Cyberpunk! and the future of Sci-Fi
- Thread starter Yminale
- Start date
^^ You have to be prepared for anything. 
We're not talking about art. We're talking about the politics of his social and academic standing. But, really, nobody can be the greatest writer either objectively or subjectively.
I never said anything about influence. The Bible has also been immeasurably influential, but it's still not the greatest story ever told. The fact is that Shakespeare's influence is due more to fashion and inertia, at this point, than the actual content of his plays. He's become a perpetual motion machine.Oh... A "good" writer...
I'm sorry, he's an extraordinary writer. Fine, to you, he's not the greatest, but he's one of FEW, not many, who have had the influence he has had.
^^ You have to be prepared for anything.
We're not talking about art. We're talking about the politics of his social and academic standing. But, really, nobody can be the greatest writer either objectively or subjectively.
I never said anything about influence. The Bible has also been immeasurably influential, but it's still not the greatest story ever told. The fact is that Shakespeare's influence is due more to fashion and inertia, at this point, than the actual content of his plays. He's become a perpetual motion machine.Oh... A "good" writer...
I'm sorry, he's an extraordinary writer. Fine, to you, he's not the greatest, but he's one of FEW, not many, who have had the influence he has had.
Um...actually, some of the stories in the Bible ARE the best stories ever told.
And, to be honest RJDiogenes, I think you're making a distinction that makes no difference. "His influence has more to do with fashion and inertia than the content of his plays" doesn't make much sense to me. Influence is simply a measure of how much the artwork that comes afterwards shows the presence of the original artwork in its blood, essentially. How much has drama and fiction after Shakespeare shown the roots of Shakespeare's method, attitude, etc, beneath its surface? Well, most of it, actually. Is that because of universities and critics and the fashions and whims of history? Sure. But that's the case with ANY influential work of art. If it isn't disseminated, advertised, spread through the system, idolized, and in any other way brought attention to, it can have no influence, no matter how good it is. Asimov was incredibly influential in the sf world, but that would not have happened if not for the idolatry thrown at him throughout the years, or without Campbell championing him, and all sorts of other decisions of politics and fashion. See what I mean? Influence of any kind is dependant, by definition, on the "fashion and intertia" that you seem to imply makes his influence somehow less valid.
Actually, I have to say, I think YOU are talking about the politics of it all. I'm talking about him as a writer. Personally, greatest English writer.
No. I'm sorry. I think there's a VERY good reason why he is still taught and still performed. And it's not because it's a bunch of academics (who really only spend time talking to themselves). It's the work. His work, in the hands of good actors STILL connects. It's not some academic conspiracy.
^^^To repeat, much of Shakespeare simply does not connect, good actors or no. There's a reason the larger part of his oeuvre is only occasionally revived, just to be forgotten again. And a large part of what remains is treated with extraordinary liberties in a desperate attempt to make them connect.
But more to the point, how would you know that there aren't a number of playwrights, or individual plays, that wouldn't connect, given good actors? Shakespeare is officially reverences so a handful of his plays get the support. Really, we are pretty much past the point where producers are reviving Shakespeare to make money, they're doing it for prestige, for teaching, bringing culture to the masses, etc. Roman Polanski made the mistake of thinking people would actually like Macbeth for its own sake. I don't there's anything in Shakespeare beyond Romeo and Juliet that really still lives on its own. (And that came from the Marlovian phase of his career at that!
)
But more to the point, how would you know that there aren't a number of playwrights, or individual plays, that wouldn't connect, given good actors? Shakespeare is officially reverences so a handful of his plays get the support. Really, we are pretty much past the point where producers are reviving Shakespeare to make money, they're doing it for prestige, for teaching, bringing culture to the masses, etc. Roman Polanski made the mistake of thinking people would actually like Macbeth for its own sake. I don't there's anything in Shakespeare beyond Romeo and Juliet that really still lives on its own. (And that came from the Marlovian phase of his career at that!
)
A lot of the stories in the Bible are great stories, but none of them is the greatest story ever told.Um...actually, some of the stories in the Bible ARE the best stories ever told.
I'm not saying it's not without validity. It's true of Asimov and many other writers as well. At a certain point, their reputation becomes self-perpetuating. I wouldn't call Asimov, Clarke or Heinlein the greatest writer of all time, either. Or Homer, or Virgil or whoever wrote the epic of Gilgamesh. Nobody gets to be the greatest writer of all time. Anybody who gets called the greatest writer of all time is overrated.
He may be your favorite and that's fine. But he's not the greatest writer of all time. His status as the greatest writer of all time is a political thing.
As I said, he's a very good writer. But, yes, there is a large measure of cultural fashion involved. Why do people dress up in tuxedos at fancy events? Because there is the illusion that tuxedos are a superior form of dress. Shakespeare is one of literature's tuxedos.
I disagree. Does he have some lousy work? Sure. Timon of Athens and King John, stinkers.
What point are you trying to make? Are you saying that I think ONLY Shakespeare connects with audiences? That's just silly.
I'm saying that after 400 years Shakespeare STILL connects. That's a pretty good track record. Some plays that are 80 years old seem out of date. (Notice I said SOME... just so you don't go all "Well HOW DO YOU KNOW...?")
Why does it make money? Because the work is POPULAR. It FILLS the seats.
Roman Polanski made the mistake of thinking people would actually like Macbeth for its own sake. I don't there's anything in Shakespeare beyond Romeo and Juliet that really still lives on its own. (And that came from the Marlovian phase of his career at that!
Really, Hamlet, Richard III, The Tempest, Midsummer's Night Dream, those don't live "on its own" (whatever THAT means...)
Nah. He is. And politics isn't why.
This.
Stories about spaceships, robots and alien creatures are always going to be the most popular and widely-read kind of science fiction because they most closely resemble (and utilize the techniques of) other genres of children's literature, just as comic books do.
Nobody gets to be the best writer. It's just not possible.
I have. I've even seen All's Well That Ends In A Bloodbath performed nude on the Common.
Speaking of Asimov, he actually wrote an excellent book about Shakespeare that goes into quite a bit of detail about his source material (no mention of Klingons, though).
Henry the Sixth (all three part,) Richard II, Henry VIII, Two Noble Kinsmen, Pericles Prince of Tyre, A Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, All's Well That Ends Well, Merry Wives of Windsor (even Harold Bloom read that one out of the canon!
)Most of Shakespeare's plays are only enjoyable after the taste is trained, and even then most people still don't want to watch them. The same would be true of other playwrights, excep they don't get the benefits of being revived, or of having students trained to appreciate their work. More than anything that is what perpetuates Shakespeare, not spontaneous appreciation for his great qualities. Except for Romeo and Juliet.
As to my point, if students were trained to appreciate ancient Greek drama or classical French drama, they could appreciate those too. The real question is, why is Shakespeare taught the way he is still taught, not just as an innovative dramatist and great poet, but as still relevant to today in ways that modern drama supposedly is not? As something that modern times cannot even begin to hope to approach? As the first and last word on the human condition? As the very inventor of human consciousness? he's not the only dramatist who has great things to offer. Why is Derek Jarman the only one who notices Christopher Marlowe? But everybody supposedly notices Shakespeare?
The last time Shakespeare was a big popular hit without all sorts of gimmicks and tricks was Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet. Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing was nearly a popular hit. Redressing Shakespeare is not a randoml decision, it is needed to revive the illusion of relevance. Gandalf's decision to turn Richard III into a Fascist gave a chance for ordinary people to at least get into one of Shakespeare's most brilliantly written plays. And it still wasn't a popular hit. The Merchant of Venice gets set in Las Vegas, Prospero gets stunt casted as Helen Mirren. Stunt casting is a sure sign that the material is worn out.
Conventional wisdom is sometimes right. But sometimes it's just obedience.
Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet was a box office hit, too, but I suppose you'd dismiss that as being filled with "all sorts of gimmicks and tricks" (whatever that means). Actually, that might be an apt description -- I must confess, I've never seen it.
The problem, of course, in looking for a contemporary Shakespeare adaptation that has lit up the box office is that most have been modestly budgeted films that received limited, art house releases. In those terms, many of them have been successful.
^^^The only reason I left out the Luhrman is that I haven't seen it and can't remember how successful it was. But it's perfectly true that unlike most of Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet is popular with large numbers of people without being carefully taught. It even goes over well with a high school readership/viewership. None of the rest of Shakespeare is really comparable for popularity. Shakespeare is indeed arthouse, not for the masses. It was the other way round, originally.
This is actually sort of a shame, because if it's well done, like Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare's comedy may not be as wildly popular as Romeo and Juliet, but still connects, even if you don't have to do it in modern dress to get over. If you want a really dissident opinion, it is that Shakespeare's tragedies are more like melodramas, but it's the comdies that truly show theatrical genius.
Hamlet has a special place as the official Deep Think Play. By dint of massive school training and carefully omitting large portions of the play, Hamlet sort of survives. Sometimes it seems that it's real importance is as an official vanity piece. Consider how truly bizarre so much of Hamlet is.
You can't guess how old Hamlet is.
You can't guess why he isn't the titular king or why he hasn't had an unfortunate accident.
You can't guess why Hamlet believes the ghost yet the monologues make it pretty clear that skepticism regarding the ghost isn't the cause of his famous indecision.
Not only are we supposed to believe in ghosts, we are supposed to believe in poisons administered in the ear.
We are supposed to believe that Hamlet is an authority on drama when he lectures the Player King. Gary Stu, we missed you!
We are supposed to believe that he really is more grieved than Laertes when he leaps into the grave. Gary Stu, long time no seej!
We are supposed to believe that Hamlet is popular with the people. Gary Stu, can't get enough of you!
When Hamlet upbraids his mother, she meekly agrees with him. Gary Stu, we all crumble when you disapprove! (Actually, this one is so gross that some interpretations suggest that Gertrude is afraid or humoring him. I think to get the real shock of the scene for a hierarchical society, Gertrude should be played in the nude for this scene.)
When Hamlet insults Ophelia, she goes mad instead of getting mad. Only Gary Stu can drive women mad with his disdain!
Why is Claudius is played by an old man? The Ghost should be the old man, Claudius should be a virile man not yet fifty I should think.
Why is Claudius so indecisive? Hamlet is a threat, and being mad makes no difference. Just ask Polonius.
This is actually sort of a shame, because if it's well done, like Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare's comedy may not be as wildly popular as Romeo and Juliet, but still connects, even if you don't have to do it in modern dress to get over. If you want a really dissident opinion, it is that Shakespeare's tragedies are more like melodramas, but it's the comdies that truly show theatrical genius.
Hamlet has a special place as the official Deep Think Play. By dint of massive school training and carefully omitting large portions of the play, Hamlet sort of survives. Sometimes it seems that it's real importance is as an official vanity piece. Consider how truly bizarre so much of Hamlet is.
You can't guess how old Hamlet is.
You can't guess why he isn't the titular king or why he hasn't had an unfortunate accident.
You can't guess why Hamlet believes the ghost yet the monologues make it pretty clear that skepticism regarding the ghost isn't the cause of his famous indecision.
Not only are we supposed to believe in ghosts, we are supposed to believe in poisons administered in the ear.
We are supposed to believe that Hamlet is an authority on drama when he lectures the Player King. Gary Stu, we missed you!
We are supposed to believe that he really is more grieved than Laertes when he leaps into the grave. Gary Stu, long time no seej!
We are supposed to believe that Hamlet is popular with the people. Gary Stu, can't get enough of you!
When Hamlet upbraids his mother, she meekly agrees with him. Gary Stu, we all crumble when you disapprove! (Actually, this one is so gross that some interpretations suggest that Gertrude is afraid or humoring him. I think to get the real shock of the scene for a hierarchical society, Gertrude should be played in the nude for this scene.)
When Hamlet insults Ophelia, she goes mad instead of getting mad. Only Gary Stu can drive women mad with his disdain!
Why is Claudius is played by an old man? The Ghost should be the old man, Claudius should be a virile man not yet fifty I should think.
Why is Claudius so indecisive? Hamlet is a threat, and being mad makes no difference. Just ask Polonius.
Henry the Sixth (all three part,) Richard II, Henry VIII, Two Noble Kinsmen, Pericles Prince of Tyre, A Winter's Tale, Cymbeline, All's Well That Ends Well, Merry Wives of Windsor (even Harold Bloom read that one out of the canon!
I'll give you Henry 8 and Two Noble Kinsmen. The rest, I quite like. I don't give a hit what Harold Bloom thinks.
Richard II is great, and All's Well and Merry Wives, great fun.
1. A lot of things are like that.
2. MOST people don't go to the theater. How about those WHO DO go to the theater? MOST DO want to watch or they wouldn't fucking produce them. it's called $$$.
Some playwrights get revived. Marivaux had quite the revival a few years ago. And I remember reading and talking about other 16th, 17th and 18th century playwrights, and seen a few. I mean, as long as we're talking in general anecdotal terms...
Why do you keep bringing up THAT one, as the ONLY one? There's something weird about that.
Sure. But we're not talking about appreciation are we? We're talking about WRITING. I don't appreciate him because I was TAUGHT to. I appreciate him because I have read him and performed him and seen his work. And it's GREAT.
Your real question is flawed. No teacher I know says that modern drama ISN'T relevant. It IS possible that old work and NEW work can be relevant, right?
Who is saying that? Why do you keep beating up on this Strawman? Tony Kushner has some FABULOUS views on the human condition. Perhaps wrote the greatest play of the late 20th century. You should check it out.
Who mean the same Derek Jarman who did The Tempest? You know, by Shakespeare.
And Jarman ISN'T the only one who notices Marlowe. Marlowe is still produced. You know, in the theater.
OHHHHHHHHHH. I see. Your knowledge and experience with Shakespeare is just limited to MOVIES. OHHHH. Well. That explains it then.
Modern dress has been used for centuries. But... then, you only know Shakespeare in the movies. Welles had a very famous production of Julius Ceasar... it was modern dress. Oh, but it was only on the stage.
So, is it brilliantly written or does it need to be spoon fed? Which is it?
What's great about modern dress, it means plays don't have to become fossils. Like movies do. They can become objects, frozen in time. Where plays can be revived and seen in a whole new light. I have no problem with modern dress.
No... it's a sign that producers want to make a fucking buck. Would I pay to see Helen Mirren act the phone book, fuck yeah, I would.
Christ, get off your high horse. Stopping watching movies and get out into the real world, it's a lot more fun.
^^^You like Pericles Prince of Tyre? I don't know what's worse, admitting to it or bothering to lie about it. Either way, no one who like Pericles Prince of Tyre has any judgment worth paying attention to. You can re-earn credit for sense by telling me about how old Hamlet is. Hamlet is such a mess that Kenneth Branagh was downright innovative in merely including the whole damn thing. There are dramatic scenes, there are striking lines, but in all probability Hamlet's supposed indecision came from Shakespeare's love for his hero keeping him from, well, you know, actually writing a play.
So called "Bardolatry" is quite real, widespread and, judging from this thread, impervious to reason. You can say "strawman" but it isn't so. If you had more experience of a wider variety of people in different walks of life, you would probably know this. Perhaps you should do less performing and go to the theater less and see the real world.
Richard III has brilliantly written dialogue. Some of the most quotable lines in Shakespeare come from it. Nonetheless, like many of Shakespeare's tragedies, it depends crucially on the horror of lese majeste and adulation of the Tudor dynasty. Without an appreciation of these, Richard III is an inadvertent comedy.
It's nice to live somewhere you can go to a theater without driving a hundred miles, or hundreds more to go to a theater that actually does Shakespeare. But most people don't. Condescending to those of us so ill-mannered not to live in the civilized world comes across exactly like the kind of snobbery that leads to absurdly overrating Shakespeare.
So called "Bardolatry" is quite real, widespread and, judging from this thread, impervious to reason. You can say "strawman" but it isn't so. If you had more experience of a wider variety of people in different walks of life, you would probably know this. Perhaps you should do less performing and go to the theater less and see the real world.
Richard III has brilliantly written dialogue. Some of the most quotable lines in Shakespeare come from it. Nonetheless, like many of Shakespeare's tragedies, it depends crucially on the horror of lese majeste and adulation of the Tudor dynasty. Without an appreciation of these, Richard III is an inadvertent comedy.
It's nice to live somewhere you can go to a theater without driving a hundred miles, or hundreds more to go to a theater that actually does Shakespeare. But most people don't. Condescending to those of us so ill-mannered not to live in the civilized world comes across exactly like the kind of snobbery that leads to absurdly overrating Shakespeare.
Chill, dudes, it's just literature.
Tell you what, name any Shakespearean play, and I'll give you a modern version of it, in outline. Example, before a stage version on a similar theme, I wanted to write a film script called 'Macbeth, Inc', setting it in a big corporation. Macbeth a pushy executive with an even pushier wife, the three witches a collective of computer experts specailising in trends, and the ghost appearing on a monitor that only the new company president can see, with a hostile takeover on the horizon. Given the GFC, that could work.
So, throw me a challenge!
Well, obviously the McKellen RIII we keep mentioning. It's about 70-80 years in our past, just as the original was when first performed. Spinning it so instead of unchecked regency we have unchecked totalitarianism speaks to us today. And with many of the plays, certainly not all, there is that ability to give it a wider range than it may gave been written for, because, above all, the characters work. That's why we have 'Forbidden Planet' (a production that hasn't been mentioned much, which surprises me).
Tell you what, name any Shakespearean play, and I'll give you a modern version of it, in outline. Example, before a stage version on a similar theme, I wanted to write a film script called 'Macbeth, Inc', setting it in a big corporation. Macbeth a pushy executive with an even pushier wife, the three witches a collective of computer experts specailising in trends, and the ghost appearing on a monitor that only the new company president can see, with a hostile takeover on the horizon. Given the GFC, that could work.
So, throw me a challenge!
How about this: A sequel to Forbidden Planet using All's Well That Ends Well as its template? 
Hmm, a definite challenge... but I think I can see it. Give me a few days.
In the meantime, and looping waaaaaayyyy back to the original topic, there was an ad on the side of the page with a babe in an odd suit, which I clicked on. Turns out it was an ad for a new novel:
Very cyberpunk.
In the meantime, and looping waaaaaayyyy back to the original topic, there was an ad on the side of the page with a babe in an odd suit, which I clicked on. Turns out it was an ad for a new novel:
Synchronicity? Trilogy? How very 80s.
Very cyberpunk.
How about this: why don't you tell me why it's important to the plot?
I think it's interesting that you like to set up these things, like, "Why do academics teach Shakespeare as MORE relevant to modern drama?" And when I rightly point it out as a strawman, you say, "it isn't so." Find me a teacher, an academic who is saying this.
And also, there are people who LEGITIMATELY like and love Shakespeare, NOT because they are brainwashed, but because THEY LIKE HIS WORK. Why is that so wrong?
Nah. It's a great play in and out of "traditional" dress.
Listen, I'm sorry that there isn't a theater near you. But that's not my problem. I have lived ALL over this country. In big cities and small. I've been able to see live theater and live Shakespeare. My home town, which is about 100,000 had a Shakespeare Festival.
And "most people don't." How do you know that's true? It's true for YOU. But a LOT of places have live theater, both professional and not.
The simple truth is MOST people don't go see the theater. I'm sorry if your experience is limited to Shakespeare on film. But the reality is, he's produced much more on stage than he is on film. Like Marlowe.
If you don't like condescension, then perhaps you shouldn't deal in it as well. For example:
OR
Edited to add: And now I'm done with this particular tangent. Back to Cyberpunk.
AND: I would see a Forbidden Planet sequel with All's Well That Ends Well as it's template, that would be fun.