Quote from ares6

J.K.Rowling is no where near Shakespeare.....and you spelled Shakespeare wrong in the title.....

True that Rowling is not Shakespeare, however there are 5 acceptable spellings of Shakespear's name - and all are considered correct:

Shakespeare, Shakespear, Shakespere, Shakspear, Shakspeare....and a lot more versions that are widely accepted around the world.

Life is tough......but it's tougher if you're stupid.
[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]

Quote from vinceasuma

Quote from ares6

J.K.Rowling is no where near Shakespeare.....and you spelled Shakespeare wrong in the title.....

True that Rowling is not Shakespeare, however there are 5 acceptable spellings of Shakespear's name - and all are considered correct:

Shakespeare, Shakespear, Shakespere, Shakspear, Shakspeare....and a lot more versions that are widely accepted around the world.

That's interesting, I remember my English Teacher getting pissed by the misspelling of Shakespeare.

Do you have any reference links to support that statement?

[color=green]Life, what would it be without so much wrongs and rights?
[/color]

[color=red]Star Trek XI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZiR-NETDr0[/color]

Quote from ares6

Quote from vinceasuma

Quote from ares6

J.K.Rowling is no where near Shakespeare.....and you spelled Shakespeare wrong in the title.....

True that Rowling is not Shakespeare, however there are 5 acceptable spellings of Shakespear's name - and all are considered correct:

Shakespeare, Shakespear, Shakespere, Shakspear, Shakspeare....and a lot more versions that are widely accepted around the world.

That's interesting, I remember my English Teacher getting pissed by the misspelling of Shakespeare.

Do you have any reference links to support that statement?

It was my High School Shakespear Teacher that gave me that info, and I don't believe I can source her on the intarwebz. However here is a neat page I found that lists quite a few more acceptable spellings and some background info on them

The spelling and pronunciation of Shakespeare

Life is tough......but it's tougher if you're stupid.
[img]http://img.userbars.pl/69/13603.gif[/img]

Wow, I learned something today....on a manga site. Now I can go back and show her this....but she was such a nice teacher, I don't think I would do that now.

I really don't understand why these kids worship Harry Potter, and also, why did Rowling announce Dumbledore gay....that was like, just disgusting.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html

[color=green]Life, what would it be without so much wrongs and rights?
[/color]

[color=red]Star Trek XI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZiR-NETDr0[/color]

As far as authors go, Rowling is just a bit above average. Where she truly differs from many other authors is how to appeal to her typical audience, which is why she is so popular.

She is closer to being a genius at marketing than a genius at literature.

Quote from manhunter098

As far as authors go, Rowling is just a bit above average. Where she truly differs from many other authors is how to appeal to her typical audience, which is why she is so popular.

She is closer to being a genius at marketing than a genius at literature.

I agree, and i'll admit she has impressive plot sculpting skills. But she doesn't take the english language and turns every word into a symbolic song like Shakespeare did it.

[color=#ff0000]"“That's the difference between me and the rest of the world!
Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!” "[/color]

Her plots are full of holes, her prose is weak (if fun), her grammar and syntax are atrocious (relative to where they should be for an author publishing books) and reading her work as a technical writer could induce all sorts of terrible things, like anger and bitterness--people like that smut she writes? The only point she gets is for creating characters. Even her characterization is not top-notch; however, the characters she spins together with it are well above average and great for kids.

In short, no. What she writes is cheesy fiction that manages to stick with the reader--a dirty pleasure, of sorts. Not only is Shakespeare an infinitely better writer than her, but there are far better writers out there today than Rowling.

She gets a lot of credit, but she only deserves any for creating a media empire--but now she's taken it into her head that she's a good writer. Damn.

I am the God of Freedom. I am not revered, I have no shrines; and you have never before heard of me nor will you ever hear of me again.

Even if I totally despise HP I can't chastise Rowling for something she hasn't done :
I don't remember her saying anything about the literacy value of her work . Never heard her bragging about her writing skill.

And about this Dumbledore gay thing I think it's a brillant proof of her weak talent as a writer .I mean : the point is not that Dumbledore is gay . To a certain extent it would be an improvement to this dull saga : for once at least she would avoid cliche and be able to give more depth to one of her one-sided and boring characters.
No the genuine problem lies in the fact she said it and not even in the book!!!
A good writer drops hints in his work ,works on double meaning and sometimes is merely overcome by his own work as he's expressing some part of himself without being aware of it .Or his work is naturally liable to interpretation : as we're talking about shakespear it's obvious that the Merchant of venice depicts some very troubled relationships and that his sonnets are prone to homosexual interpretation as he's speaking about a young boy he loves .But all those theories remain interpretations , point of views , aspect of works that have more meanings. Rowling always feels the need to explain everything while the mystery in her work is already near to zero. Everything she wrote is bland , direct : take a look at the speeches of HP about love when he's talking with Voldemort.
She's not a writer , she's a universe owner tapping on it in the same way George Lucas does. and in my opinion even if Lucas is also a poor writer at least he has a certain feeling for twist (even if it's hard to tell to what extent he owes something to Leigh Brackett ). She's just fueling the need of her fans.

Quote from Dangerdan

I heard some nerd say this shortly after the 7th book came out on some stupid news show. I thought it was a ridiculous statement, what do you think.

Oh and I meant to put a question mark after JK Rowling = Shakespear

Oh and this may never come up, but before go to bed i want to make it very clear that I think the harry potter books are the literary equivalent to the sequels of nightmare on elm street

I'd like to say no.

However, with the current state of degradation in today's society...

I mean, if you go on Facebook and read some of the group forums, it's pretty obvious how remarkably stupid your average person is in the latest generation(s). Considering Harry Potter is one of the few book series that illiterate (By choice not by capability) people read (and where by illiterate I speak of a majority of the population), it's possible that they pass on the knowledge to their children... And then those children continue their lack of reading any books except HP books... And so on and so forth until Harry Potter is the only literature actually read in schools.

Hopefully by then we'll all be dead from nuclear fallout or some other, similarly less painful death.

Granted this was all before Rowling decided to say that Dumbledore had gay affairs with Grindelwald when they were both in their very early teens... Implications anyone? I mean... Seriously.. How many times was Dumbledore alone with Harry in the hospital wing while Harry was unconscious... And Harry wakes up to 'A twinkle in Dumbledore's eye'?... Yeah not a very smart idea for Rowling to have made that cry for attention, so my guess is HP won't stand the test of time. I give it a few years.

If i remember my literary history lessons correctly, during his time, shakespeare wasn't even thought of as much. he wrote plays for the common people, it wasn't considered literary masterpieces as it is today. Most of his plays (from what I heard/learned -honesty I haven't read much as all) follows the artistic tragedy style. Aristotle goes more in depth about this in his work "poetics" (I should know more considering that I woke an essay on Aristotle's Poetics, but I really don't remember much except for his definition of what art is and that the greatest art of all is Tragedy) I mean it make sense tho cause I think during shakespeares time, most/all plays ended up as tragedies...it was "in" thing at the time i believe.

anyways..i kinda digress from my point. what I really wanted to say is that in 200 yrs time, you never know. Shakespeare, was at his time, just a common play write. no one thought that his work would be considered such literary pieces at the time. While I dont think that Rowlings work should be considered a literary masterpiece, I cant say that it wont be in the future. You never know. I mean shakespeare never knew his work would become as great as it is today, so Rowling have as good of a chance as Shakespeare did during his time.

I think her work is good, it's enjoyable...but I dont consider it literature. I consider it fiction. I dont know, maybe I'm just weird. I rather consider Anne Rice as literature over Rowling...

Quote from ares6

I really don't understand why these kids worship Harry Potter, and also, why did Rowling announce Dumbledore gay....that was like, just disgusting.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html

That's not news. And exactly what is so disgusting about it? Take a look at your avatar, it's from a manga with yaoi, which - if you aren't aware - happens to mean a relationship between two males. So would you please either quit being so narrow-minded or learn to keep your prejudiced views to yourself?

Now why don't you try a post that's on topic?

I go away and suddenly the spammers are the mods. Okay, I can adjust to that, but... Gorath?! And what's up with Mam's not being the top poster?

210 days until I'm legal, Indy!

ZombieKing ihas been challenged! Now it's between him, Blissful_wulf and Mamsmilk. And maybe Dr. Love.

hell yes, Shakespeare was an arrogant petty douche who expressed his dissatisfaction with life through writing plays and sonnets ahem TEMPEST. If someone like that can be regarded as a literary genius then I'm sure the Harry Potter series will also. because they also suck. like Shakespeare.

Can't read >_<

sarcastic haha
i may not like shakespeare much, but the way his works have survived through out since his death is amazing (not nearly as amazing as how long homers works have, but still good) and i doubt that JK will be able to keep up with it with a story about wizards and such, dont get me wrong i like harry potter stories, but they have no comparison to the works of the older times, and thinking back, do all the works not have something in common
they
are
Epic
well, most are.
although......harry potter does have some of the workings of a good story, just portrayed badly through the storyline, so...
if it was by a better author, maybe. 🤣
in short
no, not a chance they will be seen as the same kind, imo anyway. 😐

Quote from xShatteredSoulx

Quote from ares6

I really don't understand why these kids worship Harry Potter, and also, why did Rowling announce Dumbledore gay....that was like, just disgusting.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html

That's not news. And exactly what is so disgusting about it? Take a look at your avatar, it's from a manga with yaoi, which - if you aren't aware - happens to mean a relationship between two males. So would you please either quit being so narrow-minded or learn to keep your prejudiced views to yourself?

Now why don't you try a post that's on topic?

Consider for a moment, please, that he was not calling Dumbledore's being gay disgusting, but rather that he was calling Rowling's act of parading it around in front of the media for attention and controversy disgusting. Because, y'know, parading it around like that is disgusting.

It's one thing to make a character gay, and it's another thing to say, "HAY GAIZ, he's GAY!" after the fact, because she didn't/couldn't make it apparent in the actual canon works (Y'know, rule 34, slash fiction, all that, it probably happened already) to get back into the media for a week. She was out to use a controversial issue to create more controversy that could be used to her advantage. I'm fairly sure it backfired, because more than a few people saw through the shenanigans, but you never know. I hope it backfired. Nothing is more sickening than watching a hack author whore herself out to the media.

I am the God of Freedom. I am not revered, I have no shrines; and you have never before heard of me nor will you ever hear of me again.

Quote from aikoaiko

If i remember my literary history lessons correctly, during his time, shakespeare wasn't even thought of as much. he wrote plays for the common people, it wasn't considered literary masterpieces as it is today. Most of his plays (from what I heard/learned -honesty I haven't read much as all) follows the artistic tragedy style. Aristotle goes more in depth about this in his work "poetics" (I should know more considering that I woke an essay on Aristotle's Poetics, but I really don't remember much except for his definition of what art is and that the greatest art of all is Tragedy) I mean it make sense tho cause I think during shakespeares time, most/all plays ended up as tragedies...it was "in" thing at the time i believe.

anyways..i kinda digress from my point. what I really wanted to say is that in 200 yrs time, you never know. Shakespeare, was at his time, just a common play write. no one thought that his work would be considered such literary pieces at the time. While I dont think that Rowlings work should be considered a literary masterpiece, I cant say that it wont be in the future. You never know. I mean shakespeare never knew his work would become as great as it is today, so Rowling have as good of a chance as Shakespeare did during his time.

I think her work is good, it's enjoyable...but I dont consider it literature. I consider it fiction. I dont know, maybe I'm just weird. I rather consider Anne Rice as literature over Rowling...

I think you should review your literacy history then....
shakespear wasn't highly considered when he was alive 😕 ?
-Ben Johnson called him "the wonder of our stage , the soul of our age"
-The Queen herself ordered him some plays

• and of course there is this very famous quote of robert greene "there is an upstart Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with his Tiger's heart wrapped in a Player's hide, supposes he is as well able to bombast out a blank verse as the best of you: and being an absolute Johannes factotum, is in his own conceit the only Shake-scene in a country."
  -You can find many puns in other writer works that mock shakespear .

Truth is we don't have a very accurate idea of this time and you'll find many thesis about the life of shakespeare and the way he was regarded : you can take a look at james wood for instance .
**maybe you mean he wasn't considered a "genius" which is correct but everyone still considered him a damn good writer exactly in the same way than Moliere in France **. We have cast a new light on his work , giving him a new statut but he has always been considered as good.

She has no chances at all . It's not about quantity or even quality , it's about ambition : she doesn't seem to understand what is literature , her gay statement about Dumbledore being an another proof of it .
Like another guy said on this board : the fact that HP is studied in college doesn't mean it's some classic , it just means that it has some sociological value .

If in 200 years we really consider her like a genius then our art is worth shit.
'cause i read fanfictions that are better written . The same goes for manga, comics : taniguchi , alan moore ,etc... are far above her . She's not even a good writer of our time while Shakespear definetely was.