What the fuck is the deal with this guy? His work strikes me as bombastic drivel...

>translation
>ebook
okay lad

How do you feel that a translation of that passage is infinitely superior to anything Shakespeare wrote in the original?

Dumb retard.

Another ESL doesn’t realize he’ll never be able to appreciate the poetics

Still waiting for you to provide me with the passage that proves me wrong.

Kek

ebin

It's just a matter of taste.

>[Choke their art? what? the metaphor is shit anyway; why are two swimmers fighting?]
"art" as in skill.
Tired swimmers entangled and about to drown evokes the image of a desperate, mutually destructive conflict.
>for to that[to what?]
to the quality of being worthy to be a rebel.
>[nothing to do with "nature". "from the western isles of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied" is a retarded sentence]
You seem to be confused here. The dashes surround a parenthetical about Macdonwald. "The multiplying villanies of nature" is what makes him worthy to be a rebel. It has nought to do with the following passage. Perhaps you wouldn't have been confused, had you seen the play performed instead of reading the script.
"from the western isles of kerns and gallowglasses is supplied" is not a sentence. It fits the pentameter. There is nothing wrong with it.
You should improve your English before you dive into Shakespeare without adult supervision.

Oh shit. OP, what's the weather like in the Own Zone?

Both are mediocre.

Attached: Herman_Melville_1860.jpg (259x388, 51K)

>art as in skill
So what the fuck does “choke their art” mean? They choke the skill of swimming? What nonsense.
And what are the “multiplying villainies of nature” that make him worthy to be a rebel?
As for the other stuff, I concede, but I doubt it has anything to do with my inefficiency for reading English since I can read complicated works of prose with no problem. Shakespeare has always been a problem for me to read, probably because every single verse is full of so much shit that by the time I figure out the one I’m reading I’ve forgotten all of the preceding verses.l and then I become lost without context. If I need to go through this much hassle just to come to an understanding of a single passage from this retard I doubt I’ll ever be able to “dive into” him, as you suggest.

It just means that each is stifling the other's ability to swim.
>And what are the “multiplying villainies of nature” that make him worthy to be a rebel?
Precisely what it says. Natural faults. Let me translate the lines for you: "He's bad like a rebel, because (for), like a rebel (to that), he has many bad qualities."
>I doubt it has anything to do with my inefficiency for reading English
You've demonstrated the opposite with this thread. Your English is simply not good enough. You didn't understand "art" in context and had trouble parsing "for to that." I guess it is in part due to your lack of familiarity with Early Modern English, which I do count among the knowledge of English.
>I can read complicated works of prose with no problem
So they are less complex than Shakespeare and you are at your current limit.
>If I need to go through this much hassle just to come to an understanding of a single passage from this retard I doubt I’ll ever be able to “dive into” him, as you suggest.
If you have no interest in improving your English, then don't read Shakespeare. Just accept that it's beyond you and therewith be satisfied. I don't harangue people discussing quantum mechanics, call physicists "retards," and then claim that computer science is superior only because I understand it.

>uses a picture of Melville to talk shit about Shakespeare
Dumbass.

You think “choke their art” is a good way of saying “stifling each other’s ability to swim”? Lmao
>Natural faults
Idk, it seems to me that that these multiplying villanies of nature are external to him.
>they are less complex than Shakespeare
It’s not a good thing to be over complicated. Anyone can turn a mundane sentence into a maze of arcane language and metaphors. Literature is said to be good when it displays beautiful language or communicates a profound message, none of which is present in this passage.

Just to demonstrate:
No sooner had the adamantine gate
Of Maxwins gape
Receded its steely spikes from’t
Barren ground,
But the unrectified deluge —
Bearing savageness enough spirituous
And heady
To rouse Ogen from his slumber
And smite the hubris from Neptune’s
Watery heart —
Ferried through that lonesome tunnel,
Spilling out its gruesome slop
Betwixt the old mare’s legs.

Now here I have only said that “a mare named Maxwin took a shit”, but have put it in Shakespearean terms. I don’t think it would be fair to say that those who prefer the latter only do so because they can’t grasp the complexity of my verse because their English is bad. Rather, the complexity is unnecessary and people simply do not want to parse through it trying to glean the meaning.
>improving your English
Reading Shakespeare won’t improve my English. It’s just a language game, a fruitless problem-solving exercise, when I could be spending my time reading comprehensible writers such as Melville and Cervantes; writers, who, according to you, lag far behind Shakespeare in terms of complexity, but who in reality are much finer artists than he could dream to be.

looks like somebody needs a copy of No Fear Shakespeare

Zoomer here reporting in! I agree, William Shakespeare was def pretty friggin lame if you ask me

BTFO Town
Population: OP

KEK, i unironically use that. I'm ESL, i read the original text on the left, and compare to the modern "translation" on the right, to see if i understood it right. It's a pretty good method desu

>doesn't know
Shut up retard

If he gets told any harder he'll have to jump on twitter to everyone about how shakespeare was actually terrible and his work is only propped up as an act of white supremacy.

>You think “choke their art” is a good way of saying “stifling each other’s ability to swim”?
Yes.
>Idk
Then stop.
>Now here I have only said that “a mare named Maxwin took a shit”, but have put it in Shakespearean terms.
That's not Shakespearean. Clearly you don't understand what Shakespeare is about.
You rant extensively just to say that Shakespeare is too complex for you, which is true, and that Shakespeare is complex for no good reason, which is false.
>Reading Shakespeare won’t improve my English.
I never said it would. I said you have to improve your English to appreciate Shakespeare. You clearly don't wish to, and don't want to read Shakespeare. Good for you.
>when I could be spending my time reading comprehensible writers such as Melville and Cervantes
Do so. Just stop embarrassing yourself by talking about Shakespeare. Again, just accept that Shakespeare is beyond you and therewith be satisfied.

Art is not skill, although that may be a part of its coming into being.
The modern world is full of technical skill and almost all of its art is ugly.

>What the fuck is the deal with this guy?
It's the best the Anglos have, so you're now stuck listening to 1000 million explanations how he was the bestest writer in the Universe.

Your best hope is White Sharia finally driving out the Anglo infection.

Milton and Spenser and Blake and Pope are all better