>...Who's there? >...I am It only took 400 years

Long live the King

c/moooon

>dude it's either existing or not existing i guess lmao

overrated cunt

>William Shakespeare
>AKA Willy Shakepenis
>AKA Dick Wanker

Lmao this guy is a fucking joke

>tfw everyone - both plebs and patricians love the willy but I don't

seriously how do I get into his work? I feel like I'm missing out for not enjoying it

>>8499616
go see a play. none of this shit was meant to be read off a page. i heard they do performances in london where they approximate the original pronunciation so it sounds all vulgar and growly like it was originally. that might be fun.

>>8499616
Neither could Tolstoy.

>>8499695
Difference is Tolstoy probably had good reasons, but I don't.

>>8499616

You need to be a wizard to understand Shakespeare.

Otherwise stick to greek myth stories.

File: Me.jpg (34KB, 497x478px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 497x478px

>>8499616

Your not alone. Nietzsche's problem with Shakespeare, for example, was that he wrote his works for plebs and patricians alike. Theatre is, by definition, the most plebeian of all art fors.

Goethe was superior, precisely because he wrote for patricians alone.

File: 1468113089773.jpg (11KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x229px

>>8499749
>You need to be a wizard to understand Shakespeare.

>>8500452

I'm sirius.

SAY A A A M SO SO SIRIUSE

File: 1470418031916.jpg (512KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 1280x720px

>>8499730
The only difference is Tolstoj took the time to actually articulate his opinion, rather than say someone else liked X thing or not and leave it at that. If you inquire on why you don't like something you'll either see that you misjudged it or that you might have a point: either way you'll be better off. Or you could choose apathy, maybe you just don't have the time.

File: giphy_0.gif (990KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 500x281px

I never understood "I am."

Its contraction is "I'm," but they cannot be used in the same manner.

You cannot reply to "Who's there?" with, "I'm." Is there a grammatical term for this?

>>8501651

I find you cute, okay?

>>8501651
I've'nt seen one.

>>8501651
I feel like that's because 'I am' just became a shortened version of 'I am here', but that never happened with I'm. Idk

>>8501654
grimes has aids
prove me wrong

>>8501651

And btw you probably can respond with I'm if the author has particular reason to do so.

As with speech there's minimal difference between pronunciation I'm and I am.

Language in essence is anarchic enough to allow for its development, for example somewhere somebody decided an apostrophe isn't needed when there is confusion between possession and abbreviation, such as it's redundancy or human retardation.

>>8501667

idgaf about whoever you're talking about

>>8500452
Well, you at least need a properly annotated copy of his plays to be able to grasp the meta stuff.

When I studied Shakespeare in Undergrad (BA in English Literature), I could understand (most of) the plots without reading the annotations, but that was about it.

To understand the double entendres, oblique meanings, most of the character motivations, not to mention all of the references, without reading the notes or having a professor explain them, you would have to be extremely well read, and already have a strong grasp of Early Modern English. Most people on /lit/ don't have both of those.

Without looking at the notes, I was able to understand some of the references, like the Greek mythology and Canonical references, but that was only because I used to read Greek Mythology and the Hebrew Scriptures for fun. Any of the other references went completely over my head.

He's not impossible to understand, but come on man, understanding Shakespeare is far from easy mode. It takes quite a lot of background knowledge and a specific set of literary skills to comprehend all of the literary devices, allusions, allegories, etc etc that he uses.

>>8499799
>Nietzsche's problem with Shakespeare, for example, was that he wrote his works for plebs and patricians alike.

>Goethe was superior, precisely because he wrote for patricians alone.

But that was what makes Shakespeare the greater genius - he could write essentially two plays in one, and could both seem to flatter or villainize when he was doing quite the opposite to the intended audience.

>>8501651
>You cannot reply to "Who's there?" with, "I'm." Is there a grammatical term for this?

One may respond with "I'm".

>...and Man Of Moon shall be thy honorific
>that no one save for you shall ever utter
what is the meaning of this?

>>8501717

What is symbol of moon?

What is honour?

What is speech?

What is pride?

>>8501689
>To understand the double entendres, oblique meanings, most of the character motivations
Can you give us an example of something you didn't understand without your professors help

File: eikhenbaum.jpg (5KB, 148x200px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 148x200px

>>8501651
>they cannot be used in the same manner.
Presently. Contractions only occur because of phonological disonations, *then* they are distinguished from non-contracted forms--they are born as simple, unperceived slips of the tongue, not attempts to be poetic or innovative. The difference of meaning follows the accident of form.

>>8501711
If you knock on my door and I ask, "who's there" and you say, "I'm" I will fight you

>>8501651
I use all possible contractions, even where inappropriate, in text messages to friends but that's a bit

>>8501741

Poetry holding a strong emphasis on rhythm would distinguish I'm with I am.

Feel the beat: I'm. I am. I AM.

>>8501749

You'd fight them if they said I am, too? Either way you're right as stupid as you left with.

bamboozle.

>>8501753
*e'en
*i'

>>8501753
>>8501762

You're an embarrassment..

>>8501759
>Poetry holding a strong emphasis on rhythm would distinguish I'm with I am.
The choice would depend on the meter, rhyme et c.

>>8501772

The choice would depend on the expression and/or intention, which is the point of anarchic language in the first place, yes.

File: 1453754035670.jpg (44KB, 500x258px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x258px

>>8501777
Now that ı think about it, there are cases of obligatory contractions in Spanish, which raises the question of how much this was the case or not, in the English of Shakespeare's time.

>>8501801

So interesting will you let us know when you know?

File: 1473697450123.jpg (11KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 240x229px

>>8501689

>>8501815

lmao okay just read Illuminatus! by robert shea something something

File: 1473697450123.jpg (22KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 240x229px

>>8501818

>>8501759
"I am" is cheeky but acceptable.

>>8501827

>"Who's that?" a voice called. Waterhouse, whose eyes had adjusted to the darkness, looked across the
empty living room into the foyer, where Milo A. Flanagan stood silhouetted in the light from the
exterior hall.
Waterhouse raised the heavy automatic in his hand to arm's length, sighted carefully, took a deep
breath and held it and squeezed the trigger. The pistol blasted and kicked his hand and the black
figure went toppling backwards into the startled arms of the men behind him.
A bat which had been sitting on a windowsill flew out the open window toward the lake. Only
Waterhouse saw it.
O'Banion came clumping into the room. He took a bent
-
kneed stance and fired a burst of six rounds
in the direction of the front door.


Just read this instead of Shakespeare and you won't even know you died kek

File: 1473697450123.jpg (12KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 240x229px

>>8501827

>>8501812
I caren't so much as to look for such a specific fact, ı an't Harold Bloom.

Every time I post an alt-right racist post after me lol

do you want a fight?

File: 1473697450123.jpg (20KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 240x229px

>>8501842

Lads they wanna fight :)

File: 1473697450123.jpg (22KB, 240x229px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 240x229px

>>8501854
>>8501863

>>8501846
>>8501801
Dude what is with your fucked up midget I

>>8501871

C-C-C-C-C-C-C-C-corrupt nations.

Enjoy eating your own shite, lads.

>>8501878
Wtf? Are you foreign or just crazy

>>8501871
TURKS

ARE

ROACHES

>>8501888

I say, what happens to a turd when the flusher flushes - goes to the sewer lads!

Who would even be foolish enough to work against God?

>>8501871
Both cases of i don't feel right as the 1st person pronoun for different reason. Plus, being recognizable is useful because it makes me conscious of my posting quality, but using a trip is too visible and almost no one does it anymore.

>>8501922

True that status quo bind I feel you brother.

>>8501922

it's like we're all oppressed or something

>>8501963
Yeah, we know we're all subject. The real issue is who's the king.

>>8502005
Hail to the king, baby

>>8502005
>>8502032

Allah, baby.

>>8501735
Sure.
Much Ado About Nothing comes most readily to mind, iirc practically every joke in that play has multiple different meanings.

I didn't understand the double entendres in the title of Much Ado About Nothing. I'm just going to quote what Wikipedia has about the title because it's been a long time since I read that play, and wikipedia says it a lot clearer than I am able to.

>Nothing is a double entendre; "an O-thing" (or "n othing" or "no thing") was Elizabethan slang for "vagina", evidently derived from the pun of a woman having "nothing" between her legs.

>>8502056

That's bad, stay silent in the future.

How much of what's projected onto Shakespeare's plays by academics was actually intended by the author? If even half of it, he anticipates Nietzsche and the whole of 21st century society.

>>8501651
My guess is that it is because of how it sounds combined with habit - it's too short to be clearly understood as "I am" on its own, without something following it. Same with "it's", "we're", "he'd" etc.

>>8501922
Ok snowflake

>>8502068
Dont be a cunt, that was a good post

>>8501905
You are obviously very confused

>>8501689
You really don't. The only overt references he makes are to mythology and history, the former of which are completely explained just by reading Bullfinch.

Everything else is your english professor going DUDE LITTLE DEATH LMAO to justify their job.

>>8502068
Great response.
I gave you exactly what you asked for, but you didn't have anything to back up your criticism so you just shitposted. What a surprise.

>>8502056
I appreciate it mayne

>>8502280
I've had English professors who did the equivalent of what you're talking about with other books, but the two professors I took for Shakespeare were not like that. I learned a lot from those classes. Sure, maybe I could have learned much of it from reading secondary texts, but I get a lot more out of an in person discussion in class than reading another book.

I'm glad you could get a lot out of Will through reading a supplementary text. To each their own.