakespeare for that. however, its just a little overdone. Overrated. kinda annoying.
|
|