[ SECRET POST #3833 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3833 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #549.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fishnchips]

Yep. And just look at Shakespeare's comedies. They were never meant to be some sort of high brow literature, they were pure entertainment for the common people.

[(Anonymous)]

I think characterizing it that way is probably oversimplistic and buys into the underlying idea of a division between high and low art too much.

One of the functions of Shakespeare's plays was mass entertainment. That's both true, and a good argument against the false dichotomy of high versus low art. Characterizing it as nothing more than entertainment and talking in terms of Shakespeare's intent is kinda unnecessary IMO.

[fishnchips]

It's not if we're talking about people acting all high and mighty because they ~love to read~ and scoff at another form of mass entertainment like TV as something "lesser" when in reality, a lot of the works people primarily read nowadays weren't actually meant to be read but instead to be performed as entertainment in a way not unlike movies or TV today.
As for Shakespeare's intent - we don't know a whole lot about it and it's one of the huge debates in historical and literary circles around the world. But one thing is fairly certain: His plays were not intended to be read, but to be performed.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not if we're talking about people acting all high and mighty because they ~love to read~ and scoff at another form of mass entertainment like TV as something "lesser" when in reality, a lot of the works people primarily read nowadays weren't actually meant to be read but instead to be performed as entertainment in a way not unlike movies or TV today.

Sure. I have no objection to calling those people dickbags, cause they are dickbags. I just think it gives a little too much credence to the underlying framework of high and low art as essential categories, even if it's reversing their values.

[fishnchips]

Fair enough.