Just to get off topic, because it's days later and way too late in the evening/early in the morn, the other nominees are, according to my theatre school professors:
- Othello
- Macbeth
- King Lear
All show a similar level of accomplishment and characterization as well as theatricality. In particular the case for Lear as the best male part ever written stands up pretty strongly against Hamlet, if only because the actor playing him will be so much older and, so, more capable. If you allow comedies their nomination, Midsummer probably gets a nod as well.
However if you actually read the plays and study the history the one that comes out most clearly as Shakespeare's magnum opus proper is The Tempest, which is a pretty deeply personal reflection by the artist on creation and comes very late in the canon, meaning he's a much more accomplished writer during its composition. Hamlet is a great part, but the play itself cleaves pretty closely to a story that was probably nearly a thousand years old at the time, so it had some proven staying power already and may not be the best example of the Bard's particular strengths.
All of which is a way of saying just because something is good or "the best" doesn't make it the one thing to look at when you want to really understand what someone is doing.
Spoilered, for off topic.
The Tempest has certain strengths, and is certainly a complex puzzle to untangle. It's perhaps Shakespeare's most structurally and technically sophisticated work, but I wouldn't say his greatest. "The Tempest, which is a pretty deeply personal reflection by the artist on creation and comes very late in the canon, meaning he's a much more accomplished writer during its composition." I'm sorry, but that just sounds like you're regurgitating comments you've read or heard elsewhere. More accomplished because it was written later? Tell that to Wordsworth, who spent the latter half of his career writing uninspiring verse that nobody reads any more.
As for Hamlet being "a great part, but the play itself cleaves pretty closely to a story that was probably nearly a thousand years old at the time", so were most of Shakespeare's plays. Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth; at the time he was writing, innovations in plot weren't considered a necessary part of a writer's armoury. That doesn't make plays based on existing stories any less powerful.
Before you tell people to read the plays themselves, and to research the history, I would suggest you read a little deeper into the plays, and research a little deeper into the history. As for which work could be considered his magnum opus, there are probably ten or so in contention. Narrowing it any more than that is, frankly, a pointless exercise.
You know, I should have known there'd be someone to argue the point without actually defending the original post. I don't really care what you think of my education or my analysis; my days of writing 5000 word treatises for the private amusement of sadists are long over. It suffices for my purposes that you agree that there are other choices besides Hamlet.
You know, I should have known there'd be someone to argue the point without actually defending the original post. I don't really care what you think of my education or my analysis; my days of writing 5000 word treatises for the private amusement of sadists are long over. It suffices for my purposes that you agree that there are other choices besides Hamlet.
I didn't ask for a 5000 word treatise, but you must realise that comments such as:
"However if you actually read the plays and study the history the one that comes out most clearly as Shakespeare's magnum opus proper is The Tempest"
are more than a little provocative. As for the rest, I didn't mention your education, and regarding the "private amusement of sadists", I can only imagine some past experiences have left you with a chip on your shoulder, because I'm not sure I fit the bill.
Back on topic, it'll be good to be able to read Flex Mentallo in trade form, although it's one of Morrison's many works that I find discomforting. Morrison's works have two distinct tones, albeit both are sides of the same coin. There's the intentionally childlike, borderline naive tone adopted in All-Star Superman and the darker, 'grittier' aspect most prevalent in The Filth.
Many of his comics (Seaguy, We3) fuse the two, but Mentallo is the work which most shows how the two sides are interlinked psychologically. The result is the work which gives us the greatest psychological insight into Morrison, but the darkness and the naivety are held in such close proximity that it makes me slightly uneasy.
Posts
Spoilered, for off topic.
As for Hamlet being "a great part, but the play itself cleaves pretty closely to a story that was probably nearly a thousand years old at the time", so were most of Shakespeare's plays. Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Hamlet, Macbeth; at the time he was writing, innovations in plot weren't considered a necessary part of a writer's armoury. That doesn't make plays based on existing stories any less powerful.
Before you tell people to read the plays themselves, and to research the history, I would suggest you read a little deeper into the plays, and research a little deeper into the history. As for which work could be considered his magnum opus, there are probably ten or so in contention. Narrowing it any more than that is, frankly, a pointless exercise.
@oldmanhero .programming .web comic .everything
I didn't ask for a 5000 word treatise, but you must realise that comments such as:
"However if you actually read the plays and study the history the one that comes out most clearly as Shakespeare's magnum opus proper is The Tempest"
are more than a little provocative. As for the rest, I didn't mention your education, and regarding the "private amusement of sadists", I can only imagine some past experiences have left you with a chip on your shoulder, because I'm not sure I fit the bill.
Back on topic, it'll be good to be able to read Flex Mentallo in trade form, although it's one of Morrison's many works that I find discomforting. Morrison's works have two distinct tones, albeit both are sides of the same coin. There's the intentionally childlike, borderline naive tone adopted in All-Star Superman and the darker, 'grittier' aspect most prevalent in The Filth.
Many of his comics (Seaguy, We3) fuse the two, but Mentallo is the work which most shows how the two sides are interlinked psychologically. The result is the work which gives us the greatest psychological insight into Morrison, but the darkness and the naivety are held in such close proximity that it makes me slightly uneasy.