Young Writers Society

Shakespeare writes about experiences, events and emotions people can still relate to. He is the absolute master of emotions with evil villains so enduring that you find yourself cheering for them. (Macbeth) How can you not feel at least a little bit sad when Othello kills Desdemona or absolutely melt with the lines "Romeo, O Romeo Wherefore art thou Romeo?" Its all about the emotion.

Or is it all about truth?

Shakespeare, arguably, writes entertainingly about enduring truths of human nature; and as you say, Clover, writes of experiences all can relate to.

Would you not call human nature emotion? Isn't human nature governed by the emotions of not only yourself but of the others around you? So I continue to defend my previous opinion of emotion.

(yes I thought about the answer to your question for a while )

I wouldn't call human nature emotion, persay. I mean, emotion comes with human nature, but not the other way around. There are many more aspects of human nature, of humanity, than just emotion.

With that said, Shakespare's work did indeed have a touch of humanity in them which makes them enduring. And I love his sonnets...

Clover Madison wrote:Would you not call human nature emotion? Isn't human nature governed by the emotions of not only yourself but of the others around you? So I continue to defend my previous opinion of emotion.

(yes I thought about the answer to your question for a while )

Human nature is not emotion - for otherwise (though this is not an entirely inarguable conclusion) why do we have define emotion and nature? Nature is the inherent being of a person - you could say where they came from, what they're meant for, where they end. Nature is the word used for humanity's DNA - not biologically, but in entirety. Emotion is an aspect of it. Human beings have emotion. But they are not emotion. To some extent we are influenced by emotion - but apparently we have reason as well - what are we doing here (reasoning somewhat clearly, I hope)?

To say we are governed by it would not make that our nature. Nations founded on freedom are often governed by caprice; men are often governed by women (and the other way round); and children can be governed by their parents.

But men are not women; children aren't parents; caprice isn't freedom.

*Thinks to self*: How do I reply to that? How do I reply to that? Oooh Birdy! *is easily distracted*


As you say, Poor Imp, Human nature is both emotion and reason ("Would you not call human nature emotion?" <- I take this statement back) but when talking about Shakespeare the emotion part is what he writes. Anyone with any sense would not run off and get married to their family's enemy only a day after meeting them. Shakespeare's characters are filled to the brim with passion. If only Othello had thought everything through before he killed Desdemona. A reasonable Macbeth would have never killed just about everyone in the whole play off. He would have been satisfied with his original promotion.

Emotion is what makes Shakespeare just so flippin' sweet.

Clover Madison wrote:*Thinks to self*: How do I reply to that? How do I reply to that? Oooh Birdy! *is easily distracted*


As you say, Poor Imp, Human nature is both emotion and reason ("Would you not call human nature emotion?" <- I take this statement back) but when talking about Shakespeare the emotion part is what he writes. Anyone with any sense would not run off and get married to their family's enemy only a day after meeting them. Shakespeare's characters are filled to the brim with passion. If only Othello had thought everything through before he killed Desdemona. A reasonable Macbeth would have never killed just about everyone in the whole play off. He would have been satisfied with his original promotion.

Emotion is what makes Shakespeare just so flippin' sweet.

To that, I can agree. ^_^ Passion is a key aspect of humanity - its focus and its lack thereof. But the passion, emotion, I also think are a way Shakespeare explores the 'fall' of humanity, so to speak.

But that's all for another long discussion. ^_^'' I agree that Shakespeare's telling of emotion and passion are brilliant.

Poor_Imp wrote:

Teufelshund wrote:More like "Shakesqueer".

I see nothing important in Shakspeare and his works. Yeah, he gave us a few new words, but he also gave us headaches.

'Shakesqueer'...how so? And besides words - what about stories? (Just not written any more deftly than someone else might?)

His works make for good reading, and they canbe funny at times, but I simply don't understand why such a great deal has been said and published about him. So Shakspeare is "flippoin' sweet". But overrated.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, he probably never wanted even half of the recognition he's recieved, so long after his death. It wasn't his choice to publish the plays. He wrote his plays the same way many screenwriters write movies today. They include things that several different kinds of audiences will like, and do it to earn a living. Shakespeare wrote what the people wanted.

Hehehe...

Didn't he actually reject the title of playwright for the nobler title of poet? I think he was more impressed with his poetry than his plays (though he probably loved both of them equally).

I don't really know anything about that, but it wouldn't surprize me if it's true.

I love Shakespeare for his lines. Reading all of his sonnets can be quite tedious if you read the whole volume at once, but you can see a logical progression happen.
Shakespeare is awesome because he gives an entire grade of high school freshman a warped view on love with "Romeo and Juliet." I crashed a freshan english course the other day, and it was the funniest thing in the world watching the freshies initial reaction to their first meeting with Shakespeare. Now we have a whole freshie class siting that play, not even knowing anything about anything on love. It's cute. The poor little kids are also so new to Shakespeare that they don't realize the school version is abridged to take out all mentions of anything deragatory, sexual in nature, etc. This is what I love most about Shakespeare. It is lewd and crass, like with the character Iago, but also high and lofty language like Othello. Personally, anything my school censors is cool to me.

How can your school censor Shakespeare?????? Gah... we do live in Captain Beatty's world, don't we?

Found this interesting, according to the Banned Books list the following of Shakespeare was banned.

Hamlet, for references to the occult.

King Lear, because of nihilistic flavor.

Macbeth, references to the occult.

The Merchant of Venice, for anti-Semitism.

WTF? Why, oh why...

[-( It's quite sad, really. MacBeth and King Lear and both great. And besides, it really undermines their own authority and the influence of books they think are good for young people if they are so afraid of what reading these plays will do to kids.