asr comments on To like, or not to like? - Less Wrong

2 Post author: PhilGoetz 14 November 2013 02:26AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: asr 14 November 2013 04:53:32PM 1 point [-]

I recognize many strengths in Shakespeare, particularly when compared to his shallow and closed-minded contemporaries. But I think much of his reputation relies on the prettiness of his words, and so proclaiming the genius of Shakespeare is really taking the "style over content" side in the style-vs.-content literary debate. I'm firmly in the "content over style" camp.

As counter-evidence, Shakespeare has been widely successful in translation. There wouldn't be Russian ballets and Italian operas based on his work if its appeal was due to the style of the English.

Comment author: gjm 14 November 2013 05:13:42PM 2 points [-]

I'm not sure about that. It could be that (1) English people loved Shakespeare because his writing is so pretty, (2) England was powerful and influential, and then (3) non-English people admired Shakespeare for signalling reasons.

A first-rate musical work can be based on a not-so-great text. For instance, many of Schubert's greatest songs are settings of poems by Wilhelm Müller, and they really aren't particularly good poems. (At least, they don't seem so to me and I don't get the impression that others generally disagree.) So there could be ballets and operas based on Shakespeare's plays, and they could be really good ballets and operas, even if the plays weren't very good.

Comment author: lmm 15 November 2013 01:24:25AM -1 points [-]

A musical setting of a poem isn't really about the words, and poems are already not really about their content; I think the relationship between a play and an adaptation of that play is much tighter.