Shakespeare vs human

[NecronLord]

Well, you do not know Shakespeare yet,

Obviously one has to have some knowledge of who he is for the scenario, otherwise it's two unknown persons, in which case, just go with whichever's closest.

Really, what have Shakespeare's works done that are so great as to be irreplaceable?

They're certainly not irreplaceable, but they are exceedingly great. I don't believe I've said on here before that I disapprove of the way Shakespere is 'taught' in schools. His work is among the most poetic and beautiful of that produced in the English Language, as well as providing the definative articles of several types of story (Go on, try to find a more archtypical 'doomed romance' than Romeo and Juliet), and at times being variously hilarious and supremely tragic.

The teaching of Shakespere's plays in schools (anecdotally only, of course, reffering to my experience and the experiences of people I know) only serves to give people a highly negative impression of his works overall, and often puts them off for life. The only way to experience Shakespere for full impact and enjoyment is the theatre. Most often, children don't want to be there, don't see the relavance in learning archaic grammar, and aren't interested in plays at all.

William Shakespeare (ripped through time, before he created any of his works) vs the last surviving copy of the original (pre-SE) classic Star Wars trilogy.

You can only save one. Does Romeo meet Juliet, or does Han shoot first?

Fight!

Life > Literature. Besides, Shakespere doing modern sci-fi would be sufficiently awesome to more than make up for the loss - it'd be pretty similar to normal stuff, but with ten times the sex, violence, sadism and general depravity.

[wolveraptor]

They're certainly not irreplaceable, but they are exceedingly great. I don't believe I've said on here before that I disapprove of the way Shakespere is 'taught' in schools. His work is among the most poetic and beautiful of that produced in the English Language, as well as providing the definative articles of several types of story (Go on, try to find a more archtypical 'doomed romance' than Romeo and Juliet), and at times being variously hilarious and supremely tragic.

But who the fuck needs to have an archetypal love story? Honestly, we wouldn't be worse off if none of his works existed. My point is that we know Shakespeare will go on to become a damn good playwrite, and won't do anything that negatively affects society. The unknown person, however, might, and it is safer to take the known option, where there is a 0% probability of a negative outcome.

The teaching of Shakespere's plays in schools (anecdotally only, of course, reffering to my experience and the experiences of people I know) only serves to give people a highly negative impression of his works overall, and often puts them off for life. The only way to experience Shakespere for full impact and enjoyment is the theatre. Most often, children don't want to be there, don't see the relavance in learning archaic grammar, and aren't interested in plays at all.

Damn right! Reading Shakespeare is awful. Watching good actors display his work on stage is ten times better.

[NecronLord]

But who the fuck needs to have an archetypal love story? Honestly, we wouldn't be worse off if none of his works existed. My point is that we know Shakespeare will go on to become a damn good playwrite, and won't do anything that negatively affects society.

Well, he was a Catholic 'terrorist.' Or might have been.

[wolveraptor]

What do you mean?

[Lord Zentei]

But who the fuck needs to have an archetypal love story? Honestly, we wouldn't be worse off if none of his works existed.

Writers for the last 500 years. And there is the arctypal revenge story (Hamlet), the archtypal betrayal for greed story (Macbeth), etc. We would be worse off in the sense that much of literature for the past few centuries would be lessened considerably. As for this being a greater loss than a human life, well, that's somethng else.

How much is a human life worth, anyway? This whole discussion is meaningless unless we can assign some kind of common measure of value to both items under discussion.

My point is that we know Shakespeare will go on to become a damn good playwrite, and won't do anything that negatively affects society. The unknown person, however, might, and it is safer to take the known option, where there is a 0% probability of a negative outcome.

Probably, though perhaps his career choice as playwright (as opposed to, say, serial arsonist) is affected by his environment? Perhaps the scock of being sent into a completely (to him) alien world is what drives him over the edge into batshit insaneness?

Damn right! Reading Shakespeare is awful. Watching good actors display his work on stage is ten times better.

It takes some training to manage to appreciate it "raw". I admit I'm not perfectly skilled in that regard, though I do try.

[NecronLord]

What do you mean?

There are some suggestions that he was, during his lifetime, peripherally involved with pro-Catholic movements in England, aiming for the end of anti-Catholic persecution by the government of the day and/or the restoration of the Catholic faith as the state religion. There's a number of good documentaries on the matter, but they're certainly not watertight cases. Not to mention, I'm all for religious freedom, myself.

[wolveraptor]

Writers for the last 500 years. And there is the arctypal revenge story (Hamlet), the archtypal betrayal for greed story (Macbeth), etc. We would be worse off in the sense that much of literature for the past few centuries would be lessened considerably. As for this being a greater loss than a human life, well, that's somethng else.

The fact that these are archetypal indicates that they are considered basic human experiences. I am of the opinion that they would've been created by someone, if not Shakespeare. Besides, the revenge story appears in the Illiad, and the betrayal for greed story occurs in real fucking life all the time. From the Greek perspective, a notable example is the farmer who betrayed the Greek forces at Thermopylae to the Persians for oodles of sweet, sweet gold.

How much is a human life worth, anyway? This whole discussion is meaningless unless we can assign some kind of common measure of value to both items under discussion.

Well we know for sure that it is worth more than any bloody piece of literature.

Probably, though perhaps his career choice as playwright (as opposed to, say, serial arsonist) is affected by his environment? Perhaps the scock of being sent into a completely (to him) alien world is what drives him over the edge into batshit insaneness?

Yeah, well I was assuming that if you save him from the fire, he actually goes on to do the things he's supposed to. After all, the scenario was supposed to be about comparing a known value with an unknown (possibly greater or possibly worse) value.

There are some suggestions that he was, during his lifetime, peripherally involved with pro-Catholic movements in England, aiming for the end of anti-Catholic persecution by the government of the day and/or the restoration of the Catholic faith as the state religion. There's a number of good documentaries on the matter, but they're certainly not watertight cases. Not to mention, I'm all for religious freedom, myself

I find that intriguing, since he was supposed to be the playwrite for the Protestant queen for quite some time. I would think they'd have ferreted out any disloyalty in her own personal court.

[Lord Zentei]

The fact that these are archetypal indicates that they are considered basic human experiences. I am of the opinion that they would've been created by someone, if not Shakespeare.

And what if we assume that the works of Shakespeare would not be made by another? This seems to be more in the spirit of the question: if the works would be written anyway, they would not be "lost" as a result of saving the human, thus there would be no dilemma to resolve. I.e. the solution that they would be written anyway seems a bit like cheating the question, rather than confronting the point which is comparing the value of a piece of literature vs a human life.

It is not merely the fact that they are archtypal that underscores their value, but the level of development given to archtypal themes. In this case the same works would not have been written, though possibly ones with similar themes would have emerged, written by one or more people. We would have to compare relative levels of quality for the literary world in each scenario, which is a rather tall order. Frankly, the difficulty associated with making such an assessment makes this debate a comparison of two unknowns rather than a known and an unknown, unless we assume that Shakespeare would not have been replaced by anything at all, or stick by the strict OP whicn seems to imply the modern era, wherein Shakespeare's influence has already permeated and benefited world culture.

How much is a human life worth, anyway? This whole discussion is meaningless unless we can assign some kind of common measure of value to both items under discussion.

Well we know for sure that it is worth more than any bloody piece of literature.

Do we? How so if we acnowledge that we have no common yardstick? This may seem like a pedantic point, particularly since I would probably have made the same descision as you.

But if we were to do this seriously, we really should consider on what basis we can make comparisons such as these - or at least be honest enough to admit that we are making the descision on principle rather than actual evaluation.

Yeah, well I was assuming that if you save him from the fire, he actually goes on to do the things he's supposed to. After all, the scenario was supposed to be about comparing a known value with an unknown (possibly greater or possibly worse) value.

Arf. This is the result of a mix-up of points. My bad.

[Stofsk]

What do you mean?

There are some suggestions that he was, during his lifetime, peripherally involved with pro-Catholic movements in England, aiming for the end of anti-Catholic persecution by the government of the day and/or the restoration of the Catholic faith as the state religion. There's a number of good documentaries on the matter, but they're certainly not watertight cases. Not to mention, I'm all for religious freedom, myself.

Wasn't he relatively wealthy for a playwright (certainly one of the most popular at the time), and yet he never had a fixed address. He kept on moving from place to place.

[Darth Wong]

Writers for the last 500 years. And there is the arctypal revenge story (Hamlet), the archtypal betrayal for greed story (Macbeth), etc. We would be worse off in the sense that much of literature for the past few centuries would be lessened considerably.

It's pretty sad that someone can honestly believe these archetypes to have been invented by Shakespeare. That's proof of the power of the Shakespeare posthumous marketing machine.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Writers for the last 500 years. And there is the arctypal revenge story (Hamlet), the archtypal betrayal for greed story (Macbeth), etc. We would be worse off in the sense that much of literature for the past few centuries would be lessened considerably.

It's pretty sad that someone can honestly believe these archetypes to have been invented by Shakespeare. That's proof of the power of the Shakespeare posthumous marketing machine.

like I said he stole it all from the fucking greeks.

[NecronLord]

It's pretty sad that someone can honestly believe these archetypes to have been invented by Shakespeare. That's proof of the power of the Shakespeare posthumous marketing machine.

I don't think anyone's saying that he actually invented anything in terms of genre or story types. What he did invent (or rather, is the first person known to use in English, most have foreign or latin roots) was many hundreds of commonly used words, as well as a whole raft of phrases. By far a greater contribution to the English language than the actual plays and sonnets themselves could ever hope to be. By saying they are 'Definitive' one means, in the sense of 'the definitive article' as opposed to claiming they're actually original.

Sure, the plays are not all they're cracked up to be (which isn't saying much, just listen to ST:TNG harp on about them, nothing could live up to all that bullshit) but they're, in my experience, very good entertainment with much to reccommend them including spiteful violence and some hilariously stupid comedy characters.

[Stofsk]

It's pretty sad that someone can honestly believe these archetypes to have been invented by Shakespeare. That's proof of the power of the Shakespeare posthumous marketing machine.

I don't think anyone's saying that he actually invented anything in terms of genre or story types. What he did invent (or rather, is the first person known to use in English, most have foreign or latin roots) was many hundreds of commonly used words, as well as a whole raft of phrases. By far a greater contribution to the English language than the actual plays and sonnets themselves could ever hope to be. By saying they are 'Definitive' one means, in the sense of 'the definitive article' as opposed to claiming they're actually original.

Sure, the plays are not all they're cracked up to be (which isn't saying much, just listen to ST:TNG harp on about them, nothing could live up to all that bullshit) but they're, in my experience, very good entertainment with much to reccommend them including spiteful violence and some hilariously stupid comedy characters.

In addition, while it could be said that the Greeks were first in terms of dramatic storytelling, the Classic tradition is somewhat limited by it having either comedy OR tragedy as its focus. Most of Shakespeare's plays have elements of both, which was a trend he may not have started but he did capitalise on. It is also a trend that continues in modern storytelling, though lately there appears to be more of a return to classic roots by telling gritty stories without humour. (Shakespeare would have comic characters as well a tragic characters)

The Classical Greek plays are not to be diminished however. They're some of the best works of drama I've ever read.

[wolveraptor]

And what if we assume that the works of Shakespeare would not be made by another? This seems to be more in the spirit of the question: if the works would be written anyway, they would not be "lost" as a result of saving the human, thus there would be no dilemma to resolve. I.e. the solution that they would be written anyway seems a bit like cheating the question, rather than confronting the point which is comparing the value of a piece of literature vs a human life.

Saying that such basic archetypal stories would not be written (even though examples of their plots had already been written by the greeks long before) seems inconcievable. It simply isn't realistic that no human writer would ever bother to jot down such ubiquitous experiences.

*snip* Frankly, the difficulty associated with making such an assessment makes this debate a comparison of two unknowns rather than a known and an unknown, unless we assume that Shakespeare would not have been replaced by anything at all, or stick by the strict OP whicn seems to imply the modern era, wherein Shakespeare's influence has already permeated and benefited world culture.

I don't follow how it becomes about two unknowns. One person in the scenario is random, and could write better plays than Shakespeare's, or could turn out to be a total asshole. Shakespeare, on the other hand, goes on the produce the exact plays that he did in real life. With the second option, history follows its normal course, and nothing is changed.

Do we? How so if we acnowledge that we have no common yardstick? This may seem like a pedantic point, particularly since I would probably have made the same descision as you. But if we were to do this seriously, we really should consider on what basis we can make comparisons such as these - or at least be honest enough to admit that we are making the descision on principle rather than actual evaluation.

Oh for Christ's sake, the plays were created for the benefit of people. You know, like the one about to be incinerated in the original post? Holding a piece of entertainment created solely for the benefit of humans above an actual human just doesn't make sense. Plays exist for manking, and mankind exists for its own sake.

[NecronLord]

In addition, while it could be said that the Greeks were first in terms of dramatic storytelling, the Classic tradition is somewhat limited by it having either comedy OR tragedy as its focus.

To be fair, this is somewhat because a lot of such plays didn't get copied down in the middle ages. Monks didn't approve of Satyr plays, generally.

[Lord Zentei]

Writers for the last 500 years. And there is the arctypal revenge story (Hamlet), the archtypal betrayal for greed story (Macbeth), etc. We would be worse off in the sense that much of literature for the past few centuries would be lessened considerably.

It's pretty sad that someone can honestly believe these archetypes to have been invented by Shakespeare. That's proof of the power of the Shakespeare posthumous marketing machine.

Did I say that they were invented by Shakespeare? No, I think not.

And what if we assume that the works of Shakespeare would not be made by another? This seems to be more in the spirit of the question: if the works would be written anyway, they would not be "lost" as a result of saving the human, thus there would be no dilemma to resolve. I.e. the solution that they would be written anyway seems a bit like cheating the question, rather than confronting the point which is comparing the value of a piece of literature vs a human life.

Saying that such basic archetypal stories would not be written (even though examples of their plots had already been written by the greeks long before) seems inconcievable. It simply isn't realistic that no human writer would ever bother to jot down such ubiquitous experiences.

Then you are really rejecting the question. Obviously Shakespeare is not irreplacable in actuality; the whole scenario is abstract. As I took it at least, the idea was precisely that such a loss would be incurred. If not, the question becomes completely moot.

I don't follow how it becomes about two unknowns. One person in the scenario is random, and could write better plays than Shakespeare's, or could turn out to be a total asshole. Shakespeare, on the other hand, goes on the produce the exact plays that he did in real life. With the second option, history follows its normal course, and nothing is changed.

The two unknowns I refer to are on the one hand the person in the burning building, on the other, the level of reduction in the quality of literature.

Oh for Christ's sake, the plays were created for the benefit of people. You know, like the one about to be incinerated in the original post? Holding a piece of entertainment created solely for the benefit of humans above an actual human just doesn't make sense. Plays exist for manking, and mankind exists for its own sake.

So: I take it that means a "yes, I'm answering the question on principle, not evaluation".

[The Guid]

Writers for the last 500 years. And there is the arctypal revenge story (Hamlet), the archtypal betrayal for greed story (Macbeth), etc. We would be worse off in the sense that much of literature for the past few centuries would be lessened considerably.

It's pretty sad that someone can honestly believe these archetypes to have been invented by Shakespeare. That's proof of the power of the Shakespeare posthumous marketing machine.

He didn't invent any of them - he subverted them.None of these stories are archytypal (except R&J perhaps but I don't know enough on that issue) And it was in that subversion that his brilliance lay. Shakespeare, along with Marlowe and others of that time were part of the group of writers who started making the plays (and therefore the films, novels etc.) that we see today. Have any of you read a Medieval Mystery play? Totally inrecognisable to the very human dramas that Shakespare put on stage. It would be wrong to make Shakespeare the only significant figure in this but to say he is not profoundly influential, and key is also wrong.

[wolveraptor]

Then you are really rejecting the question. Obviously Shakespeare is not irreplacable in actuality; the whole scenario is abstract. As I took it at least, the idea was precisely that such a loss would be incurred. If not, the question becomes completely moot.

I see your point. It is, after all, a hypothetical. However, I do believe you're vastly changing the question. It is now "the life of a human versus all archetypal fictitious literature", rather than simply Shakespeare's works.

In this scenario, there would be practically no fiction, as most of it is based on archetypes. I'll freely admit that I have no idea as to the consequences of this kind of situation.

The two unknowns I refer to are on the one hand the person in the burning building, on the other, the level of reduction in the quality of literature.

Oh. I didn't understand at first. I agree to that.

So: I take it that means a "yes, I'm answering the question on principle, not evaluation".

If the question is about Shakespeare's works specifically, then I contend that the loss from the dissappearance of his own works would be easily negated, and that the choice is based on evaluation. If we're talking about all archetypal literature, then yes, I'm answering the question on principle.

He didn't invent any of them - he subverted them.None of these stories are archytypal (except R&J perhaps but I don't know enough on that issue) And it was in that subversion that his brilliance lay. Shakespeare, along with Marlowe and others of that time were part of the group of writers who started making the plays (and therefore the films, novels etc.) that we see today. Have any of you read a Medieval Mystery play? Totally inrecognisable to the very human dramas that Shakespare put on stage. It would be wrong to make Shakespeare the only significant figure in this but to say he is not profoundly influential, and key is also wrong.

If this is true, then the disappearance of his works would mean even less, as all of the archetypal stories would have survived (i.e. most of fiction), even with the strict parameters of Zentei's hypothetical. However, I disagree with you on this. Pretty much every theme he expresses in his plays is found previously in Greek stories, or even ones from other cultures. I would argue that if such ideas are that ubiquitous, they're archetypes.

[Lord Zentei]

I see your point. It is, after all, a hypothetical. However, I do believe you're vastly changing the question. It is now "the life of a human versus all archetypal fictitious literature", rather than simply Shakespeare's works.

In this scenario, there would be practically no fiction, as most of it is based on archetypes. I'll freely admit that I have no idea as to the consequences of this kind of situation.

Well, perhaps not all archetypal fiction - merely Shakespeare's significant contribution to it. And I'm not sure I'm vastly changing the question - if the spirit of the question does not imply that Shakespeare would not be replaced, we simply disagree on what the question was really asking, which would call for a clarification (as I pointed out, one may also interpret the OP as meaning that Shakespeare's work would disappear as of now, which would be far less damaging since his influence has already permeated literature. Or one may envision some kind of "Faranheit 451" scenario).

So: I take it that means a "yes, I'm answering the question on principle, not evaluation".

If the question is about Shakespeare's works specifically, then I contend that the loss from the dissappearance of his own works would be easily negated, and that the choice is based on evaluation. If we're talking about all archetypal literature, then yes, I'm answering the question on principle.

Fair enough, though I'm not sure I agree, depending on the specifics of the situation. Also, if you are using different criteria depending on the situation (evaluation on the one hand, principle on the other), are you not merely using the "evaluation" as post-hoc justification for a descision based on principle in the former case?

[wolveraptor]

Well, perhaps not all archetypal fiction - merely Shakespeare's significant contribution to it. And I'm not sure I'm vastly changing the question - if the spirit of the question does not imply that Shakespeare would not be replaced, we simply disagree on what the question was really asking, which would call for a clarification (as I pointed out, one may also interpret the OP as meaning that Shakespeare's work would disappear as of now, which would be far less damaging since his influence has already permeated literature. Or one may envision some kind of "Faranheit 451" scenario).

But surely Shakespeare's contribution to Western fiction couldn't be as vast as the Greeks, from whom he freely copied. Besides, the effect of Shakespeare's work is practically non-existant in the East and Africa.

Fair enough, though I'm not sure I agree, depending on the specifics of the situation. Also, if you are using different criteria depending on the situation (evaluation on the one hand, principle on the other), are you not merely using the "evaluation" as post-hoc justification for a descision based on principle in the former case?

I suppose I am, but I feel that the principle I'm going by is logically and ethically well-rooted.

[Lord Zentei]

But surely Shakespeare's contribution to Western fiction couldn't be as vast as the Greeks, from whom he freely copied. Besides, the effect of Shakespeare's work is practically non-existant in the East and Africa.

Well, I honestly couldn't say. It really doesn't answer the questions regarding the specifics of the scenario.

I suppose I am, but I feel that the principle I'm going by is logically and ethically well-rooted.

Do you then deem that one human is always more valuable than any amount of items with subjective value?

[wolveraptor]

Do you then deem that one human is always more valuable than any amount of items with subjective value?

Unless said item could help prevent death and suffering in some way. For example, a serum containing a cure for AIDS would be worth many lives.

[Lord Zentei]

Do you then deem that one human is always more valuable than any amount of items with subjective value?

Unless said item could help prevent death and suffering in some way. For example, a serum containing a cure for AIDS would be worth many lives.

That's objective value.

[Stofsk]

But surely Shakespeare's contribution to Western fiction couldn't be as vast as the Greeks, from whom he freely copied. Besides, the effect of Shakespeare's work is practically non-existant in the East and Africa.

Well, I honestly couldn't say. It really doesn't answer the questions regarding the specifics of the scenario.

Necronlord already pointed out that Shakespeare invented (thousands?) of words for the English language.

I think 'contribution to western literature' is more than covered.

[Lord Zentei]

But surely Shakespeare's contribution to Western fiction couldn't be as vast as the Greeks, from whom he freely copied. Besides, the effect of Shakespeare's work is practically non-existant in the East and Africa.

Well, I honestly couldn't say. It really doesn't answer the questions regarding the specifics of the scenario.

Necronlord already pointed out that Shakespeare invented (thousands?) of words for the English language.

I think 'contribution to western literature' is more than covered.

Ah, so he did. My bad.