The Shakespeare conspiracy

Is William Shakespeare overrated? 

You may choose to answer this question in terms of his overall genius and impact upon history or in terms of his ability solely as a playwright or a poet. 

Please give some rationale for your opinion along with evidence that you find convincing. My English students should write a well-developed paragraph. The rest of you out there in the void may respond as the spirit leads you.

Willam Shakespeare is a gifted poet and playwright, having poduced many famous works including 38 plays and 154 sonnets. He is probably the most widely known poet of his time with his works translated into mot major languages and is commenly refered to as the greatest writer in the English language. Oftenly named "The Bard", he is sometimes consider England's national poet. 

After reading and analyzing some of his most known work, I, personally, must admit that he is greatly skilled. Through his works he has successfully explored many themes related to various issues of life including love, hate, passion, human nature, fate, time, etc. Though he is an excellent poet, I must add that I consider him slightly overrated, by this I do not mean to undermine his work, yet must note the existence of many other poets of comaprable skill. People often tend to overlook the others when discussing great poets, Shakespeare was successful partly due to fateful opportunity that led to his eventual fame.

As for his actual work, he has produced what can be considered amazing feats of literature, yet upon my actual reading of some, I must admit I was somewhat disappointed. After hearing so much about Romeo and Juliet, I found the acutal play falling slightly short of my expectations. I enjoyed the play emensly but found it somewhat overrated, people had described it as "the greatest love story of all time" and, honestly, it was not what I had anticapated. This is only one example of how Shakespeare is slightly overrated, he has been very successful and deserves most of fame, but I can comfortably conclude that Shakespeare is definetly overreated.

My first Sonnet...The need of a light

Its my first sonnet, it sucks, so be critical!! Constructive Critism!!

Seriously, be honest...I can take it :)

 The future is dark,

A tunnel of uncertainty,

No clear path on which to embark,

Guidance offered limitedly,

 

People come and go,

Often causing voids of despair,

Many shine as others cease to a shadow,

Good riddance I sometimes declare,

 

Old flames linger,

A light shines in the distance,

Laughter now louder,

But clarity requires patience:

 

I embrace the light,

Yet my heart must affirm the sight.

Sonnets? Overrated?

How do you feel about sonnets as a poetic form? Do you like their structure or do you find them too limiting? Use one of the sonnets we have discussed in class or one that you have read on your own as an example of what you mean.


Sonnets, as all forms of poetry, allow writers greater opportunity to express themselves freely, using different forms of figurative language. Its rigid structure has positive and negative aspects. The fourteen line poem, with the first eight lines explaining the problem that the next four lines attempt to offer a solution finally ending a two line conclusion, does provide a sense of stability. It helps the reader understand what to look for and where. For example, Sonnet 2's first two quatrains discusses how it is a shame that the boy's beauty will soon wither away, and is basically asking the question of "How will you preserve your beauty?". The third quatrain suggests that he passes on his beauty to his children. The last two lines, or the couplet, summarizes how that when his beauty will cease, it will continue in "thy blood" or children.

However, this structure is also very limiting. It allows little room for freedom of expression, forcing the writer to maintain a strict outline. This is mainly restricting to the person actually writing the poem, while it could offer a sense of clarity to the readers. Personally, I find sonnets, in general, too limiting. I prefer less restricting types of poems, where authors have the ability to express themselves freely.

Disgrace: 1-4

1. The first line of the novel begins with "For a man of his age, fifty-two, divorced, he has, to his mind, solved the problem of sex rather well." What is the "problem" that he has solved? Has he really solved it?

Disgrace begins with "For a man of his age, fifty-two, divorced, he has, to his mid, solved the problem of sex rather well." The problem referred to is David Lurie's desire for sex. Initially, he believed that he had solved the problem, or simply satisfied his needs, with the weekly session with Soraya, a hired prostitute. Even when courting her, it is debatable whether he has solved his "problem". His "sessions" can be viewed as a type of drug that simply palliates the pain; nothing is solved, yet a feeling of satisfaction is present. This is what David Lurie suffers from, he is deluded by the fake sense of gratification he is receiving. Later in the novel, David pursues Melanie, his own student, as another "solution" to his problems. He presumes that she will solve his problems, when she too is only a simple, temporary, solution. 

The narrator indicates this idea by emphasizing the phrase, "to his mind", suggesting that only David believes the problem has been solved. This provides some insight into David Lurie's character, who is portrayed to be somewhat emotionless conveying a strong sense of indifference. His past reveals two prior divorces, leaving him with a void which he attempts to fill with meaningless relations. In conclusion, David Lurie's has not been successful in his attempt to solve the "problem", he has merely numbed the pain, resulting in a false sense of fulfillment.

OOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh
new blog..cool
Welcome to my blog, fellow classmates..and other people that sadly roam the internet, stalking people....