By William Shakespeare (1564-1616) is considered to be the father of modern English literature. He is also regarded as a major influence in the history of the English language. He is arguably the most important figure in the development of the literary language in English. His influence is still evident in the modern literary language.
It is said that Shakespeare’s writing was influenced by his life, his writings are based on his characters, and his plays are based on events in his life. This is true in many ways, but there are some important differences. Shakespeare was primarily a dramatist, whereas most of our modern writers are mainly novelists. The writing style in the playwrights of the 16th and 17th centuries was very different from that in our modern novelists.
Writers of the 16th and 17th centuries wrote in a more literary style than their modern counterparts, and they wrote more slowly. This was a conscious decision, to keep up with the times. Writers of the period didn’t want to spend time in the detail of their characters and how they were feeling.
It is also worth mentioning that Shakespeare is not a playwright. He is considered the father of English literature because of his writing style.
The writing style of Shakespeare is a good example of the difference between the modern novelist and his predecessors. A good example of this is the first three plays in Romeo and Juliet. Shakespeare wrote almost no dialogue in the first three plays, and when he does, he uses very clear, distinct voices. He leaves the audience to work out the emotional state of his characters with this. That is not our style of writing.
Shakespeare’s plays are filled with dialogue. There are many plays that contain no dialogue at all. In some cases, there is absolutely nothing to say. In others, there are a few lines or a few pages of dialogue. But in the majority of the plays these two things don’t matter. Shakespeare’s plays don’t allow for emotional development. They are set up to be funny.
The problem is that when you take away the ability to use dialogue, you reduce the audience to the characters and their state of mind. People who aren’t actors are reduced to playing characters in a game, and the ability to tell a story without dialogue makes the story less interesting. You have to rely on what the actor can do for the audience to understand what the character is thinking. In fact, the director of a Shakespeare play might have the final word.
I think the problem is that there is a tendency to assume that a character acting and talking means she is actually as intelligent as she pretends. I think it’s a way of thinking we have and it’s a tendency we share with many people.
The problem here is not that Shakespeare was wrong, but that we tend to value his plays too highly. It’s a habit of thinking that we take for granted, and when we don’t make an effort to understand what it means, it turns out that we can’t understand at all.
The thing is that the first generation of characters that took life for granted has done so with the character’s maturity and intelligence. The problems we have with this are either not enough of them, or there is a reason that the characters are so flawed. But there is a bigger problem here, the fact that there is a good reason that people really do behave badly, it is because they are so flawed.
Comments