Was Shakespeare a really good poet?

1. 0

   PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago

   
   Many people find Shakespeare's work as 'tough'; but those who do understand, do understand what a genius he was. But was he a good poet?

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      The short answer is 'yes'.
      There are occasions in the plays where he puts some pretty lame poetry in the mouths of his characters, but on these occasions, the character may well be a jester and is not supposed to be a great poet. So it's good characterisation.
      The sonnet sequence is exceptional taken as a whole, with many of the individual sonnets widely recognised as standalone masterpieces.
      (And of course most of the history and tragedy plays are written entirely in blank verse).
      I'm wondering why you asked the question?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Good that you wondered...
         
         Do you know what this thing is called Poetry?    -If only you can answer that question I have nothing else to ask.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I'd settle for Louis Armstrong's answer when asked to define jazz - If you have to ask 'what is it?' you ain't never going to know!

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That makes it subjective...

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but if thousands of people's subjectivities appear to coalesce around the works of particular poets, maybe there is something of substance there.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Interesting-- Do you consider ' thousands of people's subjectivities' to be any evidence for any given phenomenon?...like religion, faith, or appreciation of literature?

                     replyreport
                     1. 91

                        Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't want to take this to the realms of religion or faith, because I've written plenty of hubs on these topics.
                        But keeping with poetry, the world is full of wannabe poets who are sure their stuff is good. If thousands of people concur in respect of certain individuals, then maybe their stuff really is good. If hardly anyone does, maybe it's not.
                        
                        Of course there are plenty of objective criteria too, especially in formal poetry (such as Shakespeare's).

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Did you say 'may be'...?
                           
                           I will love to hear those objective criteria, if such a thing exists. I never heard anything called 'formal poetry'...nice to get to know such a fabulous form of literature exists.

                           replyreport
                           1. 91

                              Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Formal poetry means poetry written to an established form, e.g. sonnet, rondel, villanelle, triolet, ballade, etc.
                              There's nothing 'fabulous' about it, but I begin to suspect that you haven't really looked far into the traditions of poetry through the ages. Correct me if I'm wrong.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 established form - again...who established them?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 91

                                    Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Poets established the various forms. You'll find that there were often loose circles of poets writing within the forms that were fashionable at different times and places and generally not straying very far from the formal conventions. But also you'll find that sometimes a form is forever associated with its greatest exponent who may not have been the inventor but who took it to a new level of expression. For example:
                                    Petrarch - the Italian or Petrarchan sonnet
                                    Shakespeare - the English or Shakespearean sonnet
                                    Villon - the Ballade
                                    Burns - the Standard Habbie
                                    
                                    Villon and Burns each took an old, almost moribund, form and breathed new life into it through their creative genius.
                                    
                                    Of course, though the poets themselves established the forms, it was often the academics who produced the written descriptions (or rules) for the forms. But in every case they did this post hoc. They did not sit in their studies inventing forms. The poets were the inventors.
                                    
                                    Does that help?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 0

                                       PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Yea! You spoke for me!
                                       
                                       I am interested to invent my own form.

                                       report
                                       1. 91

                                          Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          No reason why you shouldn't. The tricky part is inventing one that others want to emulate. This will only happen if you produce several good examples in the form and get them widely circulated through publication in a respected journal or anthology.

                                          report
                                    2. 0

                                       PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Thanks Paraglider. I will publish someday.
                                       
                                       One thing to add- I don't want anyone emulate my style, or any other writer's. We all must create ourselves.

                                       report
                                       1. 91

                                          Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          No-one has managed that yet. We are all part of society, poets too. There is nothing wrong with being influenced by others.

                                          report
                                    3. 0

                                       PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Is 'influence' is same as Emulate?

                                       report
                                       1. 91

                                          Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          No.

                                          report
                                    4. 0

                                       PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Thanks

                                       report
         2. 60

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            To ask 'what is poetry' is to ask 'what is love'  for
            if i could live upon your tattered brow
            and bathe my heart within your silken tear
            then there would be the portent of my dream
            complete resplendant love unbidden there
            
            but suddenly i am no longer bold
            remove the words of anger spoken there
            what once was full of life now quickly gone
            the cause of such defeat i can not bear
            
            so precious to your soul the gift you hid
            you close your heart from breaking even now
            no flame nor e'en desire holding there
            but i, to save your love and this i vow
            
            would live among the misty streets of dreams
            if i could live upon your tattered brow
            
            What is poetry, indeed.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Subjectively 'great'...

               replyreport
   2. 60

      wanzulfikriposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Your question got me thinking. Maybe we perceive him as a good poet because of what others told us. Personally, is it us who love his poetry or others?

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Of course his reputation goes before him, but I can be counted among the many who genuinely enjoy and revere his poetry.
         Having said that, the intensity, poetic diction and Elizabethan English combine to make him a difficult read without a bit of work and/or a good teacher.

         replyreport
   3. 53

      jaiswalpayalposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yes , but the drama "JULIUS CESAR" I don't understand.

      replyreport
2. 0

   PhenomWriterposted 13 years ago

   For me, Shakespeare was a good Thinker, a better Writer, a great Rebel, but a mediocre Poet - if poetry is about beauty and subtlety.
   
   He has a practical usefulness, but does he have spiritual intensity? I doubt...
   
   You are right. Many people praise him out of conformity; that's so easy.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      cdub77posted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I want to encourage anyone to have an opinion, but people we need to base our discussions in fact and reality. 
      
      Let's talk about the reality of Shakespeare's poetry.  He only wrote it for a brief period in his career when the plague closed the theater houses in London around 1590.  He wrote two longer, book length verses and he wrote 154 Sonnets in this time.  Now lets look at the evidence for his genius:
      
      The feminine formation of iambic pentameter adds an additional syllable for line, making 11 total.  There are 14 lines in a Sonnet.  That means the maximum number of syllables for any Sonnet is 154.
      
      Now, Petrarch, for those who don't know, made the Petrarchan Sonnet the foremost form of poetry in his day.  We're spoiled with the advents of E.E. Cummings, T.S Eliot, and others to have our ideas of poetry broken free from what the term meant when Shakespeare encountered it. 
      
      Shakespeare encountered the Petrarchan Sonnet (An Octet, a turn, and Sextet). It was incredibly popular.  So what did Shakespeare do?  He said, I'll see your rules and raise them by my own:
      
      I'll use three quartets and a couplet.  I'll preserve your original turn at line 9, but I'll add another one at line 13.  I'll redefine my rhyming scheme even more strictly than Petrarch, and then I'll turn the Sonnet on it's head in 154 different ways.
      
      My personal favorite trick he does is use the word WIll to refer to himself as well as the will to do something.  It's genius all the ways he turns it around (I think it's like Sonnets 134-137). 
      
      Furthermore, he has some powerful analogies between love and all sorts of things in this world that he develops into phrases that have three or more definitive meanings that not only don't conflict one another, but enhance the meaning as a whole.  For example, the idea of distilling beauty for preservation against time is discussed as a process of pressing flower leaves, having a child, or having poetry written about you for quite a long time in the beginning as the speaker, and older man, tries to convince the object of the Sonnets, a younger man, to be judicious with this love.  Not only this, but Shakespeare effectively subverts the speakers own desires both syntactically and semantically through inventive word play.
      
      The truth of the matter is, if you don't think Shakespeare is a great poet, you haven't done the work to encounter him as he demands to be encountered. 
      
      People, your opinions are fine, but William Shakespeare's work stands in defiance of ignorance for anyone with the desire and passion to encounter this unique and most satisfyingly brilliant of men.
      
      Please go pickup a copy of the Arden Shakespeare's Sonnets and read the notes on each Sonnet as you go through as well as the essays before and after, as I did.  It will edify and delight all who seriously wish to understand Shakespeare.
      
      To call him mediocre is to vastly misunderstand poetry, the development of the English language and poetry, history on this planet, and your own assessment skills.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         You go too rash before you understand someone. Don't get it personal, Shakespeare is neither my uncle or your uncle.
         
         Just tell me what is Poetry? I will assess later; you may try to find one yourself. Poetry is a subjective matter. It depends on the reader what he likes or dislikes. Unless you can prove objective substance in a poem, that enterprise is worthless.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         cdub - nicely done. 
         
         'The truth of the matter is, if you don't think Shakespeare is a great poet, you haven't done the work to encounter him as he demands to be encountered'.
         
         Truer words were never spoken about any artist who deviates from the accepted standards.  IMO, every artist demands to be encountered on his own terms.  One reason I abhor juries.  They make us suffer for our insanity.

         replyreport
3. 83

   Thelma Albertsposted 13 years ago

   Yes, I think Shakespeare was a good poet. The very best I think.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      In what way was he "The very best"? Is there any criteria?

      replyreport
4. 82

   habeeposted 13 years ago

   I love Shakespeare's sonnets, especially 116. It was read at my oldest daughter's wedding. You guys know that many of the sonnets were written to another man?

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep. The polite establishment were long in denial of it, of course.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      PhenomWriterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      May I ask - are you saying that many of his poems were written by other writers?

      replyreport
      1. 82

         habeeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No! Many of his sonnets (the first 126) are addressed to another man. It could have been a lover or a rival poet. From Sonnet 20:
         
         "A woman's face with nature's own hand painted...
         A woman's gentle heart...
         And for a woman wert thou first created..."

         replyreport
5. 69

   BakerRamblesposted 13 years ago

   I am going to say it was s lover, as there are other duarte from citizens within the city that told of his escapades.

   replyreport
6. 59

   ellinachenposted 13 years ago

   He really was a good poet. But sometimes it is not easy to understand what is the meaning of his poem.

   replyreport