i say again, this is what you wrote.
Tolstoy was reading the plays translated, so he could not form a full opinion on their literary merit, only how they stood up as plays.
we're talking about literary merit here. and how good lear was. to say shakespeares literary merit was only in his poetry is like saying picasso's artistic talent is only to be found in hist cubism works. sorry but it doesn't make sense. if tolstoy can't understand a translational properly then he can't understand it from a play or a poem. no matter what you say or show will not change my mind to say he could only know how they stood up as plays without being able to understand their literary merit doesn't work. any art is measured by it's content. not by canvass it's painted on. that's my final post on this matter. you may post as you wish but it will not make you statement work.
Tolstoy was reading the plays translated, so he could not form a full opinion on their literary merit, only how they stood up as plays. bad actors do not a good play make, not because there is a lack of literary merit, but because there is a lack of proficient acting.
i think we can agree that lear enfolds and is rich in poetry. if tolstoy could not form a full opinion on them, then how can he rate the play?
my problem also resides in the fact that while tolstoy and his cohorts castigate shakespear, many many more non english poets and playwrights think he's the bee's knees. so therefore who am i to believe, you and tolstoy [who cant understand translations from english] or millions of readers and critics world-wide who think him one of the best playwrights since sliced bread? i think i follow the current on this one. i have read tolstoy's "war and peace" and everyone has seen anna karinina through film but to see king leer in theatre played by lawrence olivier or john gielgud was much more breathtaking. the difference between tolstoy and bill is that bill is a man of the people; tolstoy a count, he never stood a chance in this two horse race.
none of bill's play were based on reality. most of them were borrowed or stolen from others. lear was written of before shakespeare wrote it. drama does not have to be a receptacle for truth.
i copied and pasted the following and they are not my own words:
Drama is also a type of a play written for theater, television, radio, and film. In simple words, a drama is a composition in verse or prose presenting a story in pantomime or dialogue. It contains conflict of characters, particularly the ones who perform in front of audience on the stage. it has to be applauded to be famous, it doesn't have to be real or even realistic.
Tolstoy was reading the plays translated, so he could not form a full opinion on their literary merit, only how they stood up as plays.
we're talking about literary merit here. and how good lear was. to say shakespeares literary merit was only in his poetry is like saying picasso's artistic talent is only to be found in hist cubism works. sorry but it doesn't make sense. if tolstoy can't understand a translational properly then he can't understand it from a play or a poem. no matter what you say or show will not change my mind to say he could only know how they stood up as plays without being able to understand their literary merit doesn't work. any art is measured by it's content. not by canvass it's painted on. that's my final post on this matter. you may post as you wish but it will not make you statement work.
Tolstoy was reading the plays translated, so he could not form a full opinion on their literary merit, only how they stood up as plays. bad actors do not a good play make, not because there is a lack of literary merit, but because there is a lack of proficient acting.
i think we can agree that lear enfolds and is rich in poetry. if tolstoy could not form a full opinion on them, then how can he rate the play?
my problem also resides in the fact that while tolstoy and his cohorts castigate shakespear, many many more non english poets and playwrights think he's the bee's knees. so therefore who am i to believe, you and tolstoy [who cant understand translations from english] or millions of readers and critics world-wide who think him one of the best playwrights since sliced bread? i think i follow the current on this one. i have read tolstoy's "war and peace" and everyone has seen anna karinina through film but to see king leer in theatre played by lawrence olivier or john gielgud was much more breathtaking. the difference between tolstoy and bill is that bill is a man of the people; tolstoy a count, he never stood a chance in this two horse race.
none of bill's play were based on reality. most of them were borrowed or stolen from others. lear was written of before shakespeare wrote it. drama does not have to be a receptacle for truth.
i copied and pasted the following and they are not my own words:
Drama is also a type of a play written for theater, television, radio, and film. In simple words, a drama is a composition in verse or prose presenting a story in pantomime or dialogue. It contains conflict of characters, particularly the ones who perform in front of audience on the stage. it has to be applauded to be famous, it doesn't have to be real or even realistic.