Actually the main critique is that of a fact that books undergo natural selection just as animals in evolution
So if you know something from 1000 years ago and that’s something popular now, it must’ve been popular for centuries and centuries in a row thus greatly increasing probability of greatness aposteriori
At best, that only shows that he was a great writer. But the greatest that has ever been? That's hard to believe because
1) Surely the greatest work of art in history is the greatest across *multiple dimensions*, not just with respect to turns of phrase. As Huemer says, "These elements – characters and plot – are not minor extras. They are the main things about a work of fiction. If you’ve got weak characters and plot, it doesn’t matter to me how great your language skill is. If I give you a cardboard sandwich, but I put some really nice garnish around it on a really fancy plate, that doesn’t make it a great meal."
2) Shakespearean characters and plots are generally extremely shallow when compared to, say, the first three novels in the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin (more imaginative worlds, vastly more ambitious plots, and a much more rich and complex cast of characters; and the dialogue exceptional - eg., any of Tywin Lannister's monologues https://youtu.be/UzqqNDDEndc?si=5uGIrel3Q3DuiE2f ), or the first two seasons of Downton Abbey by Julian Fellowes (beautiful language + compulsively likable characters + inherently gripping story), Hamilton: An American Musical, or even Harry Potter (what Shakespearean play has the power to absolutely mesmerize literally millions of children and young adults?).
Disagree? Please identify a more entertaining Shakespearean plot line than Game of Thrones S1-3, or a Shakespearean character death more upsetting than (SPOILER ALERT) S***'s in Downton Abbey, or Shakespearean political drama more interesting than Maranda's portrayal of Alexander Hamilton's.
As Huemer wrote:
"SBF points out that, despite its reputation as the classic love story, Romeo and Juliet is a very low-quality, unrealistic, one-dimensional love story. There’s no development of their relationship, no subtlety; Romeo is in love seconds after seeing Juliet, with zero interaction. There are much deeper and more moving love stories in literature."
"But I saw Romeo and Juliet, and was considerably more entertained, and felt far, far more emotionally invested, as I was when I saw GOT S1-3" - like, I don't believe you. Just quit your bullshit.
I feel like the best moments of GOT can be just as mentally stimulating and challenging if you actually put in the effort to think about them. I'm sure there's tons of literature available discussing the literary elements and themes in great detail.
Shakespeare requires more mental effort, sure, but that's mostly because it was written in archaic English. Just because something is more mentally intensive doesn't mean it's more beautiful or rich or deep. That has more to do with the substance of the plot, depth of the characters, etc., and I don't see a serious argument for thinking Shakespearean plays do these things better than GOT.
As for whether the language itself is more beautiful, I don't know how much of that is because of intrinsic features vs. its sheer oldness. Just listen to Stephen Fry's self-narrated audio book series Mythos/Heroes/Troy and tell me Shakespeare is the best the English language has ever gotten.
In terms of intrinsic artistic merit, do you really mean to tell me that somebody like Oscar Wilde's, Toni Morrison's, Victor Hugo's, or George Orwell's nonfiction prose artistry is "vastly inferior?" Hell, people will laugh, but Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, or Stephen Jay Gould, or Carl Sagan are all actually incredible polemicists and prose artists. I've read so many books by contemporary authors with language that scintillated with cerebral depth and ethereal beauty. Pinker's How the Mind Works is awesomely eloquent, Unweaving the Rainbow is a literary masterpiece, and there's a lot of great stuff of Sam Harris just randomly pontificating about stuff on YouTube with an awe-inspiring command of the English language. Here's Sam raving like a smart lunatic about his mushroom trip (https://youtu.be/yKGddvmU0fA?si=z7W12ZzquYuIcMCd) or commenting on Israel Palestine (https://youtu.be/oFBm8nQ2aBo?si=Iin_x0kGSDeyu9qr).
Not signing off on all of the above names as being the greatest public intellectuals ever (that distinction goes to people like Tyler Cowen or Scott Alexander, as far as I care), I'm just saying they all have a way with words.
I mean, aesthetic judgements are fairly subjective. If Shakespeare didn't resonate with you, that's just your point of view. I wouldn't call him the best writer ever, but I think his reputation is earned. I find Hamlet's To be or not to be speech to be superb. Hell, just words, words, words, is a great, great line. I feel like you can dismiss all of philosophy with that one.
"But I saw Romeo and Juliet, and was considerably more entertained, and felt far, far more emotionally invested, as I was when I saw Game of Thrones S1-3. Romeo and Juliet is the most compulsively watchable and thought-provoking item of media I've ever encountered." - like, I don't believe you. Just quit your bullshit.
Disagree? Please identify a Shakespearean character death more upsetting than (SPOILER ALERT) S***'s in Downton Abbey, or a more entertaining Shakespearean plot line than Game of Thrones S1-3, or a better dialogue than https://youtu.be/UzqqNDDEndc?si=gw0WfQquKMbFcz83, OR:
- Arya and Tywin's conversations are also pretty endearing; an old military general shows fatherly appreciation for the talents of a young girl, who he doesn't realize is secretly the younger sister of his enemy: https://youtu.be/A8Wr-yrAL1c?si=Y0RLQiEWnXs8pXpp
- "The North will Never Forget" (a refrain which had been repeated several times as a rallying cry over the South), followed by "Good. Let them remember what happens when they march upon the South." after Tywin defeats them in the most dishonorable way possible.
OR
- “Any man who must say I am the king is no true king,” followed by “The king is tired. See him to his chambers" and "You just sent the most powerful man in the seven kingdoms to bed without his supper.": (https://youtu.be/BM6kMHH-G64?si=1ZsvFMKaYT3c7rc0)
Shakespearean characters and plots are generally extremely shallow when compared to, say, the first three novels in the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin (more imaginative worlds, vastly more ambitious plots, and a much more rich and complex cast of characters; and the dialogue exceptional - eg., any of Tywin Lannister's monologues https://youtu.be/7who4CaKl14?si=DCMSOXMcrjHQA9_w ), or the first two seasons of Downton Abbey by Julian Fellowes (beautiful language + compulsively likable characters + inherently gripping story), Hamilton: An American Musical, or even Harry Potter (what Shakespearean play has the power to absolutely mesmerize literally millions of children and young adults?).
As Huemer wrote:
"SBF points out that, despite its reputation as the classic love story, Romeo and Juliet is a very low-quality, unrealistic, one-dimensional love story. There’s no development of their relationship, no subtlety; Romeo is in love seconds after seeing Juliet, with zero interaction. There are much deeper and more moving love stories in literature."
Have you heard of the idea that the money paid for some artwork is money laundering? Clever if true.
Actually the main critique is that of a fact that books undergo natural selection just as animals in evolution
So if you know something from 1000 years ago and that’s something popular now, it must’ve been popular for centuries and centuries in a row thus greatly increasing probability of greatness aposteriori
It's the magic of his words. He had a superb ear for language. If you can't appreciate that, there are many modern writers you won't "get."
At best, that only shows that he was a great writer. But the greatest that has ever been? That's hard to believe because
1) Surely the greatest work of art in history is the greatest across *multiple dimensions*, not just with respect to turns of phrase. As Huemer says, "These elements – characters and plot – are not minor extras. They are the main things about a work of fiction. If you’ve got weak characters and plot, it doesn’t matter to me how great your language skill is. If I give you a cardboard sandwich, but I put some really nice garnish around it on a really fancy plate, that doesn’t make it a great meal."
2) Shakespearean characters and plots are generally extremely shallow when compared to, say, the first three novels in the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin (more imaginative worlds, vastly more ambitious plots, and a much more rich and complex cast of characters; and the dialogue exceptional - eg., any of Tywin Lannister's monologues https://youtu.be/UzqqNDDEndc?si=5uGIrel3Q3DuiE2f ), or the first two seasons of Downton Abbey by Julian Fellowes (beautiful language + compulsively likable characters + inherently gripping story), Hamilton: An American Musical, or even Harry Potter (what Shakespearean play has the power to absolutely mesmerize literally millions of children and young adults?).
Disagree? Please identify a more entertaining Shakespearean plot line than Game of Thrones S1-3, or a Shakespearean character death more upsetting than (SPOILER ALERT) S***'s in Downton Abbey, or Shakespearean political drama more interesting than Maranda's portrayal of Alexander Hamilton's.
As Huemer wrote:
"SBF points out that, despite its reputation as the classic love story, Romeo and Juliet is a very low-quality, unrealistic, one-dimensional love story. There’s no development of their relationship, no subtlety; Romeo is in love seconds after seeing Juliet, with zero interaction. There are much deeper and more moving love stories in literature."
"But I saw Romeo and Juliet, and was considerably more entertained, and felt far, far more emotionally invested, as I was when I saw GOT S1-3" - like, I don't believe you. Just quit your bullshit.
I loved GOT and DA. But when i was watching them, my mind was at rest, unchallenged.
For me, watching those shows and reading Shakespeare are two very different mental activities.
But I can only know my own mind.
I feel like the best moments of GOT can be just as mentally stimulating and challenging if you actually put in the effort to think about them. I'm sure there's tons of literature available discussing the literary elements and themes in great detail.
Shakespeare requires more mental effort, sure, but that's mostly because it was written in archaic English. Just because something is more mentally intensive doesn't mean it's more beautiful or rich or deep. That has more to do with the substance of the plot, depth of the characters, etc., and I don't see a serious argument for thinking Shakespearean plays do these things better than GOT.
As for whether the language itself is more beautiful, I don't know how much of that is because of intrinsic features vs. its sheer oldness. Just listen to Stephen Fry's self-narrated audio book series Mythos/Heroes/Troy and tell me Shakespeare is the best the English language has ever gotten.
In terms of intrinsic artistic merit, do you really mean to tell me that somebody like Oscar Wilde's, Toni Morrison's, Victor Hugo's, or George Orwell's nonfiction prose artistry is "vastly inferior?" Hell, people will laugh, but Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, or Stephen Jay Gould, or Carl Sagan are all actually incredible polemicists and prose artists. I've read so many books by contemporary authors with language that scintillated with cerebral depth and ethereal beauty. Pinker's How the Mind Works is awesomely eloquent, Unweaving the Rainbow is a literary masterpiece, and there's a lot of great stuff of Sam Harris just randomly pontificating about stuff on YouTube with an awe-inspiring command of the English language. Here's Sam raving like a smart lunatic about his mushroom trip (https://youtu.be/yKGddvmU0fA?si=z7W12ZzquYuIcMCd) or commenting on Israel Palestine (https://youtu.be/oFBm8nQ2aBo?si=Iin_x0kGSDeyu9qr).
Not signing off on all of the above names as being the greatest public intellectuals ever (that distinction goes to people like Tyler Cowen or Scott Alexander, as far as I care), I'm just saying they all have a way with words.
I mean, aesthetic judgements are fairly subjective. If Shakespeare didn't resonate with you, that's just your point of view. I wouldn't call him the best writer ever, but I think his reputation is earned. I find Hamlet's To be or not to be speech to be superb. Hell, just words, words, words, is a great, great line. I feel like you can dismiss all of philosophy with that one.
"But I saw Romeo and Juliet, and was considerably more entertained, and felt far, far more emotionally invested, as I was when I saw Game of Thrones S1-3. Romeo and Juliet is the most compulsively watchable and thought-provoking item of media I've ever encountered." - like, I don't believe you. Just quit your bullshit.
Disagree? Please identify a Shakespearean character death more upsetting than (SPOILER ALERT) S***'s in Downton Abbey, or a more entertaining Shakespearean plot line than Game of Thrones S1-3, or a better dialogue than https://youtu.be/UzqqNDDEndc?si=gw0WfQquKMbFcz83, OR:
- Robert and Cersei finally drop their pretenses toward each other: https://youtu.be/O8ES_ElI6Wg?si=W7O70tcv6Df8chRx
OR
- Arya and Tywin's conversations are also pretty endearing; an old military general shows fatherly appreciation for the talents of a young girl, who he doesn't realize is secretly the younger sister of his enemy: https://youtu.be/A8Wr-yrAL1c?si=Y0RLQiEWnXs8pXpp
OR
- When Tyrion asks his father for the family estate: https://youtu.be/7who4CaKl14?si=DCMSOXMcrjHQA9_w or breaks down in court (https://youtu.be/uvX4k_3Cmvs?si=5-ZdkWCpl-OboRfH) (admittedly, these dialogues will only have their strongest effect on you if you have actually watched the show up to the point where they are said)
OR
- "The North will Never Forget" (a refrain which had been repeated several times as a rallying cry over the South), followed by "Good. Let them remember what happens when they march upon the South." after Tywin defeats them in the most dishonorable way possible.
OR
- “Any man who must say I am the king is no true king,” followed by “The king is tired. See him to his chambers" and "You just sent the most powerful man in the seven kingdoms to bed without his supper.": (https://youtu.be/BM6kMHH-G64?si=1ZsvFMKaYT3c7rc0)
Shakespearean characters and plots are generally extremely shallow when compared to, say, the first three novels in the Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin (more imaginative worlds, vastly more ambitious plots, and a much more rich and complex cast of characters; and the dialogue exceptional - eg., any of Tywin Lannister's monologues https://youtu.be/7who4CaKl14?si=DCMSOXMcrjHQA9_w ), or the first two seasons of Downton Abbey by Julian Fellowes (beautiful language + compulsively likable characters + inherently gripping story), Hamilton: An American Musical, or even Harry Potter (what Shakespearean play has the power to absolutely mesmerize literally millions of children and young adults?).
As Huemer wrote:
"SBF points out that, despite its reputation as the classic love story, Romeo and Juliet is a very low-quality, unrealistic, one-dimensional love story. There’s no development of their relationship, no subtlety; Romeo is in love seconds after seeing Juliet, with zero interaction. There are much deeper and more moving love stories in literature."