🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 1, 1:51 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 4:23 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 9:53 pm, Harlan Messinger
>
> > <hmessinger.removet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Panu wrote:
> > > > On Mar 1, 3:41 pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
> > > > but.net> wrote:
> > > >>> Of course we have heard of Oscar Wilde (an Irishman), George Bernard
> > > >>> Shaw (another Irishman), Eugene O'Neill (an American), Tennessee
> > > >>> Williams (another American), and Arthur Miller (another American).
> > > >>> August Wilson is unknown to me, but Tom Stoppard sounds vaguely
> > > >>> familiar.
> > > >>> It is obvious that Americans excel in drama,
> > > >> Actually, America has not yet produced a first-rate (performed)
> > > >> playwright.  WIlliams, O'Neill and Miller aren't even second-rate.
>
> > > >>> because their culture has
> > > >>> been cross-pollinated by so many non-English cultures. American
> > > >>> theatrical tradition and film were obviously vitalized by immigrants
> > > >>> escaping from Nazi Germany and its dominions.
> > > >>> As regards good literature, there is obviously a lot of it in
> > > >>> civilized languages, such as German and Polish, to mention just two of
> > > >>> them.- Hide quoted text -
> > > >> I'm curious, Panu, as to (1) what authors of any kind in English you
> > > >> find to be first-rate, and (2) why Shakespeare is not.
>
> > > > Well, I like John McGahern's novel "Amongst Women", for instance, and
> > > > William Butler Yeats has written some fine poetry.
>
> > > > As regards Shakespeare's greatness, I think the burden of proof is on
> > > > those who profess to believe in it.
>
> > > I'm sorry, I didn't realize that for everything I like in life, I have
> > > any obligation to prove to anyone else that I like it or that I have any
> > > basis for liking it.
>
> > I am always happy to tell people why I like a particular writer. I
> > might even have a vivid memory of reading his works for the first
> > time.
>
> > > > When asked why Shakespeare is so
> > > > great, their answers usually boil down to the fact that they were
> > > > taught so.
>
> > > Really? Fascinating. I'm sure lots of people openly explain that they
> > > like this or that because someone taught them that they like it. As
> > > though people even think that way about the things that they like.
>
> > In my opinion, the evidence for Shakespeare's greatness presented in
> > this thread boils down exactly to that. The fact that people
> > unwittingly quote Shakespeare all the time only shows that they were
> > brought up among the cultists.-
>
> Or that they were brought up speaking the English language.
>
> Incidentally, Shakespeare is a lot better on the stage than on the
> page.

You don't need an actual stage. Doing Shakespeare in the shower is
just as good as singing.

Other Elizabethans have good lines. Webster "Cover her face. Mine eyes
dazzle. She died young."
Marlow has a hundred good lines "Is it not brave to ride in triumph
through Persopolis?" "Why this is Hell nor am I out of it." But
Shakespeare has thousands.

I've never really understood why people flocked to WATCH plays.  The
actors have all the fun. Sort of the reverse of bull-baiting.