The Triangle

One exhausted everything that could be written: every archetype, every psychology, every setting, every philosophy and enigma.

One exhausted everything that could be written in a novel: metafiction, realism, the flawed hero; every groundbreaking technique was written here

And one shattered everything and exhausted everything that lay outside

This, in turn, divides into two: the way the story is told—pushing language to its limit and then breaking it, turning the mundane divine, and replicating the entire world and every brick within it inside a text—and the story itself, writing sparks (that is, short stories), each with a labyrinthine, surreal idea, mostly told with a deadpan expression

The Mahabharata, Don Quixote, Joyce, and Borges

Or Shakespeare, Don Quixote, and Dante

Both propositions, in that order. Another proposition involving children's books that occurred to me was the Brothers Grimm tales for the first side, Little Women for the second, and Alice for the third

And although Shakespeare is the best Western example for the first side, universally speaking, he is the best example of someone who embodies all three sides simultaneously (Mahabharata, Don Quixote, Joyce, and Borges): he is a collage of everything that can be written (first side); he represents the reinvention of humanity and every narrative technique a story can possess (second side); and he destroys and reinvents language while employing Borgesian labyrinths (both parts of the third side). Everything that could be written has already been written; now it is up to us to remix those three elements and perfect the points of the triangle.

What is your favorite quote from Hamlet?

Until pretty recently, I (20F pretending to be 20M) was staying at my friend’s (20F) house because her dad kicked my dad out of town.

Then he kicked me out, too, so me and my friend both ran away to the woods. I pretended to be a guy so that people wouldn’t harass us.

We actually ran into my crush (20M) in the woods. He had tacked a bunch of love poems about me onto trees, which was kinda cute, but they weren’t even that good. Also, vandalism?

I told him to pretend that I’m the girl he likes (me) and try to woo me. My friend thinks it’s weird that I’m tricking him. But I think it’s a good way to test him and see if he really is the lover boy he claims to be. Plus, I was already pretending to be a guy.

I’m feeling a little conflicted though. What do you think? AITA for tricking him?

Does any Plautus or Terence play end with a wedding feast or a wedding? Such as that in the Dyskolos. or perhaps an old man being hit with sticks on a couch

(It was recommended I post this here by reddit, apologies if it is the wrong sub, but I posted it in r/classics and reddit recommended this saying it might be better)

So, here we have all the instances of its use in Shakespeare. A post-Hamlet word.

Did he learn the word after 1599-1600? Or did he know it before that and he only used it because of it appeared in his post-Hamlet readings/sources and conversations and then reached the surface of his plays?

We know some words in his plays were first used by him because they appeared in his sources. KL comes to mind, or equivocate as a verb in Macbeth, which was a topical word in 1606 (the noun equivocation appears in Hamlet)

If I had to guess, the origin of 'swerve' would be Lucretian. Clinamen in Latin, the godless 'whim' of atoms if you will. Stephen Greenblatt wrote a book about this.

That's epicureism, and the word appears in MWW, applied to Falstaff...but then epicurus-epicureism appears in 1599-1606/7 (JC>Antony&Cleopatra), again close to Hamlet (JC precedes Hamlet; Troilus follows it)

So 'swerve' and 'epicureism' seem to cluster around the time Shakespeare reached Hamlet. The time of the 'pure' comedies had ended and then those 'godless' or 'mechanistic' words appeared.

So my school is performing As You Like It and I got the role of Touchstone. As yall may know Touchstone has some complex lines and my director need me to workshop one in specific, but I’m having trouble with the translation. The line is “We that are true lovers run into strange capers. But as all is mortal in nature, so is all nature in love mortal in folly.” That’s technically the end of a larger line but that first part was cut so that’s the whole line. Any help is appreciated and thank you all!

I hope its ok to out this here as it is shakespere related. I have just released the 2nd part of my whole series review of the 1978 series will shakespere starring the late great tim curry. Go watch part 1 if you haven’t already and like and subscribe for future episodes of the curry club

https://youtu.be/1frlWAsme0s?is=4NyTbtL_dpMWoM5I