Shakespeare digression

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Helandhighwater » Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:35 am

Ierrellus wrote:According to Wiki answers, the average university professor has command of about 15,000+ words, whereas Shakespeare had command of about 60,000 words.


In that case the average university professor is a moron. When you're writing books, you don't just have access to your own limited language, you have acces to a myriad of people's language you use as sources in a myriad of prose, so when you read their material your word base increases by the amount of books you have read, plus of course the fact that you mix with great writers who inspire you. Shakespeares command of words in literature was average at best, his ability to write prose, mediocre at best considering his peers, his diversity of work well less than even mediocre, but what he did have was imagination, a rich wife and access to lots of material with lots of verbosity.

Is there actually a method to test a writers vocabulary, over a common or day vocabulary? Is there a VQ? Do you have that test to hand? If you gave me the ability to draw all the words in all the books sitting on my bookshelf would my VQ go up?

These arguments are frankly asanine, moribund and worthless, an author who was no more prodigious than most, with no more vocabulary than most, with no more adriotness than most except in one area - to have imagination - wrote a small amount of texts, who the hell cares. It's not a conspiracy that Shakespeare didn't write so little, it's a conspiracy of people who really cannot fathom how many people could of done so. Hell Phillip Marlow would of beaten him if he had lived. What sort of vocabulary did he have? If there were both Shakespeare and Marlow would we be having this discussion? You don't like Shakespeare, boo fricking hoo, but don't dislike a man because you cannot fathom someone ordinary who did something great, that was because he had so many sources.
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby jabs » Sun Jun 30, 2013 6:25 am

what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?
Jesús Antonio Bermúdez Silva

Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point every turn do what a good man would do.
User avatar
jabs
Thinker
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: London, Cricklewood, UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Kriswest » Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:39 pm

The way I read it suicide is what it means. Its what the rest of the soliloquy implies at least.
I will be bitchy, cranky, sweet, happy, kind, pain in the ass all at random times from now on. I am embracing my mentalpause until further notice. Viva lack of total control!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not a test,,, this is my life right now. Have a good day and please buckle up for safety reasons,, All those in high chairs, go in the back of the room.
User avatar
Kriswest
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 20508
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: stuck in permanent maternal mode.

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby jabs » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:09 pm

Kriswest wrote:The way I read it suicide is what it means. Its what the rest of the soliloquy implies at least.

Is that so? well I could not be more wrong could I? Anyway I am not going that way. With my Bipolar-I, current state of GAD, well into my fifties and no chance of ever finding work, I nevertheless prefer to stay alive.
Jesús Antonio Bermúdez Silva

Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point every turn do what a good man would do.
User avatar
jabs
Thinker
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: London, Cricklewood, UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Hobbes Choice » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:39 pm

jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?


No Hamlet is considering suicide.

To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,...
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby jabs » Sun Jun 30, 2013 3:53 pm

Hobbes Choice wrote:
jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?


No Hamlet is considering suicide.

To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,...

Thanks Hobbes, I am actually quite obsessed with this aspect of split personalities so I associated with to be or not to be. Don't you think it would have interesting if Shakespeare was addressing this point? or does Shakespeare at any point addresses this point? Apart from Twelve Night which I did 40 years ago at school and I understood very little of it, I have not read any of Shakespeare.
Jesús Antonio Bermúdez Silva

Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point every turn do what a good man would do.
User avatar
jabs
Thinker
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: London, Cricklewood, UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Hobbes Choice » Sun Jun 30, 2013 4:16 pm

jabs wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?


No Hamlet is considering suicide.

To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,...

Thanks Hobbes, I am actually quite obsessed with this aspect of split personalities so I associated with to be or not to be. Don't you think it would have interesting if Shakespeare was addressing this point? or does Shakespeare at any point addresses this point? Apart from Twelve Night which I did 40 years ago at school and I understood very little of it, I have not read any of Shakespeare.


I don't think Hamlet is in a split personality as such.
But he is torn about the fact that uncle Claudius and killed his dad and married his mother.
He feigns madness, but the madness seems to over take him.
http://www.w3.org/People/maxf/XSLideMaker/hamlet.pdf
As for reading him - I don't think it is as good an option as seeing in on stage.
If you have no theatre were you live, there are lots of good film versions and TV productions to look out for.
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Helandhighwater » Sun Jun 30, 2013 11:29 pm

Hobbes Choice wrote:If you have no theatre were you live, there are lots of good film versions and TV productions to look out for.


Agreed, I think if you get the chance you should see all the plays on stage, but for me the chance seldom comes. Films are of course a medium. I think some plays are actually better put into film because of the technical difficulty of actually staging grand scenes on a small stage. Henry V springs to mind, the vasty fields of Agincourt perhaps could never be conveyed as well on a mere stage.

Henry V: Prologue:

But pardon, and gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that have dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object: can this cockpit hold
The vasty fields of France? or may we cram
Within this wooden O the very casques
That did affright the air at Agincourt?
O, pardon! since a crooked figure may
Attest in little place a million;
And let us, ciphers to this great accompt,
On your imaginary forces work.
Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies,
Whose high upreared and abutting fronts
The perilous narrow ocean parts asunder:
Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts;
Into a thousand parts divide on man,
And make imaginary puissance;
Think when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth;
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings,
Carry them here and there; jumping o'er times,
Turning the accomplishment of many years
Into an hour-glass: for the which supply,
Admit me Chorus to this history;
Who prologue-like your humble patience pray,
Gently to hear, kindly to judge, our play.


You must say he gave it a good go though. :)
"smoke me a kipper Skipper I'll be back for Breakfast."

Arnold Judas RImmer V2.0. AKA Ace.

"
Helandhighwater wrote:Feel free to tell me what happened today to your sphincter, and at length, I am very interested in your ass. Pun intended. :evil:

"
User avatar
Helandhighwater
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 1:13 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Moreno » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:41 am

jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?

On one level it has to do with whether to kill himself. On Another level it has to do with really entering Life, participating full - which scares Hamlet, because he is afraid that if he enters fully into Life, he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast - like his uncle - carried away by passions.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby jabs » Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:31 am

Moreno wrote:
jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?

On one level it has to do with whether to kill himself. On Another level it has to do with really entering Life, participating full - which scares Hamlet, because he is afraid that if he enters fully into Life, he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast - like his uncle - carried away by passions.

This is very interesting. I suspect that the play it is like his uncle, in real life it is like all of us.

We all become beasts, no exception.
Jesús Antonio Bermúdez Silva

Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point every turn do what a good man would do.
User avatar
jabs
Thinker
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: London, Cricklewood, UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Hobbes Choice » Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:05 pm

Moreno wrote:
jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?

On one level it has to do with whether to kill himself. On Another level it has to do with really entering Life, participating full - which scares Hamlet, because he is afraid that if he enters fully into Life, he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast - like his uncle - carried away by passions.


Absurd..

The dilemma is to face what he sees as the truth of the murder of his father, but his uncle. Nothing whatever to do with "objectivity".
Facing that is to agree that the ghost of his father is real, and that he will have to challenge King Claudius and his own mother, bringing ruin to the kingdom, as in fact happens.
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Moreno » Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:01 am

Hobbes Choice wrote:
Moreno wrote:
jabs wrote:what does "to be or not to be that is the question" mean? does it mean whether we have to decide to be a true person or not?

On one level it has to do with whether to kill himself. On Another level it has to do with really entering Life, participating full - which scares Hamlet, because he is afraid that if he enters fully into Life, he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast - like his uncle - carried away by passions.


Absurd..

The dilemma is to face what he sees as the truth of the murder of his father, but his uncle. Nothing whatever to do with "objectivity".
Facing that is to agree that the ghost of his father is real, and that he will have to challenge King Claudius and his own mother, bringing ruin to the kingdom, as in fact happens.
It's not absurd. And the to be or not to be soliloquey is clearly about suicide on the surface and not about whether to murder his uncle. The latter may be hinted at, but only as one example of many in a world of slings and arrows.

So seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you think suicide and engaging in life are not what the to be or not to be speech is about, you are going against the vast bulk of lit crit on it. This doesn't mean that general consensus must be right, but it is hardly absurd or so many intelligent poeple in so many eras and cultures would not have thought it was the case.

As far as the play as a whole: There are many things Hamlet says that indicate he fears entering life and being like others, pulled along by their passions. And what you write here neither contradicts nor is contradicted by what I said. In fact they complement nicely. He was seeking evidence, beyond the word of the ghost and his own distaste for his uncle and hatred of him. Objectivity is arguably not quite the right word. A kind of detachment, less subjective.

It is not a mere style choice to say
to be or not to be
rather than
to live or not to live.

It is beyond question that suicide is a major theme of the play

There is also the that this o too sullied flesh would melt soliloquy

Then the O what a rogue and peasant slave am i

where he berates himself for not being able to engage and be pressed in action in the world, even as much as an actor pretending to have certain feelings.

The speech about how all occasions do inform against me continues this theme of control vs. action, reason vs. passion.

And in his reactions to the other characters we see his disdain for people led around blindly by their passions.

But none of what I am arguing goes against what you said. In terms of pure action he is indeed trying to decide.

But he could have killed his uncle in the second scene, or whatever scene comes after the ghost scene, 3rd fourth. But he goes to enormous verbal and action lengths bemoaning his lack of action, but clearly concerned about what it would mean, about him to act or not act. And the radical difference between Hamlet and Laertes, which Hamlet himself notes and mulls over also. Laertes thinks he is wronged and is ready to kill directly, none of this mulling and talking and trying get proof via the gymnastics of a play. He is a magnificent figure, Hamlet, far more interesting than Laertes, but part of what makes him interesting is a problem and he cannot see the way out of the dilemma and neither does Shakespeare give an answer.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Hobbes Choice » Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:16 pm

Moreno wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:
Moreno wrote:On one level it has to do with whether to kill himself. On Another level it has to do with really entering Life, participating full - which scares Hamlet, because he is afraid that if he enters fully into Life, he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast - like his uncle - carried away by passions.


Absurd..

The dilemma is to face what he sees as the truth of the murder of his father, but his uncle. Nothing whatever to do with "objectivity".
Facing that is to agree that the ghost of his father is real, and that he will have to challenge King Claudius and his own mother, bringing ruin to the kingdom, as in fact happens.
It's not absurd. And the to be or not to be soliloquey is clearly about suicide on the surface and not about whether to murder his uncle. The latter may be hinted at, but only as one example of many in a world of slings and arrows.

So seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you think suicide and engaging in life are not what the to be or not to be speech is about, you are going against the vast bulk of lit crit on it. This doesn't mean that general consensus must be right, but it is hardly absurd or so many intelligent poeple in so many eras and cultures would not have thought it was the case.

As far as the play as a whole: There are many things Hamlet says that indicate he fears entering life and being like others, pulled along by their passions. And what you write here neither contradicts nor is contradicted by what I said. In fact they complement nicely. He was seeking evidence, beyond the word of the ghost and his own distaste for his uncle and hatred of him. Objectivity is arguably not quite the right word. A kind of detachment, less subjective.

It is not a mere style choice to say
to be or not to be
rather than
to live or not to live.

It is beyond question that suicide is a major theme of the play

There is also the that this o too sullied flesh would melt soliloquy

Then the O what a rogue and peasant slave am i

where he berates himself for not being able to engage and be pressed in action in the world, even as much as an actor pretending to have certain feelings.

The speech about how all occasions do inform against me continues this theme of control vs. action, reason vs. passion.

And in his reactions to the other characters we see his disdain for people led around blindly by their passions.

But none of what I am arguing goes against what you said. In terms of pure action he is indeed trying to decide.

But he could have killed his uncle in the second scene, or whatever scene comes after the ghost scene, 3rd fourth. But he goes to enormous verbal and action lengths bemoaning his lack of action, but clearly concerned about what it would mean, about him to act or not act. And the radical difference between Hamlet and Laertes, which Hamlet himself notes and mulls over also. Laertes thinks he is wronged and is ready to kill directly, none of this mulling and talking and trying get proof via the gymnastics of a play. He is a magnificent figure, Hamlet, far more interesting than Laertes, but part of what makes him interesting is a problem and he cannot see the way out of the dilemma and neither does Shakespeare give an answer.


This is what is uttely absurd...
he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast

Objectivity has nothing to do with it. I don't even think it is in Shakespeare's vocabulary. It is certainly not in Hamlet.
You are putting a modern slant on it that WS could never have intended
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby jabs » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:45 pm

Hobbes Choice wrote:This is what is uttely absurd...
he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast

Objectivity has nothing to do with it. I don't even think it is in Shakespeare's vocabulary. It is certainly not in Hamlet.
You are putting a modern slant on it that WS could never have intended

Dear hobbes, why the word "absurd"?, why not I disagree with this because of a and b.
Jesús Antonio Bermúdez Silva

Do whatever you do, do what a good man would do, and what is a good man?, I do not know, but at every point every turn do what a good man would do.
User avatar
jabs
Thinker
 
Posts: 699
Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 3:56 pm
Location: London, Cricklewood, UK

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Hobbes Choice » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:37 pm

jabs wrote:
Hobbes Choice wrote:This is what is uttely absurd...
he will lose objectivity, humanity, and be just Another beast

Objectivity has nothing to do with it. I don't even think it is in Shakespeare's vocabulary. It is certainly not in Hamlet.
You are putting a modern slant on it that WS could never have intended

Dear hobbes, why the word "absurd"?, why not I disagree with this because of a and b.


The word is used to reflect the degree of incongruence.

Adjective
(of an idea or suggestion) Wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate

"Objectivity, and Beast."

Do not apply in this case, so are inappropriate.
User avatar
Hobbes Choice
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:00 pm

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby john1565 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:36 pm

Helandhighwater wrote:
Kriswest wrote:How many people do you know that actually, actually understand and get Shakespeare?


Everyone I know, well my friends at least. Ok some people I know have never seen it, probably wouldn't watch it if I gave them money, nor would I chastise them for it. All I know is anyone I have ever met who actually watched it and took the time to get into his plays, got it. Is it really that hard to understand? I mean middle English? Well I guess it is, I don't think it is, but clearly you do, which is fine it's not like Americans speak English that well anyway. That was a joke ok, I was joking, it wasn't serious. :P


I support you. I heard at once that original Shakespeare english has been translated to modern english.
john1565
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Jakob » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:11 pm

SIATD is a nazi fuck.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:35 am

Is he?
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25497
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby john1565 » Sun May 06, 2018 5:05 am

Mr Reasonable wrote:Is he?


Did you ask me?
john1565
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Shakespeare digression

Postby Arcturus Descending » Thu May 10, 2018 3:33 pm

Kriswest wrote:The way I read it suicide is what it means. Its what the rest of the soliloquy implies at least.


"To be or not to be"...

Hi Kris, wherever you may be.

I always thought the phrase meant to be Something More than someone who simply exists ~ goes through the meager motions of existence.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake


“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience


“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15299
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron