Shakespeare:better than sex
 

Hamlet:
O, that this too too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!
Or that the everlasting had not fix'd
His Canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God ! God !
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable
Seem to me all the uses of this world!
Fie on't, ah fie ! 'tis an unweeded garden
That grows to seed; things rank and gross in nature
Posess it merely. That it should come to this.....

Shakespeare:better than sex.
Who's with me?

Have actually experianced good sex? Sure he's good with words but it don't compare. I'd say...better than seeing your mum naked on a Sunday morning.

He (or she, or them, whoever wrote the plays) was certainly wonderful. Sex is better, though!

I'm named after a Shakespeare character (Sebastian from The Tempest) so I subsequently was lucky enough to have a natural interest in him from a young age.

Sebastian's first line in the play is A pox upon your throat, you bawling, blasphemous, incharitable dog!. As you can imagine, I've worked it into conversations a few times.

I rank The Tempest as (narrowly) his second greatest, next to the awesome Timon of Athens. Timon is a truly great piece, that along with The Tempest, represents the pinnacle of theater.

From Timon of Athens:

'Tis not enough to help the feeble up,
But to support him after.
Timon of Athens, 1. 1

I'll example you with thievery:
The sun's a thief, and with his great attraction
Robs the vast sea; the moon's an arrant thief,
And her pale fire she snatches from the sun;
The sea's a thief, whose liquid surge resolves
The moon into salt tears; the earth's a thief,
That feeds and breeds by a composture stolen
From general excrement: each thing's a thief.
Timon of Athens, 4. 3

please...anything is better than sex. Go Shakespeare!

Not really a fan of the Shake......I had to take that class twice in college:eek:

Not better than sex (not in my world).
I can appreciate Shakespeare and all, but I feel zero true connection to it.

Maybe you should change the title to: Shakespeare, as good as sex. Maybe more people could live with that. Though I'm torn between which I like better...

You people haven't had decent literature if you think sex is better... freaks.

perfectwagnerite, are you named after the George Bernard Shaw book?

you people haven't had a decent lover if you think Shakespeare is better.

I think its obvious whats going on here. No one on here has had both a decent lover and decent literature. I have, and I enjoy them both equally. Has anyone ever recited Rimbaud mid-orgasm? Get back to me when you have.

I did it once.
The universe imploded.

I wouldnt know whats better

I have as it happens... I was being flippant. They're two different categories. Books will be with me forever... one day I might find a lover about whom I can say the same, but at the moment (and for the forseeable future) books will win.

I can only take Shakespeare in mild doses, but I really don't like theatre too much. I do like Kenneth Branagh's versions though. Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead is a great watch/read.

I think Shakespeare is a good writer and a cunning linguist, but I think he lacked in storytelling, which is what I am after when I read a book or watch a movie. He created interesting situations in his plays, but a lot of his stories just lacked something. Take Romeo and Juliet for example- it is very didactic, teaching the lesson "teenagers are stupid" and kills off the only interesting character fairly early on (mercutio). Not to mention that he uses dramatic irony like a crutch.

Compare that to any Dostoevsky novel. Dostoevsky's characters were extremely well developed, and no significant character was lackluster. He was a master of manipulating the reader and used all forms of irony.

My favorite parts of some of his books:
Brother's Karamazov:
Rakitin's betrayal of Alyosha and Grushenka's attempt at seduction.
Dmitri's passage from before Fyodor's death to his arrest for the murder of Fyodor and the reverse irony involved.
Ivan's discussion with the devil.

The Idiot:
The ending- Climax right at the end, with no falling action and barely any denouement. It leaves the reader completely jarred.


Crime and Punishment-
The part with Luzhin and Sonya is really well written, as is Marmaladov's death and the subsequent action's of his wife.

I started reading the Possessed and House of the Dead simultaneously and I have decided to go with House of the Dead, because it is more interesting from the onset, although I am sure the Possessed gets better later, Stavrogin's personality seems to command destruction, which is what I like to read about. I like the intro the House of the Dead because it dives into philosophy fairly quickly.


Shakespear over sex? No? Dostoevsky over sex? Well, I'd tell her to wait for me to finish the chapter and pretend she's grushenka and I'm dmitri and we'd have some fun.

Rosencrantz and Guildernstern is a great film, I think. Tim Roth and Gary Oldman are perfect, and the film's top quote comes from the travellingtheatre owner: Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see


I agree with your R&J example, and to an extent with your point generally. He wrote some incredible - quite incredible - stuff, but some of his plays suffer from cliches (even for the time) and in particular from having too many unnecessary sub-plots that don't fit in. Or from just not being very good (eg MEasure for Measure).



This is a debate that cropped up on the old board at times. I'm a great lover of Shakespeare, but I can see that Dostoevsky was more consistently great. I would contend, however, that when Mr S. got it right, he surpassed Dostoevsky by a not inconsiderable margin. The Tempest and Timon of Athens are beond comparison, in my opinion.

Shakespeare just doesn't do it for me. His plays seem very classical to me. Which is nice, but I don't relate to it as much. Dostoevsky's russia seems so real. I feel that he really had a grasp of mankind. He seemed to really love a lot of his characters. He had a certain faith in mankind. His villains such as Luzhin are not villains by disreguard for law but for their lack of remorse and hatred towards mankind. But even then, in the Brother's Karamazov, Rakitin is much more despisable than Smerdyakov, and Smerdyakov is a vile person that committed a heinous act.

I've always liked modern literature more I guess, and Dostoevsky is considered to be the father of it, so it sort of makes sense that I'd like Dostoevsky more. It is like comparing Wagner to the Pixies, or even Wagner to Beethoven.

OT: Anyone find it interesting that Ian Curtis was an epileptic and he hung himself just like Smerdyakov the epileptic? He was supposedly also listening to the Idiot by Iggy Pop.