For native speakers of English, is it not better that we start

Shakespeare read the geneva bible though...

>>9476647
He actually read a lot of Bibles other than the Geneva.

>>9476647
>>9476653
Your points are moot. This is not a thread about what Bibles Shakespeare read.

Shakespeare references a bunch of Greek and Roman mythology. you could start with Shakespeare, but you'd be missing out.

>>9476575
someone please tell me why i should care about shakespeare. i dont care about his prose or if he "changed literature forever", i want to know what im going to get out of his work. its so fucking boring

>>9476575
Ovid first, no matter what.

>>9476795
lol I love harry potter, too.

>>9476795
Lad, he's widely regarded as the greatest dramatist ever - even by people who think little of England and/or English.
Read Sonnet 29, it will take one minute - do you honestly think that is boring?
>>9476811
kek

>>9476795
I don't care about his prose either because he only wrote poetry you fucking dumb idiot, holy shit

>>9476575
>native speakers of English
don't

>>9477062
>he only wrote poetry

You're even dumber than the first Anon.

>>9477072
Ok, some parts of his plays are in prose, I admit

>>9476749
>being an autist

>>9476575
Yes. Autistic dorks who have no literary sense will continue to rabidly endorse the backwards and pernicious "star with the greeks" meme... as if petty allusions and vacuous references to previous material is more important than becoming familiar with the common parlance.

Starting with the greeks was initially a troll that started to be taken seriously 2-3 years ago after an influx of newfags. No one ever reads in chronological order on such a grand scale and to do so would surely scare anyone with literary interest into playing video games instead.

>>9476575
Thanks to footnotes and wikipedia you should get a general translation of any info you might be missing if you're reading Shakespeare. I would add Milton and Tristram Shandy to the list of must reads in English.

king james bible more like kings LAMES bible

>>9476575
Greeks are boring so yeah that's not a bad place to start

File: 1473461578217.jpg (113KB, 423x750px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 423x750px

>>9476769
>references
The only Roman whom Shakespeare had a penchant for was Ovid, whom he likely read in Golding's translation. Shakespeare knew "small Latin and less Greek." There was no overt Greek influence on Shakespeare's work.

>>9476795
You might be better off reading some YA.

>>9477859
You're the one who's gotten closest to what I'm getting at. Certainly the Greeks and Romans are the ultimate source... but classical antiquity has been heavily distilled by Shakespeare and the KJV translators. Our relationship with the Greeks and Romans is mediated by Shakespeare and the KJV.

>>9478396
Milton, maybe, but why would you rank Sterne with Shakespeare and the King James Bible?