Why are people who are good in science/math seen as more intelligent than...

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Good marketing.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Stephanie Mayer/Twilight: Original thought? Zero. Many, many similar romances. The only thing remotely original is the whole ‘vampire’ aspect. Whereas Shakespeare was the main creative writer of the time, meaning that he had nothing to base his writing off of other than pure original thought.

From Richard A. Posner, 2002, The Atlantic Monthly

“Plagiarism,” in the broadest sense of this ambiguous term, is simply unacknowledged copying, whether of copyrighted or uncopyrighted work. (Indeed, it might be of uncopyrightable work—for example, of an idea.) If I reprint Hamlet under my own name, I am a plagiarist but not an infringer. Shakespeare himself was a formidable plagiarist in the broad sense in which I’m using the word. The famous description in Antony and Cleopatra of Cleopatra on her royal barge is taken almost verbatim from a translation of Plutarch’s life of Mark Antony: “on either side of her, pretty, fair boys apparelled as painters do set forth the god Cupid, with little fans in their hands, with which they fanned wind upon her” becomes “on each side her / Stood pretty dimpled boys, like smiling Cupids, / With divers-colour’d fans, whose wind did seem / To glow the delicate cheeks which they did cool.” (Notice how Shakespeare improved upon the original.) In The Waste Land, T. S. Eliot “stole” the famous opening of Shakespeare’s barge passage, “The barge she sat in, like a burnish’d throne, / Burn’d on the water” becoming “The Chair she sat in, like a burnished throne, / Glowed on the marble.”

<em>emphasis mine</em></p>

[Jersey13]

<p>

Would you like me to lay it all out for you? Okay!</p>

<p>Stephanie Mayer/Twilight: Original thought? Zero. Many, many similar romances. The only thing remotely original is the whole ‘vampire’ aspect. Whereas Shakespeare was the main creative writer of the time, meaning that he had nothing to base his writing off of other than pure original thought.

Shakespeare/Romeo and Juliet: Original thought? Zero. Many, many similar romances. The only thing remotely original is the, wait, it’s not even Shakespeare’s story. Whereas Stephanie Meyer is the main sanguivorous romance writer of our time, meaning she had nothing to base her writing off of other than pure original thought.</p>

[Ricrosscountry]

<p>One person’s interpretation/opinion.</p>

[TRUFFLIEPUFF]

<p>Holy bejeezies guise.</p>

<p>GREEN EGGS AND HAMS SAM I AM DR SEUSS IS OBVIOUSLY THE MOST PRO OMG.</p>

[FunStuff]

<p>Honors English courses are irrelevant. Pfft, English after 5th grade is irrelevant.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

One person’s interpretation/opinion.

Exactly, which is why there is no such thing as universally great writing.</p>

<p>EDIT: I do so like green eggs and ham! Thank you! Thank you! Sam-I-Am!</p>

[aspire2011]

<p>This isn’t true past high school. Anyone who knows his/her s*it is considered smart in the real world.</p>

[Jersey13]

<p>

One person’s interpretation/opinion.

Right. The fact that a passage in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is essentially taken verbatim from Plutarch’s historical accounts is an opinion. You are sounding more and more intelligent by the post.</p>

[Grisam]

<p>

^ Meh, anyone who has written as many things as Tom Clancy has must have cut corners on quality somewhere… Never read anything by Grisham.

</p>

<p>“Grisam? Like John Grisham?”</p>

<p>Yeah, I’ve never got that one before.</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>

Alright, MIT, then why is Shakespeare taught so hardcore in all public high schools, especially in the honors courses, if he is so irrelevant? at least you seem to think he is irrelevant.

</p>

<p>I literally explained why earlier in my posts.
It’s a form of literary bias. We’ve come to believe that Shakespeare is this all time genius and what not, and your arguments have been skewed because of you using those views.</p>

<p>Not once did I say Shakespeare was irrelevant. However, you cannot objectively prove that his writing is greater than Stephanie Meyers’s.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>John Grisham is Grisam</p>

[wahkimoocow]

<p>“However, you cannot objectively prove that his writing is greater than Stephanie Meyers’s.”</p>

<p>Um…have you read any of Meyers’s books? They completely lack the level of sophistication Shakespeare shows. As a literary junkie (who happens to not even really like Shakes), I find that statement tres degoutant.
Not only does Shakespeare show greater command with written language, he also mastered the skills of irony, suspense, effective use of tragedy and universality…etc. I mean Hamlet, Othello, Twelfth Night…they don’t even compare to even thing Meyers has ever written.
So yes, using a computerized rubric you can subjectively say that Shakespeare is a stronger writer than Meyers :p</p>

<p>Shakespeare may not have been a genius…but not many can do what he did.</p>

<p>High School courses are a joke…on both sides of the spectrum.</p>

[Jersey13]

<p>

Not only does Shakespeare show greater command with written language, he also mastered the skills of irony, suspense, effective use of tragedy and universality…etc. I mean Hamlet, Othello, Twelfth Night…they don’t even compare to even thing Meyers has ever written.
So yes, using a computerized rubric you can subjectively say that Shakespeare is a stronger writer than Meyers

What is “greater command with the written language”? Student A believes terse writing to be evidence of mastery of the language, Student B believes flowery prose shows mastery. Which one is right?</p>

<p>

he also mastered the skills of irony, suspense, effective use of tragedy and universality

What constitutes mastery, and how can you objectively determine whether one author is better at tragedy or suspense than another? Obviously Twilight is an extreme example, but even with Twilight, exactly what makes Shakespeare’s writing more suspenseful or tragic?</p>

[Grisam]

<p>

Honors English courses are irrelevant. Pfft, English after 5th grade is irrelevant.

</p>

<p>Quite the opposite. </p>

<p>While I’ve also been much more mathematically inclined, it’s terribly inaccurate to say that English courses, on the whole, are useless. The thing about English courses, is that they are the most applicable in day-to-day life. The most “common” jobs usually require communication skills, effective writing skills and basic analytical skills, all of which are easily taught in basic high-school English courses.</p>

<p>Yeah, the actual contents of a novel aren’t widely remembered - but, then again, the reason that at least one state requires 4 English credits is not because they want a student to know the contents of Romeo and Juliet by heart.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Um…have you read any of Meyers’s books? They completely lack the level of sophistication Shakespeare shows. As a literary junkie (who happens to not even really like Shakes), I find that statement tres degoutant.
Not only does Shakespeare show greater command with written language, he also mastered the skills of irony, suspense, effective use of tragedy and universality…etc. I mean Hamlet, Othello, Twelfth Night…they don’t even compare to even thing Meyers has ever written.
So yes, using a computerized rubric you can subjectively say that Shakespeare is a stronger writer than Meyers

Posts #76 and #79. I don’t know how much clearer I can make it.</p>

[wahkimoocow]

<p>lol I read both posts you made already—but it does not back up the whole Meyers vs Shakespeare analogy.
Regardless of a person’s personal taste, the world of literature (and sometimes art) can still be subjective be/c there are certain areas within it that have rules and guidelines-- the use of tragedy, irony, syntax, connections, universality etc etc.
Shakespeare is clearly stronger in each area so therefore, subjectively and regardless of any personal taste, he is a stronger writer than Meyers.</p>

[MIThopeful16]

<p>That subjectivity had to come from a person’s viewpoint. That is inconclusive.</p>

[noimagination]

<p>

Regardless of a person’s personal taste, the world of literature (and sometimes art) can still be subjective be/c there are certain areas within it that have rules and guidelines-- the use of tragedy, irony, syntax, connections, universality etc etc.
Shakespeare is clearly stronger in each area so therefore, subjectively and regardless of any personal taste, he is a stronger writer than Meyers.

You don’t have any link back to the original topic. Why is the technical superiority of Shakespeare indicative of intelligence?</p>

<p>EDIT: More to the point, the technical specs of literature accomplish neither utilitarian objectives nor subjective satisfaction (for me). So, I don’t see why they matter.</p>

[Ricrosscountry]

<p>@wahkimoocow Thankyouthankyouthankyou.</p>