He said Shakespeare was a tremendous genius, but that he is

but that opinion is correct?

File: Nabby.png (93KB, 1805x624px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1805x624px

>>8423733
It's quite simple, really.

>>8423746
But this isn't accurate, he read profusely (which is how you get to be a better writer) from boyhood. It's not like he just randomly had a talent. If he just had a talent and wasn't actually a serious study of literature this would apply, but in fact he must have made a very strenuous study of literature. That's why his awful opinions (which aren't even written in the great prose he uses when opining on anything outside of literature), are so puzzling.

>>8423746
We kill the batman

>>8423733

desu most play productions suck, so it really is better to just read the play

>>8423787
Nabakov didn't have to see low-grade productions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LDdyafsR7g

>>8423733

He's right thought.

99.8% of actors do not understand the infrastructure of the language and so perform it as if they are reciting hickory-dickory-dock.

>>8423733
he's right

>>8423825
Sometimes you should do that. Richard II is probably better performed that way. But you're right, that's an issue, but it's more of a problem with training actors as professionals than a problem of staging per se. Also there needs to be very trained directors helping with rehearsal.

>>8423733
he's talking about structurally, his plays being simple

mechanics, the thing /lit/ derides and calls worthless

>>8423836

No it's that Shakespeare was a wizard with deep deep esoteric knowledge under his hat, which he expressed through the language in his plays.

Without that knowledge, 'actors' cannot express the word but to impress their baser emotions through the wisest, jokiest, tricky words ever written - and they become fools for it.

>>8423838
Shakespeare's plays can be high-concept, but generally aren't.