>dating someone >get in conversation about books >mention

he is

>>8416687
He only created the self-aware character and was a complete master of the English language.

Find me one character in a work before Shakespeare who is self-aware and changes based on their self-awareness. Just one.

there are acouple ways someone could be thinking this
a) contrarianism. there is a default group of people who will never accept anything that is established as universally good, the same people who don't like beatles. contrarians will stop at nothing to prevent a unanimous opinion because it is the only way they can make their opinion important.

2) the "seinfeld isn't funny" trope. in retrospect, newcomers to the sitcom seinfeld find the show is apparently derivative but actually the show is the source material for what most sitcoms since have been based on, shakespeare is the epitome of this

>>8416690
Gilgamesh

>>8416710
Admitted.

Now find me an author who made at least a good 10 or 20 of those before Shakespeare.

>>8416687
this is naked contrarianism. youre not impressing anyone

>>8416745
>moving goalposts this desperately

jesus you're pathetic. stop trying to defend shakespeare you're an embarrassment.

>>8416751
Moving goalposts? I demur. It was all part of my plan. You thought you were so clever for naming just one character who was self-aware before Shakespeare, but little did you know that no matter who you named, the author no doubt had that as their only interesting character.

But not Shakespeare, boyo.

No. Never Shakespeare.

>>8416752
I just enterred this thread and am about to leave. I don't even know the other guy's argument. You really sound awkward.

>>8416681
Most people only are exposed to Shakespeare through High School English, and they usually don't even read his plays they just sparknote them.

>>8416774
*I was the one who mentioned goalposts, but am not the other anon

>>8416681
>This person who wrote about tribulations that are barely related my existence and to my problems isn't totally overrated.
You're the typical idiot who bandwagons around The Brothers Karamazov and other books that have zero relation with your time and space. Get over yourself. He was relevant centuries ago and he's barely important today even in your culture.

>>8416800
I agree, people who study about and focus on cultures and time periods of the past have their heads up their ass. Specifically historians. Fuck those guys, what an absolutely waste of time and meaningless study.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to continue writing my academic journal on Paper Towns by John Green.

>>8416747
you sure are though!

>>8416838
Did you just imply that literature is a credible and an useful source for historians? You're even more retarded than I thought. Good riddance, no wonder no one takes American liberal students seriously.

>>8416690
Job

>>8416681
What were you expecting in posting this, OP? A hugbox? I clearly agree with you, but, well, posting this is the perfect bait to get them all out of the woodworks.

>>8416681
>Ugh
>How can anyone think this??? What the heck?
why do posts like this even get replies

>>8416846
Not the anon you replied to however I have something to say.

While literature may not be a credible source for historians, it can give insight to cultural movements and society at a given time. Of course emotion and bias is added on to these insights as literature is presented in the way an author perceives the world around him or her.

I believe a good example of this instance would be Greek Myths, while facts and primary sources provide excellent data for historians studying the ancients, the Greek Myths capture and cover societal practices, the ancients' perception of their own history, and beliefs. Edith Hamilton brings out a lot of this, if you have read any of her works.

While not entirely crucial, I find literature to be somewhat relevant to a time period and shouldn't be completely ruled out.

>>8416862
"an useful"

>>8416888
That's a completely different point of view. The anon I'm arguing with isn't trying to make that claim.
>>8416895
>I know I can't refute him so I'm just going to point out a typo he made
You lost all the credibility you had

>>8416800
Did you just imply that old literature is ultimately pointless for anybody to read solely because it is irrelevant to contemporary culture? Even though each person who reads these works may appreciate reading the style and themes that these authors cover and are interested in what they have to say about it? You're even more ignorant than I thought, thinking that literature is only important for its cultural contexts. You pathetic pseudo-intellectual.

this thread is an absolute disaster

File: heart-attack.jpg (23KB, 600x478px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x478px

>>8416800
That's like saying the Bible and Greek mythology have no relevance to our day and age. It's immortal literature specifically because it continues to stay relevant, unlike 99% of literature

>>8416690
This is peripeteia/anagnorasis, codified by Aristotle as what makes stories great.

>>8416697
The Beatles are shit though

>>8416681

god, i hate 'back to school'.

>>8416909
>Did you just imply that old literature is ultimately pointless for anybody to read solely because it is irrelevant to contemporary culture?
Old fiction is irrelevant for pragmatic purposes, yes.

>Even though each person who reads these works may appreciate reading the style and themes that these authors cover and are interested in what they have to say about it?
Liking, emotions, feelings, interests..how's that relevant to the matter at hand? You like it, great. So what? We're talking about purpose and not what makes your cock hard. You're the typical post-modernist: me, me, me and me. "What about what I want? What about if reading fiction depicting knights and damsels helps me understand better the tribulations that I suffer whenever I'm not in my safe space? ".

> You're even more ignorant than I thought, thinking that literature is only important for its cultural contexts.
You give too much relevance to a hobby that was mainly occupied by bored housewives since four centuries ago. But so be it - drown in your petulance and blind praise for this crap that you call literature.

>You pathetic pseudo-intellectual.
Now this is what I call projection.

>>8416926
>It's immortal because it's one of the first.
Are you of those college students of footnotes every single book he read on his papers?

>>8416936
>b8 this obvious

>>8416800
What's a book that's relevant to your "time and space"?

>>8416961
John Green, JK Rowling, American Sniper by Chris Kyle, also some Manga here and there

>>8416936
What is relevant to the matter at hand?

What do you read right now and why?

>>8416937
Are you seriously going to deny that Coriolanus has extreme relevant in the modern age?

You might try Fiennes' gimmicky adaption to help illustrate it for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2uYWoyjwBk

Why are you obfuscating the gender of the person whom you're dating? Nobody here knows who you are or cares.

>>8416999
Because if I say it's a he, people will call me an attentionwhore

>>8416697
Seinfeld isn't funny.
>actually the show is the source material for what most sitcoms since have been based on
Lol is this an actual argument? All sitcoms are shit. And no, this isn't me being contrarian you retard, maybe not just everyone enjoys shit tier American media, you know?
Go watch Ellen. Le dancin' xD

>>8416697
>seinfield source material for most sitcoms

Nope. http://www.cosmoetica.com/B874-DES691.htm

And beyond a few plays, Shakespeare has loads and loads of fluff, silly sideplots, and stretches of bad poetry.

Just because someone did it first doesn't mean they did it best.

>>8416800
>Shakespeare
>time and space
Fabrizio, you do understand that The Merchant of Venice and Romeo and Juliet are not really specifically about your people?

>>8417739
go to bed dan

>>8417719
t.never watched arrested development or himym

File: Kingfisher.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>8416681
It's easier to say, Shakespeare's overrated" than it is to attentively read through his collected works.

>>8417792
Are you 15?

>>8416752
This reads as if Harold Lauder wrote on a Jamaican-peanut-harvesting-forum.