Not really, he wasn’t some linguistic “purist” who only wanted Germanic elements in English, there’s no indication of that, however he did think English would suffer if tons of people started speaking it outside of the anglophone world, which was starting to happen at the time and has happened since
There WAS no "English literature" in 1066. One of the earliest literary applications of English was Chaucer's Canterbury Tales a few hundred years later.
@@pricklypear7516Man are you ignorant. Beowulf, Venerable Bede's voluminous writings, Alfred the Great's Psalms and other translations, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, hymns, homilies, poems, riddles, letters and elegies all existed before the Normans.
I think he uses the word "hated" in these titles to grab people's attention, but in the video you he uses the word "disliked" instead. I also get the impression that Tolkien had more of a love-hate relationship with the bards works.
All I can say is that when i started college in 1969, Tolkien books were very popular. I thought the stories were garbage and couldn’t finish any of them. When the famous movies came out 32 years later,i still wasn’t impressed, though i sat through them(easier than reading them) But I’m still in awe of all things Shakespeare. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it
Tolkien thought that Shakespeare's plays work better as performed than as just read? I doubt that Shakespeare himself would have disputed that! Shakespeare never intended for his plays to be read as literature, he wrote them to be performed on stage!
The ironic thing is that, because of the way English has changed since then, it's not really possible to appreciate Shakespeare as theatre without studying it first as literature. You need to have the scripts ready to hand, alongside a dictionary, if you want to understand everything.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 It was certainly easier for people of Shakespeare's time to understand, but even today, a well-acted Shakespeare performance with pauses and accents by performers who understand the old English meanings is a lot easier to follow than reading his words on a page, which he never intended in the first place. Similar to how sarcasm often doesn't translate well in this text-only format, a lot of Shakespeare's intended meaning doesn't work as well when read, even for people of his time who understood old English.
@@josephbrandenburg4373no it’s quite easy to understand most Shakespeare. Granted some understanding of the play prior to watching it greatly helps, and some are certainly wordier than others. But once you get a feel for it, assuming the actors aren’t making the common mistake of racing through the lines (usually because they themselves are quite poor actors who didn’t bother to understand what they were actually saying), it’s quite easy to understand.
If you write literature, poetry or theater in English, whether you know it or not you were influenced by William Shakespeare. Literally; when Shakespeare started writing English grammar & spelling still weren’t standardized and his use of language helped shape our vocabulary, spelling, grammar and manner of speaking. This is in addition to creating what we think of as modern plot structure and character archetypes, pioneering many of the techniques that are now essential to theater and creating new poetic styles. Tolkien was a once in a generation literary mind, but Shakespeare was truly a once in a millennium sort of storyteller if not rarer.
Hard disagree with the last line. Shakespeare was all of those things, except a once in a millenia storyteller. He was an unmatched wordsmith, brilliant poet as well as prose writer, a true bard and rhyme machine, but there were many before him and many after him that were simply better storytellers, writing deeper narratives with more fleshed out characters
Eh, art is subjective I suppose. That can be your opinion. Just saying if people are still buying tickets to see your plays 500 years after you died I think you probably did something right.
“Why Tolkien had a reasonable and thoughtful critique about Shakespeare’s way of handling fantasy, and a few of the resolutions to his stories.” I guess that title would be a little too long, but what would’ve been more accurate and less inflammatory is “Tolkien’s Problem with Shakespeare”
He is simply the type to be roused into expression when dissatisfied. "The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were." - C. G. Jung
@@docsavage8640nah the old folklore versions are way way way different, the modern view is Tolkien's 'tall civilisation and short civilisation' rather than mythic or fairy tale esque. You dont get international councils making agreements or generals drawing up battle plans in folklore elves and dwarves, but you do in the Legendarium
I think the loophole prophecies in Macbeth work because we get to see Macbeth's arrogance beforehand. He is undone and undone cruelly and cheaply by fate. In contrast, we never look inside the Witch King's mind like we Macbeth, so cheap loopholes would carry no sting and would just look, well, cheap. Both prophecies work in both stories because they fit the essence of either story.
What "prophecies" in Macbeth? The whole point of the tale is that, while the Weird Sisters baited Macbeth with a suggestion, his blind ambition did all the rest. Only their scrap to Banquo proved prophetic ("You shall not be king, but you shall get kings"), but this was only to connect the later survival of Fleance to the new King James I (for whom Shakespeare wrote the play).
There's no substantial difference between the MacDuff v MacBeth prophecy and the Arwen v the Witch King prophecy. They both rely on a semantic loophole.
In fact, historically, it was Duncan that was a tyrant, he invaded Moray, his own vassal, & got killed by Macbeth's troops. So, Macbeth became king, & many historians today agree that Macbeth was a good king. The story is just no historical accuracy, pure slander. Also, Macbeth is a direct ancestor of mine, so I may be a little biased.
To paraphrase Cunk on Shakespeare, Shakespeare had it much easier in school because he didn’t have to learn Shakespeare. But it is interesting to learn about Tolkien’s take on Shakespeare. I would love to know what he thought of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus because that is sooooooo dark and messed up.
It’s incredible to consider that Tolkien’s influence has been so great that his versions of Elves and Dwarves have supplanted both Shakespeare’s and Disney’s respective interpretations in the public imagination. No mean feat!
The great Tolkiens objection to the trees of Burnham Woods being cut down and moved is silly. The whole point of MacBeth not taking that prophecy serious was the common view that trees are fixed in place and can not walk. If MacBeth lived in a world where trees could move then there would be no reason for him to let his guard down regarding that prophecy.
Silly???? Tolkien? You’re a brave person to say it. I can remember feeling similarly disappointed on my first reading of Macbeth. It still feels to me a little bit like the cheap device “when he woke up, and it was all a dream”
@@micklumsden3956 Yes. If you read Macbeth, and the fact that Burnam wood didn't physically move to Dunsinane hill is what bothers you, you're either silly or didn't understand the play. Or both.
"Hated" seems to be a overstatement for the evidence provided. If I say "The 3rd season of the origional Star Trek had some weak episodes", that doesen't mean I hate Star Trek, and if I was given an assignment to take the debate position that Tolken wrote poor quality literature I could make a caes for it, though I read LOTR at least 6 times.
"While still a young boy, like countless others of his age and background, J.R.R. Tolkien would've been immersed in Shakespeare's works and taught them extensively during his school years." Whew! From question to answer in under a minute! _Very_ concise! So what will the next 11 minutes be about, then?
In terms of theatre. I would agree it cannot not do Fantasy justice because of the visual limitations but Tolkien was a product of his time, it would be interesting to see if his opinion changed where he able to see fantasy in video games, or the cinema with today's technology. LoTR on stage would look ridiculous, it's too grand, too big in scale for the Theatre, but with modern technology that scale can be visualised on screen.
@@lilykatmoon4508 I feel like he would have had mixed feelings on the Peter Jackson films for story reasons while thinking that the movies successfully handled the scope. If he were familiar with the Wheel of Time books, he’d have torn the show apart since it changes so much. Rings of Power would have been condemned as horrible both as an adaptation and as a story on its own.
All of this being said, im very excited to hear about the operatic adaptation of LoTR. Tolkien's love and inspiration owing to opera really gives me hope it will go well
Interesting, considering that the Witch King's warning to Eowyn, "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" Is a close paraphrasal of a line from King Lear.
He enjoyed the writings of Mary Renault, a former student of his at Oxford ( meaning she attended classes of his, not that he was her advisor), writing her a letter of praise for her books- even though she was a prominent lesbian and feminist, and her books, set in ancient Greece, referenced the powers of the Greek gods and goddesses, and had openly sexual elements involving heterosexual and homosexual relationships between both men and women. A catholic reader as well as a Catholic writer.
The debate means nothing about Tolkien's own beliefs. It's a debate. He's required to take a stance, and as the Baconian Theory requires Bill Shakespeare to be too thick to have written the works, Tolkien therefore used rhetoric to play up Shakespeare (the man's) supposed thickness.
@@normanmeharry58this is the most common tactic of Stratfordians. Accusing people of elitism because they doubt that a man who died with no books in his possession, no surviving writing in his hand and two illiterate children; a venal moneylender and aspirant to titled privilege, wrote the greatest dramatic works in the English language. Well Mark Twain, to name one of many Baconians, was hardly some English fop with an antipathy for the working class, thou addle-pated knave!
@@normanmeharry58 you don't think it's legitimate to wonder how a man who didn't own a book and could barely sign his own name (as evidenced by William Shaksper's will) could have been Shakespeare?
It's rage-bait, he's done so for many other episodes. The videos themselves are good, and it's far from the first time he's done it, so all is well for me.
This raises the question of what Tolkien would have thought about the Peter Jackson trilogy. (Lord of the Rings of course, not The Hobbit) I wonder if he would have thought it was fantasy, would the technology used give it that fantasy element he was talking about.
I always had a problem with "Macbeth", too. If the witches' prophecies are curses, then Macbeth isn't responsible for his actions. If they are true predictions, then his fate is pre-determined, and he also isn't responsible. Even if they just put ideas into his head, the truth of their other predictions forces Macbeth to consider the ones concerning him to be unavoidable.
whether you agree with his other opinions of shakespeare or not, it's hard to disagree with him that fantasy is meant to be written not performed. in plays back then or on tv today, fantasy is always held back by the medium and the imagination of the writer, and no matter how fancy that medium is or how great the writer, it leaves no room for your own imagination which defeats the whole point. and it gets worse when you consider how those movies and plays have influenced modern fantasy writing, these days fantasy books have no subtlety or mystery about them at all which is really sad. magic is either some oddly convoluted system that gets treated like a mundane tool by the characters, or it's simplistic and tries to amaze you by being really over the top, it's always a very tangible thing that's easy to explain. there are some books that overcome this like harry potter, but for the most part the fantasy genre today fails to achieve it's main objective which is creating a sense of wonder. this isn't a personal attack but it always frustrates me when i see people dissecting the lore of lotr and explaining how things work, or worst of all when someone tries to quantify how powerful the characters are, because the entire point of the genre is that you aren't meant to know everything. you don't know how powerful gandalf is, you don't know what it looked like when he became really tall to fight the wolves, and you don't know what kind of spells he can use. that's a good thing because it lets your imagination come up with an answer, and it'll be far more enjoyable than whatever answer a screen or lore expert can give you
@@bigdog1391 i've never bothered watching them myself for the same reason. i love lotr because it's an amazing world full of wonder and mystery, and it really pushes the limits of my imagination. turning it into a movie strips all of that away, and usually rather than adding anything it just confuses the narrative. that's not true for every tv adaptation, just as an example i think the first hunger games movie does a really amazing job of bringing the world to life, but there's no wonder or mystery getting lost in the process there. a similar thing happens with video games, having a character driven narrative works really well when you spend so long with the character and actively control them, that's part of why the stories in god of war or the last of us can cause such strong emotions. it just comes down to different mediums being suited to different stories, and traditional fantasy really works best in a book
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Agreed! I also wonder how much DND's magic system has influenced the genre. And don't get me started on Terry Pratchett (RIP) and his 'belief makes gods and makes them stronger' tropes. I love his humor, but his cosmology is a tad terrifying.
@@zachlong5427 i don't have any experience with DND, but in general i don't think games have had a negative effect on fantasy. particularly video games are pretty cool with magic when it's done properly, it's usually just treated as a game mechanic and the focus of the story has nothing to do with it. the point is for you to be fully immersed in what you're doing, which works great with fantasy elements because it's so far outside of our own experience. and video games are unique because you're getting a very hands on experience with the world, which leaves a lot of room for interesting lore that doesn't need to be shoved down your throat, from software are excellent at that. just to clarify, i don't think it should be illegal for people to use fantasy elements in their stories without following the traditional fantasy genre, what i have a problem with is people trying to do traditional fantasy and missing the entire point of it. there are loads of lotr clones or similar books and movies, and all of them expect you to be amazed despite doing everything they can to limit your imagination lol. the point is that if you want the audience to be fascinated by something you can't give them all the information, you need to let them wonder, but how you go about that doesn't need to follow a formula
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Boy howdy don't I know it. I'm launching a sci fi book and a fantasy book today on Amazon (long story), and I have to have 2 different minds when writing one or the other.
George Bernard Shaw also had beef with Shakespeare and compared him unfavorably with Bunyan. He too criticized Macbeth, calling the language of the play "right in feeling but silly and resourceless in thought and expression."
Tolstoy also hated Shakespeare and there is even a long passage in Anna Karenina just tearing down the mid 19th century cult of Shakespeare in Western Europe. As a fan of all the writers mentioned in this thread, I think my main takeaway is that writers of their caliber have giant egos
Hm... I think videogames became popular after he died. So there is a certain chance, that he didn't hate videosgames. (eventhrough it is one of those things he absolutley WOULD hate). And ehm, by the same logic, he didn't hate Star Wars.
That’s pretty ignorant to claim, especially since the video itself shows that it has a clickbait title and that Tolkien simply had very understandable criticisms of Shakespeare.
to call tolkien “a legend of english literature” is hyperbolic at best…he wrote a fantasy series with an extremely black and white conflict between good and evil whose characters are all relatively lackluster in actual depth. how many “legends” can exist in anything? obviously there’s chaucer, milton, and shakespeare; but then in english there are authors like beckett, joyce, woolf, ts eliot, george eliot, plath, dickinson, austen, wilde, shelley, whitman, ginsberg, melville, et cetera who are all in much much higher regard than tolkien. shakespeare’s fantastical stories are always wonderful on stage btw. fantasy really should not be taken seriously as a genre of literature because it often requires sacrificing actual depth of storytelling for the sake of world building.
No as the Witch King didn’t die *because* Merry and Eowyn weren’t men, but rather due to the special Numenorean blade that Merry stabbed him with, which severed his connection to Sauron. Therefore the “No man will kill him”, was true but not a loophole, simply a description of what would happen.
I disagree that visual medium can't portray fantasy as well as literature, a story like berserk will not work as a novel for example because its art is essential to its storytelling
@@gustyko8668 berserk is just one example It is true tho that technology is his time wasn't advanced enough, I think if he seems some modern attempts like berserk or even games like souls game that he'll change his mind
@@gustyko8668 maybe on the surface but its themes about human connections, the strength of the human will, overcoming truma and pain through opening ourselves to other people are pure universal themes that I think Tolkien would've at least appreciate even if he didn't like the gore and violence
Hey dude. I've really enjoyed your videos, both on this topic and Tolkien's thoughts and feelings about Disney. Would love to see more content like this, perhaps delivered in an even more refined way. Keep up the good work!!!
I feel Tolkien's error regarding Shakespeare's Scottish play lays in seeing it as a fantasy. If the Bard had intended it to be a fantasy, he might indeed have had actual trees (ents) storm the castle - but it was not a fantasy story in that sense. The witches offered a prophecy that was technically true but highly misleading knowing that their words would lead to the violent downfall of the titular character.
It's sad that even Tolkien fell into the trap that only 'gentlemen' and those with the 'proper' education could truly write. It's a relic of the English class system, and one held by far too many even among writers today.
But in this case, Tolkien was correct, though he had the wrong man behind the name. That was Edward De Vere, the 18th Earl of Oxford. Loo😮k up Alexander Waugh, grandson of noted English author, Evelyn Waugh (a man). He has videos on youtube that will convince you
@@MundaSquire advising someone to 'watch a video on TH-cam' so they can have some point 'proven' to them is hardly scholarly research. if you want to know why, google 'chemtrails are real' and find out just how insane some of the video 'proofs' available on TH-cam are.
Tolkien was a prude so I'm sure he disliked Wagner as a person. As for the Ring Cycle, its fingerprints are all over the trilogy regardless of what Tolkien claimed.
@@q45ij54q To be fair to Tolkien, both he and Wagner drew influence from the same source material. Most of the similarities, such as a broken sword being re-forged, or a sinister ring, come from Norse and Germanic mythology.
Tolkien makes some good points. This may seem like a tangent, but I think this might also be the reason why Baldur's Gate 3 feels so hollow to me compared to the original games. A fantasy-themed RPG game like this should have loads of text and sparse graphics and effects. A still portrait and a wall of written dialogue in a text box simply works better for this kind of game and story than a hyper-detailed 3D-animated model overacting their tragic backstory.
I look forward to next episode of "Whom did Tolkien hate?" I expect it will be another master whom I revere. Debussy? Oscar Wilde? Richard Strauss? Van Gogh? Arnold Schoenberg? George Gershwin? Sinclair Lewis?
Shakespeare's plays were probably written in a rush, with the deadline of the date set for their performance. Hence their defects. And yet, their genius shines down the centuries.
Tolkien was primarily an Old to Early Middle English scholar. Shakespeare is Early Modern English. Tolkien didn't hate Shakespeare. He just didn't care as much about Shakespeare as, say, Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Thank you. A fascinating video. Tolkien was somewhat hypercritical regarding literature. I guess CS Lewis, JRT''s fellow Inkling, would have been more sympathetic to Shakespeare as his understanding of fantasy was less literary than Tolkien's.
Regarding the prophecies of Macbeth, Tolkien may have had a point about the trees, but he, like many others, was wrong about the other one. The apparition actually said that " *none* of woman born shall harm Macbeth," so Eowyn would have been out of luck unless she had a caesarean section. Also, in Medieval times, Caesarean sections had a 100% fatality rate for the mother, so in Macduff's case, the surgeon would not have even tried it unless Macduff's mother were already dead as a last-ditch attempt to save the baby. That is why Macduff was not "of woman born:" his mother died before she could properly finish giving birth to him, so he was born of the knife. The modern C-section is more like "of woman born, with some surgical assistance."
Shakespeare has characters on more than once suggest one's mind and soul is vulnerable and weak. Because of that director's can take the view Macbeth himself becomes deranged with ambition and disgard the magic as mere delusion. Having the trees uproot and march just destroys the play. It goes from a human play with whispers of remote devilish interference to an all out ahistorical fairy tale. He might as well bring in a unicorn and pegasus after that stunt.
I think Tolkien's personal definition of "fantasy", which it seems he held since childhood, is the root of his misinterpretation of the fantasy elements in Shakespeare. They're not there because Bill is trying to write fantasy and failing, they're there because he's trying to create drama, and succeeding. Midsummer Night's Dream satirises sexual infatuation using fairies, it isn't a fairy story, and the way he's written them uses a variety of contemporary presentations that his audience would know - otherwise the satire wouldn't work. Nor does the play require a belief in fairies - which would have been considered as rather unsophisticated even then. Tolkien's view of Macbeth is even wider of the mark and he also disliked nearly all literature by his own contemporaries. Much as I have enjoyed reading LOTR over the decades, and recognise T's scholarship in philology and Old English, he was, I think, a rather a limited man in his literary taste.
Tolkien's words about Shakespeare's humble beginnings reminded me of the line in his book "What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?"
To improve on SHAKESPEARE! WHAT! What beggary of the mind is this? Shakespeare is a divine poet, a soothsayer to future events in England! He is best read in the quiet of a cloistered abbey, or in the meadow where the larks do play. Nothing bears comparison to his staggering genius and colossal wit. The man is a literary GIANT amongst pygmies that squawk and take fright from his shadow. There is no equal to his stature, to the depths of his artistic insight that plumbs and probes the human soul. There is no limit to his imagination that towers above the clouds and rests in the lap of Gods. The man is the epitome of greatness... and that is why I don't read him. My ego can't take it. I must lock myself for years away from his works lest I be tempted. I must bolt the door and bar the windows lest the people sing his praises as they pass my home. Even the angels in the church will secretly read his plays and take pleasure. I can not bear it. I, who has written nothing over the years, can not bear it! Alas... But I will not take it out on Shakespeare.
Funny thing is, the eariesr mention of a King and Queen Oberon and Titania of the fairies we've found is a 1400s English mummers play. It's quite likely Germanic elves and fairies had different or at least parallel origins. rather than spoiled at some point
His take on Macbeth is interesting to me, since that's probably my favorite Shakespeare play. I never was that into them, but of course I also read some of them for school. I thought the prophesy was a bit of a stretch, but I just chalked that up to how he shouldn't have trusted those witches in the first place. Although I did feel a similar dissapointment when we read The Crystal Cave in high school, and I didn't like how the "Dragon" was a meteor or something. And I'll also grant him that the part with the Ents was one of my absolute favorite parts of The Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien wanted a high fantasy based on the earliest myths that could be found in English folklore. He saw the potential to influence culture in a positive way. The cheap versions of these myths like Disney dwarfs greatly destroyed the potential of Tolkien’s gifts. It’s a bit like the two towers. Disney the sell out, and Tolkien the Gray.
I revere Shakespeare but for character, language, timeless insights into human nature NOT plot, which everyone knows he ripped off. Tolkien in other words has a point but makes a category error (as I am sure he knew better than I).
Shakespeare wanted to be an actor but was often not hired because of reasons we don't need to get into here. He solved the solution by writing his own plays and appearing in a lot of them. There were also times, he would come up with an idea and decide he wanted to do it and wrote it at the side of the stage passing sheets of paper to his trusted actors who read the new play on stage holding the paper. Audiences didn't mind. Also, Shakespeare was more interested in action more than anything else. (If he were here today, he would be writing massive movies with huge battle scenes.) And, people had little money to spend on things other than food and housing, so with little savings, they went to plays that interested them. Shakespeare was better at history which pleased the Monarchy and the people. I notice that Tolkien mentioned fantasy but not historical. And the endings were rushed because people stood through the plays (no seats) and he did work with a time limit. Shakespeare was a man with a great imagination and no editor. I think it did pretty for himself.
If anyone is interested in a differing, and exceptionally well researched, opinion, regarding the authorship of the plays, read “The Truth Will Out” by Brenda James. I frankly don’t understand why anyone in the 20th or 21st century would get their panties so twisted up whether William Shakespeare may or may not have been the actual author. It doesn’t change the brilliance of the writing. At least read the first chapter.
George Bernard Shaw: “With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer…..that I despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his.” lol
Walking, running, cycling, driving, catching a train, sailing, or flying. All means of getting from A to B. You can enjoy them all. Every now and again, Tolkien could be a bit up his own... posterior.
I can understand why Tolkien had a problem on how Shakespeare made the forest move prophecy. It does feel kind of cheap if a bunch of guys cut some branches and you call that the forest moving(8:39). What could have been done is that whole trees could have been dug up and placed in ox carts. Under the cover of night, these ox carts trick the sentries and make it look like the trees moved.
Might as well have titled "Why Tolkien hated and would have hated in the future every film production of his works including the Hobbit. And why he thought that drama could never do justice to fantasy."
Arguably, the reason why anyone writes a novel - or makes a film, or records an album, or creates any kind of art - is because of a certain dissatisfaction with everyone else's efforts in that direction, i.e. because no-one's done it exactly the way they would want to see it done, so it falls to them to do it. I'm sure Peter Jackson would have preferred that some other competent director had made a top-notch cinema adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" so that he could simply watch it as a member of the audience and be swept along by it without knowing how it was all achieved. But no-one else was capable of doing it properly, and so it fell to him to do it. The curse that any creator is under is that, because they made the work, they're one of the few people on earth - or in an author's case, the _sole_ person on earth - denied the pleasure of ever experiencing it.
I'm not even a huge fan of Tolkien, I actually like Shakespeare's way of handing prophecies better, but he's got a very interesting point about the over-application of theatrical norms to literature. George R. R. Martin likes to quote "the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself," which seems influenced by Hamlet and Macbeth, and in some ways it's served him well since I do think the characters are stronger in ASoIaF than in LotR, but in other ways it's a somewhat reductive and impoverished understanding of writing that really limits his prose ability and world building. I don't think one perspective is necessarily right and the other wrong, I'm just glad we have different excellent writers with their own philosophies of what makes a good book. We get more that way than we would if everyone followed all the same rules.
He didn’t hate getting pegged by his wife. That’s why he “invented languages” so they could talk dirty to each other without the prying, snobbish neighbors understanding what they were saying when they were doing the nasty.
Tolkein is correct: the difference between reading and watching Shakespeare is night and day (provided the actors are sufficiently skilled). I never liked Shakespeare until I got dragged to see Twelfth Night at the Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival. Now, it’s the event I look forward to most every year.
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
To be fair, Tolkien probably thought it was all downhill for English literature from the Norman conquest onwards.
Probably especially as he was a fellow Catholic and was hated by his protestant relatives
Not really, he wasn’t some linguistic “purist” who only wanted Germanic elements in English, there’s no indication of that, however he did think English would suffer if tons of people started speaking it outside of the anglophone world, which was starting to happen at the time and has happened since
There WAS no "English literature" in 1066. One of the earliest literary applications of English was Chaucer's Canterbury Tales a few hundred years later.
@@pricklypear7516 Fellas, no offence, really, but I’m just sort of joking here.
@@pricklypear7516Man are you ignorant. Beowulf, Venerable Bede's voluminous writings, Alfred the Great's Psalms and other translations, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, hymns, homilies, poems, riddles, letters and elegies all existed before the Normans.
He didnt hate Shakespeare. He may have taken issue with how the prophecy played out in Hamlet, not the same thing as hating Shakespeare.
I think he uses the word "hated" in these titles to grab people's attention, but in the video you he uses the word "disliked" instead. I also get the impression that Tolkien had more of a love-hate relationship with the bards works.
Hyperbolic language is how some people get clicks.
You meant Macbeth didn't you.
@@ccgamedes33 yesh I did
All I can say is that when i started college in 1969, Tolkien books were very popular. I thought the stories were garbage and couldn’t finish any of them. When the famous movies came out 32 years later,i still wasn’t impressed, though i sat through them(easier than reading them) But I’m still in awe of all things Shakespeare. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it
Should be retitled "why Tolkien sorta disliked Shakespear a bit sometimes".
Agreed. I thought the video was great and seemed well researched, but the title is definitely clickbait
Clickbait is the mouth of Sauron
Could've been a video about guessing what his reaction would be to the film adaptations, via his critique of Shakespeare
no, sounds like he REALLY didnt like Shakespear to me
Agreed.
Much of the criticism wasn't specific to Shakespeare, but instead directed at the tension between fantasy and drama.
Tolkien thought that Shakespeare's plays work better as performed than as just read? I doubt that Shakespeare himself would have disputed that! Shakespeare never intended for his plays to be read as literature, he wrote them to be performed on stage!
The ironic thing is that, because of the way English has changed since then, it's not really possible to appreciate Shakespeare as theatre without studying it first as literature. You need to have the scripts ready to hand, alongside a dictionary, if you want to understand everything.
@@josephbrandenburg4373 It was certainly easier for people of Shakespeare's time to understand, but even today, a well-acted Shakespeare performance with pauses and accents by performers who understand the old English meanings is a lot easier to follow than reading his words on a page, which he never intended in the first place.
Similar to how sarcasm often doesn't translate well in this text-only format, a lot of Shakespeare's intended meaning doesn't work as well when read, even for people of his time who understood old English.
@@josephbrandenburg4373no it’s quite easy to understand most Shakespeare. Granted some understanding of the play prior to watching it greatly helps, and some are certainly wordier than others. But once you get a feel for it, assuming the actors aren’t making the common mistake of racing through the lines (usually because they themselves are quite poor actors who didn’t bother to understand what they were actually saying), it’s quite easy to understand.
"I don't like this, it *should* be like this" is pretty much the basis for anyone to create something new or interesting.
Unless they try to impose it to other people too
@@maracarlisleoldwhat
Not even a little bit true, what?
Rings of Power………
If you write literature, poetry or theater in English, whether you know it or not you were influenced by William Shakespeare. Literally; when Shakespeare started writing English grammar & spelling still weren’t standardized and his use of language helped shape our vocabulary, spelling, grammar and manner of speaking. This is in addition to creating what we think of as modern plot structure and character archetypes, pioneering many of the techniques that are now essential to theater and creating new poetic styles. Tolkien was a once in a generation literary mind, but Shakespeare was truly a once in a millennium sort of storyteller if not rarer.
Hard disagree with the last line. Shakespeare was all of those things, except a once in a millenia storyteller. He was an unmatched wordsmith, brilliant poet as well as prose writer, a true bard and rhyme machine, but there were many before him and many after him that were simply better storytellers, writing deeper narratives with more fleshed out characters
True enough, but it misses the specific point Tolkien was making about Fantasy.
As I recall , in a worldwide poll, Shakespeare was voted Man of The Millennium in 2000AD
Eh, art is subjective I suppose. That can be your opinion. Just saying if people are still buying tickets to see your plays 500 years after you died I think you probably did something right.
And if you write fantasy you'll be influenced by Tolkien and Moorcock whether you like it or not.
“Why Tolkien had a reasonable and thoughtful critique about Shakespeare’s way of handling fantasy, and a few of the resolutions to his stories.” I guess that title would be a little too long, but what would’ve been more accurate and less inflammatory is “Tolkien’s Problem with Shakespeare”
@varalderfreyr8438I like your comment. thank you for sharing.
My feed is flooded with videos about all the writers Tolkien hated. I wouldn't think too much about it.
I'm sure that if they were reincarnated, they wouldn't think too much about it either
Not just writers, either; he seemed to pretty much hate everyone, just like he hated everything that was not created by himself.
Got the same - this afternoon. Ignored them - a cursory glance - even cars were mentioned.
Fare thee well.
He is simply the type to be roused into expression when dissatisfied. "The existence of a positive feeling can be inferred only indirectly, as it were." - C. G. Jung
@@hugoclarke3284 Ghad, I'd hate to live inside such a head. Sounds like a pretty miserable place to be.
Overwriting the whimsical view on Elves and Dwarfs in our culture is probably one of his biggest archievements.
Except he didn't do that since it prevails over his version
@@docsavage8640nah the old folklore versions are way way way different, the modern view is Tolkien's 'tall civilisation and short civilisation' rather than mythic or fairy tale esque.
You dont get international councils making agreements or generals drawing up battle plans in folklore elves and dwarves, but you do in the Legendarium
"To Ring or not to Ring, that is the question" - Sauron Probably
Polite golf clap
@@RonCopperman You should have applied a golf _club._
"To be or not. To be, that is the question" - French critic
I think it's mostly sour grapes because Shakespeare wrote a terrible review of The Lord of the Rings.
Lol !
I knew it...!
I almost Googled what Shakespeares review.
But then I was like hold up wait, a minute I ain’t that stupid.
I laughed so hard the cat jumped off my lap.
@@mrgandolf5349 Good you caught yourself in time.
@@emilyburton4095 bro I was that 👌close
i had google open.
I think the loophole prophecies in Macbeth work because we get to see Macbeth's arrogance beforehand. He is undone and undone cruelly and cheaply by fate. In contrast, we never look inside the Witch King's mind like we Macbeth, so cheap loopholes would carry no sting and would just look, well, cheap. Both prophecies work in both stories because they fit the essence of either story.
What "prophecies" in Macbeth? The whole point of the tale is that, while the Weird Sisters baited Macbeth with a suggestion, his blind ambition did all the rest. Only their scrap to Banquo proved prophetic ("You shall not be king, but you shall get kings"), but this was only to connect the later survival of Fleance to the new King James I (for whom Shakespeare wrote the play).
There's no substantial difference between the MacDuff v MacBeth prophecy and the Arwen v the Witch King prophecy. They both rely on a semantic loophole.
In fact, historically, it was Duncan that was a tyrant, he invaded Moray, his own vassal, & got killed by Macbeth's troops. So, Macbeth became king, & many historians today agree that Macbeth was a good king. The story is just no historical accuracy, pure slander. Also, Macbeth is a direct ancestor of mine, so I may be a little biased.
@@haroldgōdwinessunu - Turns out that learning history from Shakespeare is no more educational than learning from Hollywood.
@@haroldgōdwinessunuhow can Macbeth be your direct ancestor? He had no children. His stepson Lulach became king (briefly) after his death.
To paraphrase Cunk on Shakespeare, Shakespeare had it much easier in school because he didn’t have to learn Shakespeare. But it is interesting to learn about Tolkien’s take on Shakespeare. I would love to know what he thought of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus because that is sooooooo dark and messed up.
It’s incredible to consider that Tolkien’s influence has been so great that his versions of Elves and Dwarves have supplanted both Shakespeare’s and Disney’s respective interpretations in the public imagination. No mean feat!
For Shakespeare, elves were a device, not a belief. What was in that pipe JR was puffing on? The same stuff that started the Boxer Rebellion?
Thank god we’ve still got gnomes and fairies
As always, Tolkein articulated his opinions clearly
Tolkien about Shakespeare: needed more trees and less people
😂
Fewer people
....and. more Orkes
Oops, Orcs
And not enough cowbell
Damn, judging by your titles Tolkien hated everything
A more accurate title would be: Why Tolkein had a Few Specific and Well-Explained Criticisms of Shakespeare.
The great Tolkiens objection to the trees of Burnham Woods being cut down and moved is silly.
The whole point of MacBeth not taking that prophecy serious was the common view that trees are fixed in place and can not walk.
If MacBeth lived in a world where trees could move then there would be no reason for him to let his guard down regarding that prophecy.
Silly???? Tolkien?
You’re a brave person to say it.
I can remember feeling similarly disappointed on my first reading of Macbeth. It still feels to me a little bit like the cheap device “when he woke up, and it was all a dream”
@@micklumsden3956 I prefer a practical realisation of prophecy. Not fond of magic in stories that are otherwise set in realistic worlds.
@@micklumsden3956 Yes. If you read Macbeth, and the fact that Burnam wood didn't physically move to Dunsinane hill is what bothers you, you're either silly or didn't understand the play. Or both.
"Hated" seems to be a overstatement for the evidence provided. If I say "The 3rd season of the origional Star Trek had some weak episodes", that doesen't mean I hate Star Trek, and if I was given an assignment to take the debate position that Tolken wrote poor quality literature I could make a caes for it, though I read LOTR at least 6 times.
If Shakespeare didn’t make the cut then it makes a little more sense why he didn’t like Narnia
He disliked Narnia for different reasons, namely the heavy allegory.
"While still a young boy, like countless others of his age and background, J.R.R. Tolkien would've been immersed in Shakespeare's works and taught them extensively during his school years."
Whew! From question to answer in under a minute! _Very_ concise! So what will the next 11 minutes be about, then?
In terms of theatre. I would agree it cannot not do Fantasy justice because of the visual limitations but Tolkien was a product of his time, it would be interesting to see if his opinion changed where he able to see fantasy in video games, or the cinema with today's technology. LoTR on stage would look ridiculous, it's too grand, too big in scale for the Theatre, but with modern technology that scale can be visualised on screen.
I had the same thought myself. I really wish I could get his take on the movies made from his work as well as others like Wheel of Time and others!
@@lilykatmoon4508
I feel like he would have had mixed feelings on the Peter Jackson films for story reasons while thinking that the movies successfully handled the scope. If he were familiar with the Wheel of Time books, he’d have torn the show apart since it changes so much. Rings of Power would have been condemned as horrible both as an adaptation and as a story on its own.
Another great video.... I've also read Tolkien's essay on fairy tales and fantasy. It's very inspirational 🥹
That book is on my Tolkien library wish list!
All of this being said, im very excited to hear about the operatic adaptation of LoTR. Tolkien's love and inspiration owing to opera really gives me hope it will go well
Interesting, considering that the Witch King's warning to Eowyn, "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" Is a close paraphrasal of a line from King Lear.
yes..I think there are other direct echoes from time to time
He enjoyed the writings of Mary Renault, a former student of his at Oxford ( meaning she attended classes of his, not that he was her advisor), writing her a letter of praise for her books- even though she was a prominent lesbian and feminist, and her books, set in ancient Greece, referenced the powers of the Greek gods and goddesses, and had openly sexual elements involving heterosexual and homosexual relationships between both men and women. A catholic reader as well as a Catholic writer.
The debate means nothing about Tolkien's own beliefs. It's a debate. He's required to take a stance, and as the Baconian Theory requires Bill Shakespeare to be too thick to have written the works, Tolkien therefore used rhetoric to play up Shakespeare (the man's) supposed thickness.
With Shakespeare, doubt about his authorship is a class thing. Typical of Britain.
@@normanmeharry58this is the most common tactic of Stratfordians. Accusing people of elitism because they doubt that a man who died with no books in his possession, no surviving writing in his hand and two illiterate children; a venal moneylender and aspirant to titled privilege, wrote the greatest dramatic works in the English language. Well Mark Twain, to name one of many Baconians, was hardly some English fop with an antipathy for the working class, thou addle-pated knave!
@@normanmeharry58 you don't think it's legitimate to wonder how a man who didn't own a book and could barely sign his own name (as evidenced by William Shaksper's will) could have been Shakespeare?
@@random_silicates
Not particularly. You just need someone who is rather creative with his words.
For Tolkien's beloved Fantasy I can understand his dislike, but I would dislike a wit that didn't love the Bard's.
Hate is a bit of a strong term methinks! 🙂
It's rage-bait, he's done so for many other episodes. The videos themselves are good, and it's far from the first time he's done it, so all is well for me.
This raises the question of what Tolkien would have thought about the Peter Jackson trilogy. (Lord of the Rings of course, not The Hobbit) I wonder if he would have thought it was fantasy, would the technology used give it that fantasy element he was talking about.
Tolkien: I’m into older, more obscure stuff. You probably wouldn’t get it.
I always had a problem with "Macbeth", too. If the witches' prophecies are curses, then Macbeth isn't responsible for his actions. If they are true predictions, then his fate is pre-determined, and he also isn't responsible. Even if they just put ideas into his head, the truth of their other predictions forces Macbeth to consider the ones concerning him to be unavoidable.
There is no evidence that J.R.R. Tolkien disliked Shakespeare. In fact, Tolkien was known to appreciate and respect Shakespeare's work.
whether you agree with his other opinions of shakespeare or not, it's hard to disagree with him that fantasy is meant to be written not performed. in plays back then or on tv today, fantasy is always held back by the medium and the imagination of the writer, and no matter how fancy that medium is or how great the writer, it leaves no room for your own imagination which defeats the whole point. and it gets worse when you consider how those movies and plays have influenced modern fantasy writing, these days fantasy books have no subtlety or mystery about them at all which is really sad. magic is either some oddly convoluted system that gets treated like a mundane tool by the characters, or it's simplistic and tries to amaze you by being really over the top, it's always a very tangible thing that's easy to explain. there are some books that overcome this like harry potter, but for the most part the fantasy genre today fails to achieve it's main objective which is creating a sense of wonder. this isn't a personal attack but it always frustrates me when i see people dissecting the lore of lotr and explaining how things work, or worst of all when someone tries to quantify how powerful the characters are, because the entire point of the genre is that you aren't meant to know everything. you don't know how powerful gandalf is, you don't know what it looked like when he became really tall to fight the wolves, and you don't know what kind of spells he can use. that's a good thing because it lets your imagination come up with an answer, and it'll be far more enjoyable than whatever answer a screen or lore expert can give you
As an early, enamoured reader of LOTR I must agree with you on how disappointing the films were for this reason
@@bigdog1391 i've never bothered watching them myself for the same reason. i love lotr because it's an amazing world full of wonder and mystery, and it really pushes the limits of my imagination. turning it into a movie strips all of that away, and usually rather than adding anything it just confuses the narrative. that's not true for every tv adaptation, just as an example i think the first hunger games movie does a really amazing job of bringing the world to life, but there's no wonder or mystery getting lost in the process there. a similar thing happens with video games, having a character driven narrative works really well when you spend so long with the character and actively control them, that's part of why the stories in god of war or the last of us can cause such strong emotions. it just comes down to different mediums being suited to different stories, and traditional fantasy really works best in a book
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Agreed! I also wonder how much DND's magic system has influenced the genre. And don't get me started on Terry Pratchett (RIP) and his 'belief makes gods and makes them stronger' tropes. I love his humor, but his cosmology is a tad terrifying.
@@zachlong5427 i don't have any experience with DND, but in general i don't think games have had a negative effect on fantasy. particularly video games are pretty cool with magic when it's done properly, it's usually just treated as a game mechanic and the focus of the story has nothing to do with it. the point is for you to be fully immersed in what you're doing, which works great with fantasy elements because it's so far outside of our own experience. and video games are unique because you're getting a very hands on experience with the world, which leaves a lot of room for interesting lore that doesn't need to be shoved down your throat, from software are excellent at that.
just to clarify, i don't think it should be illegal for people to use fantasy elements in their stories without following the traditional fantasy genre, what i have a problem with is people trying to do traditional fantasy and missing the entire point of it. there are loads of lotr clones or similar books and movies, and all of them expect you to be amazed despite doing everything they can to limit your imagination lol. the point is that if you want the audience to be fascinated by something you can't give them all the information, you need to let them wonder, but how you go about that doesn't need to follow a formula
@@aldrichunfaithful3589 Boy howdy don't I know it. I'm launching a sci fi book and a fantasy book today on Amazon (long story), and I have to have 2 different minds when writing one or the other.
George Bernard Shaw also had beef with Shakespeare and compared him unfavorably with Bunyan. He too criticized Macbeth, calling the language of the play "right in feeling but silly and resourceless in thought and expression."
Good thing that his opinion is irrelevant as an atheist.
Tolstoy also hated Shakespeare and there is even a long passage in Anna Karenina just tearing down the mid 19th century cult of Shakespeare in Western Europe. As a fan of all the writers mentioned in this thread, I think my main takeaway is that writers of their caliber have giant egos
@@joegibbskins Which proves Dostoevsky to be the superior 19th century Russian author as he loved, respected and was influenced by Shakespeare.
@@ElonMuskrat-my8jy I honestly think they are too different to compare and honestly love all of them for very different reasons
GBS would've cut LotR to pieces
What you imagine in your own mind is going to be greater than any stage play or movie. Literature is indeed the best way to convey fantasy.
What didn't Tolkien hate?
Trees and elves
Good plain food
Jews. Beer. Tobacco
Hm... I think videogames became popular after he died. So there is a certain chance, that he didn't hate videosgames. (eventhrough it is one of those things he absolutley WOULD hate).
And ehm, by the same logic, he didn't hate Star Wars.
Tolkien seems to have hated everyone who wasn't him
Can you really blame him
Artists, writers have strong opinions. Its what happens when you are immersed in your craft
People Who fought horroble wars tend to have strong opinions.
That’s pretty ignorant to claim, especially since the video itself shows that it has a clickbait title and that Tolkien simply had very understandable criticisms of Shakespeare.
to call tolkien “a legend of english literature” is hyperbolic at best…he wrote a fantasy series with an extremely black and white conflict between good and evil whose characters are all relatively lackluster in actual depth.
how many “legends” can exist in anything? obviously there’s chaucer, milton, and shakespeare; but then in english there are authors like beckett, joyce, woolf, ts eliot, george eliot, plath, dickinson, austen, wilde, shelley, whitman, ginsberg, melville, et cetera who are all in much much higher regard than tolkien.
shakespeare’s fantastical stories are always wonderful on stage btw. fantasy really should not be taken seriously as a genre of literature because it often requires sacrificing actual depth of storytelling for the sake of world building.
Isn’t the fulfillment of the prophecy in Macbeth almost exactly the same trick used by Tolkien with the Witch King in LOTR?
No as the Witch King didn’t die *because* Merry and Eowyn weren’t men, but rather due to the special Numenorean blade that Merry stabbed him with, which severed his connection to Sauron. Therefore the “No man will kill him”, was true but not a loophole, simply a description of what would happen.
I disagree that visual medium can't portray fantasy as well as literature, a story like berserk will not work as a novel for example because its art is essential to its storytelling
Yes, but Berserk was made waaaaay after Tolkien's time.
Techonology
@@gustyko8668 berserk is just one example
It is true tho that technology is his time wasn't advanced enough, I think if he seems some modern attempts like berserk or even games like souls game that he'll change his mind
@@GILGAMESH069 I'm not so sure, Berserk world view and philosophy is in opposition to the one in Middle Earth.
@@gustyko8668 maybe on the surface but its themes about human connections, the strength of the human will, overcoming truma and pain through opening ourselves to other people are pure universal themes that I think Tolkien would've at least appreciate even if he didn't like the gore and violence
Hey dude. I've really enjoyed your videos, both on this topic and Tolkien's thoughts and feelings about Disney. Would love to see more content like this, perhaps delivered in an even more refined way. Keep up the good work!!!
Thank you!!!
Who gives a shit what Tolkien liked? Shakespeare is an order of magnitude the superior of Tolkien in every way.
I feel Tolkien's error regarding Shakespeare's Scottish play lays in seeing it as a fantasy. If the Bard had intended it to be a fantasy, he might indeed have had actual trees (ents) storm the castle - but it was not a fantasy story in that sense. The witches offered a prophecy that was technically true but highly misleading knowing that their words would lead to the violent downfall of the titular character.
P.G. Wodehouse was so well educated and intelligent he had Shakespeare and the Bible almost memorized. His books bring so much humor and joy....
I think this is the second of your videos I've seen. Your presentations are well researched, well thought out, and well presented.
Thank you so much!!!
I "hate" to think what Tolkien felt about Delphi Oracle's prophecies.
It's sad that even Tolkien fell into the trap that only 'gentlemen' and those with the 'proper' education could truly write. It's a relic of the English class system, and one held by far too many even among writers today.
But in this case, Tolkien was correct, though he had the wrong man behind the name. That was Edward De Vere, the 18th Earl of Oxford. Loo😮k up Alexander Waugh, grandson of noted English author, Evelyn Waugh (a man). He has videos on youtube that will convince you
@@MundaSquire advising someone to 'watch a video on TH-cam' so they can have some point 'proven' to them is hardly scholarly research. if you want to know why, google 'chemtrails are real' and find out just how insane some of the video 'proofs' available on TH-cam are.
Oops, typo. 17th Earl of Oxford.
I’m more convinced he is right day by day than that he was wrong.
@@TheUltimegaMan Don't let your anti-intellectualism escape from the confines of your mouth ever again. Thank you.
This makes me wonder what Tolkien felt about Wagner.
IIRC he disliked Wagner and denied the alleged influence of the Tetralogy, which, to me, seems a bit the lady doth protest too much
Tolkien was a prude so I'm sure he disliked Wagner as a person.
As for the Ring Cycle, its fingerprints are all over the trilogy regardless of what Tolkien claimed.
Wagner?Pinched Richards best ideas!😊
I heard on a podcast that he said the only thing the stories had in common was that they both had a ring..he didn't like Wagner at all
@@q45ij54q To be fair to Tolkien, both he and Wagner drew influence from the same source material. Most of the similarities, such as a broken sword being re-forged, or a sinister ring, come from Norse and Germanic mythology.
Tolkien makes some good points. This may seem like a tangent, but I think this might also be the reason why Baldur's Gate 3 feels so hollow to me compared to the original games. A fantasy-themed RPG game like this should have loads of text and sparse graphics and effects. A still portrait and a wall of written dialogue in a text box simply works better for this kind of game and story than a hyper-detailed 3D-animated model overacting their tragic backstory.
I disagree I would hate the wall of text. I like even voiceless cut scenes
I dislike walls of text but BG3 is soulless
How the fuck do you arrive from Macbeth to Baldur's Gate
I’ve only read Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar, so I’m not that knowledgeable on Shakespeare, but great video nonetheless. 👍
Thank you very much, Caesar is probably my favorite!!
@@InkandFantasy It was very good, I read it back in college.
@georgerady9706 Okay. Is that aimed at me or Tolkien? I assume it’s Tolkien.
I look forward to next episode of "Whom did Tolkien hate?" I expect it will be another master whom I revere. Debussy? Oscar Wilde? Richard Strauss? Van Gogh? Arnold Schoenberg? George Gershwin? Sinclair Lewis?
Shakespeare's plays were probably written in a rush, with the deadline of the date set for their performance. Hence their defects. And yet, their genius shines down the centuries.
Great video thank you!
Tolkien was primarily an Old to Early Middle English scholar. Shakespeare is Early Modern English. Tolkien didn't hate Shakespeare. He just didn't care as much about Shakespeare as, say, Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
Good work on this. Well done.
Did he like anybody?
one day we'll learn he loved Howard Sprague and the show My Mother the Car.
Thank you. A fascinating video. Tolkien was somewhat hypercritical regarding literature. I guess CS Lewis, JRT''s fellow Inkling, would have been more sympathetic to Shakespeare as his understanding of fantasy was less literary than Tolkien's.
Regarding the prophecies of Macbeth, Tolkien may have had a point about the trees, but he, like many others, was wrong about the other one. The apparition actually said that " *none* of woman born shall harm Macbeth," so Eowyn would have been out of luck unless she had a caesarean section. Also, in Medieval times, Caesarean sections had a 100% fatality rate for the mother, so in Macduff's case, the surgeon would not have even tried it unless Macduff's mother were already dead as a last-ditch attempt to save the baby. That is why Macduff was not "of woman born:" his mother died before she could properly finish giving birth to him, so he was born of the knife. The modern C-section is more like "of woman born, with some surgical assistance."
Shakespeare has characters on more than once suggest one's mind and soul is vulnerable and weak. Because of that director's can take the view Macbeth himself becomes deranged with ambition and disgard the magic as mere delusion. Having the trees uproot and march just destroys the play. It goes from a human play with whispers of remote devilish interference to an all out ahistorical fairy tale. He might as well bring in a unicorn and pegasus after that stunt.
I think Tolkien's personal definition of "fantasy", which it seems he held since childhood, is the root of his misinterpretation of the fantasy elements in Shakespeare. They're not there because Bill is trying to write fantasy and failing, they're there because he's trying to create drama, and succeeding.
Midsummer Night's Dream satirises sexual infatuation using fairies, it isn't a fairy story, and the way he's written them uses a variety of contemporary presentations that his audience would know - otherwise the satire wouldn't work. Nor does the play require a belief in fairies - which would have been considered as rather unsophisticated even then.
Tolkien's view of Macbeth is even wider of the mark and he also disliked nearly all literature by his own contemporaries. Much as I have enjoyed reading LOTR over the decades, and recognise T's scholarship in philology and Old English, he was, I think, a rather a limited man in his literary taste.
Because Shakespeare was a great writer
Tolkien's words about Shakespeare's humble beginnings reminded me of the line in his book "What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?"
I knew I liked JRRT for more than just the Lotr stories.
I am made to remember Harold Bloom's concept of the anxiety of influence.
To improve on SHAKESPEARE! WHAT! What beggary of the mind is this? Shakespeare is a divine poet, a soothsayer to future events in England! He is best read in the quiet of a cloistered abbey, or in the meadow where the larks do play. Nothing bears comparison to his staggering genius and colossal wit. The man is a literary GIANT amongst pygmies that squawk and take fright from his shadow. There is no equal to his stature, to the depths of his artistic insight that plumbs and probes the human soul. There is no limit to his imagination that towers above the clouds and rests in the lap of Gods. The man is the epitome of greatness... and that is why I don't read him. My ego can't take it. I must lock myself for years away from his works lest I be tempted. I must bolt the door and bar the windows lest the people sing his praises as they pass my home. Even the angels in the church will secretly read his plays and take pleasure. I can not bear it. I, who has written nothing over the years, can not bear it! Alas... But I will not take it out on Shakespeare.
❤
DUDE, chill down a bit with this ,,why someone HATES something" clickbait titles... for fucks sake...
Good video! There's no "-size" in any form of the verb "prophesy" (or "prophesies" or "prophesied"). E.g., 9:44
Yeah I seem to make that mistake a lot. It’s kind of hardwired for some reason. Thanks for pointing it out!!!
Funny thing is, the eariesr mention of a King and Queen Oberon and Titania of the fairies we've found is a 1400s English mummers play.
It's quite likely Germanic elves and fairies had different or at least parallel origins. rather than spoiled at some point
Every writer of even average skill since 1616 is jealous of Shakespeare, openly or not.
His take on Macbeth is interesting to me, since that's probably my favorite Shakespeare play. I never was that into them, but of course I also read some of them for school. I thought the prophesy was a bit of a stretch, but I just chalked that up to how he shouldn't have trusted those witches in the first place. Although I did feel a similar dissapointment when we read The Crystal Cave in high school, and I didn't like how the "Dragon" was a meteor or something. And I'll also grant him that the part with the Ents was one of my absolute favorite parts of The Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien wanted a high fantasy based on the earliest myths that could be found in English folklore. He saw the potential to influence culture in a positive way. The cheap versions of these myths like Disney dwarfs greatly destroyed the potential of Tolkien’s gifts. It’s a bit like the two towers. Disney the sell out, and Tolkien the Gray.
I revere Shakespeare but for character, language, timeless insights into human nature NOT plot, which everyone knows he ripped off. Tolkien in other words has a point but makes a category error (as I am sure he knew better than I).
Shakespeare wanted to be an actor but was often not hired because of reasons we don't need to get into here. He solved the solution by writing his own plays and appearing in a lot of them. There were also times, he would come up with an idea and decide he wanted to do it and wrote it at the side of the stage passing sheets of paper to his trusted actors who read the new play on stage holding the paper. Audiences didn't mind. Also, Shakespeare was more interested in action more than anything else. (If he were here today, he would be writing massive movies with huge battle scenes.) And, people had little money to spend on things other than food and housing, so with little savings, they went to plays that interested them. Shakespeare was better at history which pleased the Monarchy and the people. I notice that Tolkien mentioned fantasy but not historical. And the endings were rushed because people stood through the plays (no seats) and he did work with a time limit. Shakespeare was a man with a great imagination and no editor. I think it did pretty for himself.
Next video: “Why Tolkien would hate High School Musical”
Did he like anyone?
Shakespeare can say three pages worth with one sentence. I find new things in his writing even after ten readings.
Tolkein's mantra: "only I know how to write fantasy."
he’s right
He would be right but that’s not what he believed, he had tons of love and respect for different authors and stories
@@maalikserebryakov true lol
@@maalikserebryakov tolkein is overrated. never have i read something so imaginatively bland
“I only know how to write fantasy.”
If anyone is interested in a differing, and exceptionally well researched, opinion, regarding the authorship of the plays, read “The Truth Will Out” by Brenda James. I frankly don’t understand why anyone in the 20th or 21st century would get their panties so twisted up whether William Shakespeare may or may not have been the actual author. It doesn’t change the brilliance of the writing. At least read the first chapter.
George Bernard Shaw: “With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer…..that I despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his.” lol
Walking, running, cycling, driving, catching a train, sailing, or flying.
All means of getting from A to B.
You can enjoy them all.
Every now and again, Tolkien could be a bit up his own... posterior.
It sounds like he had issues with a couple of plays, the more magical ones to be specific and even then only elements of the stories.
😁
Wow. Didn't expect to agree with Tolkien on this one, but he certainly won me over!
Cause he’s smart. Moving on…
I don't think Shakespeare would give af what Tolkien thought of him.
Video liked at doggo video farewell. Good boy, thanking the patrons.
I can understand why Tolkien had a problem on how Shakespeare made the forest move prophecy. It does feel kind of cheap if a bunch of guys cut some branches and you call that the forest moving(8:39). What could have been done is that whole trees could have been dug up and placed in ox carts. Under the cover of night, these ox carts trick the sentries and make it look like the trees moved.
Might as well have titled "Why Tolkien hated and would have hated in the future every film production of his works including the Hobbit. And why he thought that drama could never do justice to fantasy."
Arguably, the reason why anyone writes a novel - or makes a film, or records an album, or creates any kind of art - is because of a certain dissatisfaction with everyone else's efforts in that direction, i.e. because no-one's done it exactly the way they would want to see it done, so it falls to them to do it.
I'm sure Peter Jackson would have preferred that some other competent director had made a top-notch cinema adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" so that he could simply watch it as a member of the audience and be swept along by it without knowing how it was all achieved. But no-one else was capable of doing it properly, and so it fell to him to do it.
The curse that any creator is under is that, because they made the work, they're one of the few people on earth - or in an author's case, the _sole_ person on earth - denied the pleasure of ever experiencing it.
Tolstoy took Shakespeare to task as well.
I'm not even a huge fan of Tolkien, I actually like Shakespeare's way of handing prophecies better, but he's got a very interesting point about the over-application of theatrical norms to literature. George R. R. Martin likes to quote "the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself," which seems influenced by Hamlet and Macbeth, and in some ways it's served him well since I do think the characters are stronger in ASoIaF than in LotR, but in other ways it's a somewhat reductive and impoverished understanding of writing that really limits his prose ability and world building. I don't think one perspective is necessarily right and the other wrong, I'm just glad we have different excellent writers with their own philosophies of what makes a good book. We get more that way than we would if everyone followed all the same rules.
Shakespeare has been perforemd and read for over 400 years. Will Tolkein be read in 400 years? I doubt it!
he hated Rome he hated Dune he hated Shakespeare he hated a lot of things lol.
is there someone or something that Tolkien didn't hate aside from nature and smoking pipes?
Traditional Catholicism.
He didn’t hate getting pegged by his wife. That’s why he “invented languages” so they could talk dirty to each other without the prying, snobbish neighbors understanding what they were saying when they were doing the nasty.
From how he described what he thinks fantasy should be, i wonder what hed have thought about dungeons and dragons
Precious, precious, where art thou precious
Tolkein is correct: the difference between reading and watching Shakespeare is night and day (provided the actors are sufficiently skilled). I never liked Shakespeare until I got dragged to see Twelfth Night at the Lake Tahoe Shakespeare Festival. Now, it’s the event I look forward to most every year.
To be critical is not to dislike.
And now it's the biggest movies series in human history. There's some real irony that would put Alannis to shame.
Thats funny, because I always thought his books were a chore to read but some of the movies and videogames based on his work are fantastic.