What is Shakespeare's most superior tragedy? Pic unrelated.

why did you feel necessary to post that pseud nonsense by someone who didnt have the self awareness to pick up a dictionary before being public with their stupidity?

>>9552291
Holy fuck that pic is rage-inducing. I thought I had seen some bad stuff from Reddit already, but that one is really as pseud as it gets. I definitely don't think that Bloom is a final authority on literature, but to disregard the notion that something can be a masterpiece is absolutely retarded and ignorant.

My vote goes for Hamlet. It's just really hard to beat.

File: 1483671615335.jpg (546KB, 2905x1937px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 2905x1937px

>>9552322
>2017
>being' 'triggered

>>9552291
KING LEAR

it would be between Hamlet and Lear, others need not apply

>>9552383
I wasn't triggered, but I do have a burning hatred for everything that that picture embodies.

>>9552322
what are the parameters for a masterpiece

File: 4041485616153.jpg (47KB, 300x410px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 300x410px

>>9552438
>i wasn't triggered i was triggered

>>9552450
Not him, but I think it all boils down to being rly good.

>>9552450
anglo detected

we all know you guys have cultural autism, but you dont have to systematize EVERYTHING

>>9552291
Literary "scholars" don't understand that people like Bloom specifically because he doesn't contribute to "contemporary literary debates." He is interested in form and aesthetics, not moral browbeating, progressive evangelism, and intellectual posturing.

Titus Andronicus

>>9552450
A work being a masterpiece is qualitative, not quantitative. It marks the evolution of an individual from a practitioner of an art to a position of greater experience and control. You can only really define it retroactively, but considering that its a statement on growth and experience, that's not a bad thing
>inb4 durrrr but expression gotta be quantitatively graded muh art objectivism hurrr

>>9552580
>>>/mu/

>>9552567
t. someone whose only experience of literary studies are shitposting on /lit/ and articles posted on /pol/

>>9552567
This. These people don't want to participate in intellectual competition or pit their ideas against others', so they slink back under the obfuscating cover of intellectual nihilism.

>>9552585
>you can objectively assess whether a work of art is a masterpiece or not
>don't ask for objective criteria or you're dum and stupid haha
>here's a greentext as an argument

>>9552596
That's not really true. I mean I admit I don't formally study literature for reasons I mentioned in my post (it's incredibly easy, I have an actual degree in a field that requires an IQ above 115, a lot of it is blatant propaganda written by and for leftist pseuds who resent their daddies), but I've read several Norton anthologies which included a couple hundred pages of introductory literary criticism and I have a basic familiarity with critics like Daniel Albright. I appreciate beauty and the study of its craft, but that's not what's going on in many universities today.

>>9552669
>literature study is incredibly easy
Opinion descarted.

>>9552669
>field that requires an IQ above 115
[citation needed]

>>9552669
So you haven't experienced it except indirectly and filtered and also are biased against it, and yet you claim to know exactly what happens and how. Your IQ is truly above 115, bro.

>>9552692
Objectively speaking, it is.

>>9552722
>it doesnt count unless you're paying some Marxist to fart in your face
>if you dont feel xir hot gas against your lips, it doesnt count

>>9552745
Thabks for confirming what I said, dumbass.

>>9552766
Thanks for confirming what I said, retard

File: 1495743594871.jpg (3MB, 4608x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4608x2592px

Guys i have this book but im not sure whether to read summarys or first read all his plays in raw texts (and thus not spoil all the plays).

What do i do? Read all summaries first or read plays text by text?

>>9552777
checked
>>9552778
plays first of course

>>9552783

Fugg. I dont have access to any of his txt plays. Is it really that bad reading all the summaries? I only have this book

Othello and even Macbeth are superior in structure to Hamlet and Lear. They hold tension better for sure, but the latter two are better works of art overall for their philosophy and their characters and their insights and their flow and god knows what else.

>>9552814
it's not "that bad" but do you really have that little self control?

>>9552820

Self control for what

>>9552815
I'd say Othello is slightly better than Macbeth structurally, simply because of Iago.

>>9552814
>I dont have access to any of his txt plays

They are free on the internet. There are even some scholarly editions on libgen. Have resourcefulnes. C'mon, man.

>>9552842
I agree. The tension is present from nearly the beginning. It's a fun read.

>>9552833
that you can't wait to read something until later

>>9552852

I dont like reading on the internet. I only like handheld books. I get what you are saying man. But i cant read internet.

>>9552856

True. This books been on my shelf for ages. I want to dip into classical stuff ASAP.

>>9552872
>But i cant read internet.

Then buy them off from Amazon or BookDepository. Or print them. Seriously, it sounds like you are making up excuses.

>>9552872
Have you tried e-readers?

File: IMG_0101.jpg (76KB, 566x566px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 566x566px

>Hamlet = Lear > Julius Caesar > Macbeth > Othello = R&J > Everything else

O-O-OBJECTIVE FACT