^^ I love this post, a brilliant description. :)

I agree, I think Heathcliff and Cathy are as bad as each other, but I personally prefer Heathcliff. I think it might be because he's quieter and less outgoing than Cathy, it's easier to sympathise with then. He can still be horrible though, just a lovable kind of horrible? xD

I think what makes this story such a favorite of mine is the depth of the portrayal of the characters. It's funny...I hate them all but at the same time I love them all. Emily Bronte was such a genius and did a marvelous job of capturing human nature. Humans are, by nature, selfish, jealous, and, at times, stupid. When you think about it, there is no really admirable character in the book. I don't know too many people who like Cathy, and most people I know see Heathcliff as either the devil reincarnated (in other words, the force of evil) or a victim of unfortuante circumstances. Edgar is just a weakling and, while I think that he really does care genuinely for Cathy, his character is not one that I have a lot of respect for. Isabella is young and just as stupid as Cathy...if a little less wild. (I know I am sounding very self-contradictory here: how can I love the book but hate the characters? The answer is that I absolutely love how Emily Bronte can take an apparently detestable cast of characters and turn it into a heartbreaking and remarkable story.) What do you think? Is there any admirable character in the book? Is Heathcliff evil itself or a victim of it? (The previous statements are my own opinions only. I would really like to know what you think.)

I think the book is absolutely phenomenal in the way the concept of love is presented. It doesn't matter if Heathcliff is 'evil' or if Cathy is selfish till she breathes her last breath the point is that they love each other.

Although most people think that Heathcliff is the antagonist I find that Cathy is just as bad, and even worse than him because she knew how much she meant to Heathcliff and she decided to accept marrying Edgar because it was easier for her to deal with than to have to face everything else to be with Heathcliff. She is practically the human incarnation of selfishness, which makes me think of her as the antagonist. Heathcliff reacted to what Cathy did to him, he felt betrayed by her. I guess you can tell I'm not a very big fan of Cathy...

I dislike Cathy a lot too, but I found a great site that really questions a lot of the reasons why Cathy does the things she did, and even though I still dislike her, it does make me symapthize with her a bit more.

For example, if you take her age into account at marrying Edgar, when she has her temper tantrums etc, picture a teenager rather than a woman and it seems....well, not acceptable, but more understandable.

As for Heathcliff... I think that his motives are understandable. Everybody thinks "how could he do that? etc etc" but whenever you've been hurt, in lvoe, or friendship, or anything, at some point you imagine taking revenge. The difference is that heathcliff was damaged enough, and passionate enough to act on those imaginary revenges - although he did take it way, WAY too far.

As for Hareton, I absolutelely love him! I think he's the nicest character in the book! What with everything that happens to him, yet he still manages to forgive, and love. His and Heathcliff's characters have such a huge contrast despite their similariites.... as much as everyone gones on about "loving" Heathcliff, I far prefer Hareton.

Linton was spoiled, selfish, and annoying.... but with the spoiled, selfish and annoying Isabella for his mother, what more do you expect?

I havn't read the book yet. Is it any good?

Rosalie, that depends on your point of view. Personally, I thought that it was angsty beyond any reality, and this affected its theme, but I was surprised by Hareton and Catherine Linton. Cathy in the novel sounds like an overgrown teenager, but her daughter is a realistic character who braves Heathcliff's household and remains mentally stable enough to have a true love. So, I have mixed feelings.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, even though it does lack exitement. In my opinion.

But the book is amazing.

I disagree. I think Nelly Dean is the true villain in the story. There are so many times she acts out of pure selfishness or stupidity or simply laziness, that allows situations to happen which spiral into misfortune for everyone later on.

Like how if she would've just told Cathy that Heathcliff was listening to her, so much agony could have been spared them both. Instead she plays everything to her favor so she can achieve a life of comfort.

I think nelly acts for the best in the situations she's presented with. it's easy to look at things and judge from a detached point of view - but Nelly is very much involved in all the characters lives. Even she looks back and acknowledges there are times she did wrong - but its easy to look back at mistakes.

What is important to remember when reading (which I do every Valentines Day), is that meaning and morality, are all given to us through the medium of Nelly, clearly colored by her own training, temperament, reading, and experiences. She fails to understand the other characters and thus errs in her behavior during important crises, which leads to dire consequences for all parties concerned later. This seems to stem from her belief in social domestication and placidity, making her unable to feel for the tortured, emotional distress experienced by Cathy and Heathcliff. Her nature is shown well in her callousness to Cathy's illness on pages 134-136. Nelly later tells Heathcliff regarding her subsequent medical condition, "I blamed her, as she deserved, for bringing it all on herself."

Her worst failure is, of course, her refusal to inform Cathy of Heathcliff's presence when she reveals her intention to marry Linton, despite not loving him, and her intense love for Heathcliff, and even worse, remain silent about Heathcliff's ill-timed departure. But she certainly failed before in allowing Hindley to abuse Heathcliff as a child without informing the father, and in her general spite towards rescuing Heathcliff in the first place.

There are several essays out there that go deeper into the issue, such as John K. Mathison's "Nelly Dean and the Power of Wuthering Heights" and Gideon Shunami's "The Unreliable Narrator In Wuthering Heights".

Wuthering Heights is a novel of cognitive dissonance with Nellie Dean as the main antagonist. This woman is not only a liar but down right evil. Readers miss this (I did) because EB is so subtle, but she pulls it off by having Nellie's negative judgments regarding Heathcliff and Cathy contradicted by their actions and those of other characters, for instance Hareton's loyalty and love for Heathcliff. Often, Nellie condemns Heathcliff or Cathy and shortly thereafter shows herself to be lying as when she complained that Heathcliff had no feelings for Mr Earnshaw, yet four paragraphs later described how the poor boy mourned bitterly when the old man died. Then too, there are the Nellie's evil acts to which she admitted openly and got away with because Lockwood never questioned her veracity or motives. However, just before she died, Cathy did come to understand Nellie's malevolence, when she recounted her dream which revealed Nellie as the author of everyone's troubles; perhaps Heathcliff did too with his talk of ghosts and haunting just before he died. Whether you're on to Nellie or not, these subtle contradictions create a distinct feeling of unease in the reader that makes the book painful to read.

This flies in the face of Charlotte Bronte's interpretation, but it makes so much sense. Plus, in this light the book is an even more remarkable achievement.

Nothing about this book is an achievement, aside from the fact that I managed to read it through, cover to cover, without eviscerating myself.

No words can describe the amount of detestation I hold for this absolute wank stain on literature.

makes the book painful to read.

EVERYTHING IN THIS BOOK MAKES IT PHYSICALLY PAINFUL TO READ, RIGHT DOWN FROM THE 2-DIMINSIONAL CHARACTERS TO THE CRAPPY WRITING STYLE IN WHICH THIS FALLACY IS ORCHESTRATED.

Ah, well, I suppose Wuthering Heights is not for the faint of heart. Nellie's lies are not obvious at first, but the reader does sense them - at least that is my experience.

It's painful to read of the destruction of so many people just so Nellie can make herself a comfortable life. After all when the book ends Nellie is Catherine's guardian, leaving Nellie as the overseer of both the Heights and the Grange -- at least that is what she tells Lockwood. I can only hope that at his death Heathcliff was aware of Nellie's "violent exertions" and got to his lawyer in time. Cathy certainly saw through Nellie before she died, i.e. Cathy's dream where she realized that Nellie was the author of everyone's troubles. (I suppose this has a double meaning, since every writer is the author of their character's difficulties.)

What is described in the book tells us more about Nellie than anyone else, and she has led an utterly selfish life. Not pretty.

The characters are complex and conflicted, in spite of the spin of the storyteller, Nellie. I had no problem with the writing style.

Please be more specific in your criticism. How are the characters two dimensional? How is the writing style crappy? Give examples from the text.

Ah, well, I suppose Wuthering Heights is not for the faint of heart.

What is that even supposed to mean? If you're wimpy, and you read it, you collapse on the floor in fits of hysteria? Talk about the book and turn catatonic for six years?

I certainly felt like turning fucking catatonic, but I can read Stephen King without so much as a nightmare. Wuthering Heights is just

awful.

absolutely.

undeniably.

awful.

in every way.

The characters are complex and conflicted, in spite of the spin of the storyteller, Nellie.

NOT REALLY. Everyone can be summed up in three words or less, Heathcliff as OBSESSIVE CATHERINE STALKER, CATHY whatever they're all fucking shit anyway as SELFISH HARLOT BITCH, etc.

Please be more specific in your criticism.

why.

How are the characters two dimensional?

Because they all have like one character trait. And it's a "flaw"!

How is the writing style crappy?

in every way

Give examples from the text.

oh god no i can't read that pile of horse wankl againsa fnsaklfjsakfslagja it makes me so angry

JUST THE ENTIRE BOOK

Since you dislike Wuthering Heights so much, I can't help but wonder why you bother coming to its fandom. Perhaps you do not understand what a fandom is. The word fan means aficionado, devotee, or admirer. Therefore a fandom is a place where people who admire and are familiar with a particular subject come together to discuss and enjoy it. Maybe you would find more sympathy for your tirades if you joined a Wuthering Heights hatedom. I for one have come to doubt your veracity. Have you truly read the book? Your arguments are so superficial or perhaps you are unable to infer from the text.

I feel no obligation to respond to you. Your remarks are trifling, and in no way is this a real debate since you offer nothing of consequence to it.

However, I'll respond to one little bit in regard to Cathy. Heathcliff, you will have to figure out on your own.

Why is Cathy a complex character?

To begin with, Ellen says everything she can to make Cathy seem unlikable. Nevertheless, this never rings true, because Cathy is loved by other characters, and even some readers -- like myself.

Cathy's situation is difficult; she grows up in a highly dysfunctional and eccentric family. Not only that, two of the household servants, Joseph and Ellen, have it in for her. Her temperament conflicts with the feminine ideal of her time, and she suffers for it. She is a bit of an Artemis, in other words a tomboy, who can ride any horse in the stable by the age of six. She has an older brother who gets all the attention, and so she discovers, no doubt by accident, that her unladylike and disobedient behavior garner her attention. She suffers physical abuse at the hands of both her father and Ellen for her unruly behavior, yet she does not abandon her true self. She is a very brave young girl by any standard.

Into this mix comes Heathcliff, a lost boy, who complements her perfectly, in fact he is her soulmate. They share their love of stories, animals and the natural world, defiantly running wild on the moors where they fall deeply in love. All this becomes more difficult with the death of Mr. Earnshaw, and the installation of her brother, the exceedingly weak and self-indulgent Hindley, as master of the Heights. Even under Hindley's drunken tyranny, they carry on until Cathy is fifteen and Heathcliff is sixteen, at which time Cathy is injured and stays at Thrushcross Grange for five weeks.

Herein begins Cathy's most serious conflict. For the first time, she sees what life in a wealthy, peaceful, well ordered home is like, and she can relax with no fear of interference from drunken Hindley, sneaky Ellen or self righteous Joseph. Not only that, she meets Edgar, the epitome of all that was respectable and desirable in the men of Cathy's time. He is immediately smitten, and there is no doubt that she is enamored of him and his family. She is even willing to sacrifice herself for this tranquility by changing her behavior to some degree when she is around the Lintons. Like all women of her station, she has no other option but to marry, and the conflict she faces is one I suspect many women of the time faced. Should she marry the man who is acceptable to society and its expectations -- the man she should want. Or should she be true to herself, and go off with Heathcliff, a social outcast, who is the embodiment of all she, in heart, considers masculine -- her authentic mate -- the one person who loves her as she is.

Cathy makes the right decision, and but for Ellen's malicious meddling she might have gone off with Heathcliff. After Heathcliff's departure, the Heights must have been an intolerable place to live, given her drunken brother and the obnoxious servants. Even so she waited three years for Heathcliff to return. Tell me, what teenage girl of that time wouldn't have given up after three years and made a tolerable marriage as a way out of an insufferable situation? In the long run she suffers greatly at the hands of the likable but passive aggressive Edgar, who cannot understand her or her needs. When Heathcliff returns three months after her marriage, she realizes her mistake. But it is too late, she is married and pregnant and there is no way out of the situation without completely breaking with social norms. She might have lived in misery and sorrow for years as a ghost of her former self, had it not been for Ellen's terrible violence against her. I realize it is tempting to condemn Cathy. After all she married the wrong man at eighteen, and it is so rare to make a mistake at that age.

Since you dislike Wuthering Heights so much, I can't help but wonder why you bother coming to its fandom.

To find out why anybody could possibly have anything but a vitriolic opinion of the highest order towards this absolute trite.

Perhaps you do not understand what a fandom is. The word fan means aficionado, devotee, or admirer.

Flight Officer Twat, I'm sure there's a fucking Peppa Pig forum you can be crapping all over with your horrific verbosity.

Therefore a fandom is a place where people who admire and are familiar with a particular subject come together to discuss and enjoy it. Maybe you would find more sympathy for your tirades if you joined a Wuthering Heights hatedom.

If you think this is a tirade, you have clearly never witnessed a tirade before. Perhaps you, yourself, lack the knowledge of such a base word?

I for one have come to doubt your veracity.

I doubt your ability to make a sentence without wanking to your vocabulary. It doesn't make you sound intelligent, or cultured, it just makes you sound like you should put your butt-plug back in and stop talking shit.

Have you truly read the book? Your arguments are so superficial or perhaps you are unable to infer from the text.

I FUCKING WISH I NEVER READ IT

fucks sake i deliberately tried to fail my english essay on it because i just cannot hold anything but contempt for the entire piss stain that this book is it is like she sneezed on paper and handed it in to a publisher

I feel no obligation to respond to you.

Excuse me, your arrogance is showing. You might want to fix that.

Your remarks are trifling,

Like something else of yours? Those long words have to be compensating for something, eh?

and in no way is this a real debate since you offer nothing of consequence to it.

I offer everything to everyone, because I'm altruistic and lovely like that.

NO BUT SRS, I am asking you to give me a single reason why this book is anything but drool brought on by the author who was too busy crying about her life and the fact she had a mustache and everyone bullying her to actually write a proper book with proper substance.

So, basically, I was RIGHT fuck this book and everything in it

Cathy is s HUSSY MANIPULATIVE BITCH, and that's it? Seriously? Three character "traits". Great fucking job, whoever shat out this crap.

General advisory: when 100+ years of scholarly writing disagree with you, there's a more-than-reasonable chance that you're wrong. Not the people who came to this section expecting to find other fans.

I have to wonder about your mentality. You hate Wuthering Heights? Fine. But then you come to a forum dedicated to the book to spew vitiriol because... why? Excuse me if finding out why anyone would like this "trite" (FYI, not a noun) is a dubious answer. It seems to me that an all-consuming hatred like yours would want to avoid its object, not go hunting out. Even more damningly, you really have no reason to dislike the book, other than some kind of instinctive response to it; your argument boils down to "Wuthering Heights is garbage because I say Wuthering Heights is garbage." Moreover, when called on your abrasive language, ad-hominem attacks and circular logic, you reply with more ad-hominem attacks and ... more abrasive language and circular logic.

So I'm left wondering. Why? Why do this? Y u no go somewhere you like? Your motives make no sense. As far as I can tell, you came here to shut down a forum of people who like the book. I think the technical term for this is "trolling," and it's done to get attention and make people upset. How deeply broken do you have to be to troll a tiny forum in a section with 88 stories? How utterly, completely shattered a human being do you need to be to pull this kind of shit?

I'm baffled. I'm completely, utterly baffled by your purposes here. You ask for a reason why Wuthering Heights is well-liked, and then you pointedly ignore the poster's response in favor of targeting "verbiosity," accusing him of being poorly endowed, and repeating your mantra that Wuthering Heights is some kind of crime against humanity. At no point do you counter the legitimate points he raises or do you speak well of yourself. I'm especially amused when you accuse Ivy Rangee of "talking shit." Try lookin' in the mirror, pal.

But since you hate verbiage so much, I'll phrase it in your language. GTFO you fucking troll, die in a lake of acid and snakes.

GTFO you fucking troll, die in a lake of acid and snakes.

This is more like it! Why couldn't Wuthering Heights have been written like that?

General advisory: when 100+ years of scholarly writing disagree with you, there's a more-than-reasonable chance that you're wrong. Not the people who came to this section expecting to find other fans.

Just letting you know that, for over 1000 years, many scholars/scientists/intellectuals of the era thought that the world was flat. General consensus held for a select amount of time does not equate to truth, especially when truth is not, in fact, truth, but a subjective opinion.

Would you much prefer I speak in flowery prose, and use the rhetoric skills that would be praised by one Princeps Senatus in Ancient Rome, rather than the simple, factual people of our age?

Because I can do that.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SesquipedalianLoquaciousness

I have to wonder about your mentality.

I have to wonder about your mental stability.

You hate Wuthering Heights? Fine. But then you come to a forum dedicated to the book to spew vitriol because... why?

Fixed. You know there's a "spell check" in the top bar, right? It looks like you need it, just sayin'.

Excuse me if finding out why anyone would like this "trite" (FYI, not a noun)

I don't think you're in a position to be correcting my English application, what with your attempts at using a ~*big word*~ to try and seem smart, and then spelling it wrong like a fool. Unless you want me to go through your post with much the same attitude?

is a dubious answer.

You shouldn't use a thesaurus to help you construct an argument.

It seems to me that an all-consuming hatred like yours would want to avoid its object, not go hunting out.

The second clause is incomplete; it lacks a subject.

Even more damningly, you really have no reason to dislike the book,

I have plenty, which I have stated. Bad characterization, bad "plot", bad execution, bad structure, bad development, lack of an intruiging subject, the fact that "wuthering" isn't even a word...

Perhaps you should read through my posts yourself, without training your biased eyes to remove anything contrary to your opinion. Ara, to accuse me of such then display it yourself... It seems suspicious, non?

other than some kind of instinctive response to it; your argument boils down to "Wuthering Heights is garbage because I say Wuthering Heights is garbage."

Ara, but it does not! I have given reason, whereas you have called "troll" and ignored them. Just because a post is laced with insulting comments and vulgarities does not demean the points actually made, only increase the hostility in response to them.

Moreover, when called on your abrasive language, ad-hominem attacks and circular logic, you reply with more ad-hominem attacks and ... more abrasive language and circular logic.

There is no unwritten agreement that all arguments should be absent of abrasive language and ad-hominem attacks, therefore, I see no need to project faux-politeness that would eventually result in the same as if I had never done it.

So I'm left wondering. Why? Why do this? Y u no go somewhere you like?

Ara, but I do! I just go to places I do not like, too, in order to better understand the simpering masses who pretend to like something awful just to fit in with the crowd.

Your motives make no sense.

My motives may remain in question, but your argument is shrouded in mystery. What is your argument? Would it be presumptuous of me to ask for you to remove the clouds of fallacy and ignorance that it hides behind?

As far as I can tell, you came here to shut down a forum of people who like the book.

If I would seek to do that, I would have, in fact, refrained from posting. That way, if it was left uninhabited for nine months, it would have all been deleted and this entire forum would cease to be a plague on the internet.

I think the technical term for this is "trolling," and it's done to get attention and make people upset.

Then, perhaps you should reaquaint yourself with the term, instead of throwing it around so carelessly.

How deeply broken do you have to be to troll a tiny forum in a section with 88 stories? How utterly, completely shattered a human being do you need to be to pull this kind of shit?

いーけーずー♪

I'm baffled.

Of course you are, mon cheri.

I'm completely, utterly baffled by your purposes here.

I am not surprised, if you consider Wuthering Heights to be high literature!

You ask for a reason why Wuthering Heights is well-liked,

Oh, no, what I asked for was a reason why someone wouldn't hate it. Wuthering Heights is not well liked at all.

and then you pointedly ignore the poster's response in favor of targeting "verbiosity,"

That is not a correct quote, as I said "verbosity", which is a word. "Verbiosity" is not.

But I will respond anyway, for I am kind like that, and say that I asked for a reason why Wuthering Heights was not awful. I did not ask for a story synopsis, which is what Ivy Rangee gave me.

accusing him of being poorly endowed, and repeating your mantra that Wuthering Heights is some kind of crime against humanity.

It certainly portrays itself as such.

At no point do you counter the legitimate points he raises or do you speak well of yourself.

Purple prose serves only for word wank.

I'm especially amused when you accuse Ivy Rangee of "talking shit." Try lookin' in the mirror, pal.

Looking in the mirror will only assist me in capturing an image of my visage. Please, if you intend to parrot back my arguments in childish ridicule, then at least attempt to parrot them back correctly.

Alright, this has gone on way too long.

I get it. You're here, you're having fun bashing some book that you *might* have read once because they forced you to for high school. Pretending to sound really stupid just to get a reaction and switching to a more intelligent attack when you get called out for it. Laughs and giggles, right?

Glad someone is having fun.

But to be a bit more serious, as I am a part of this forum and consider Wuthering Heights to be one of my all-time favorite books, I'll give you an answer to your question even though you don't actually deserve one.

Why would anyone not hate Wuthering Heights?

In my opinion, the reason is because it inspires us to follow our hearts, to stop suppressing our passion for the sake of tradition or society. It serves as a warning that those who ignore the pull of their own hearts will only reap desperation, misery and woe.

Other points could also be made, but that is one that speaks to me.

Now if you want to discuss the work in a serious manner, rather than just saying "Wuthering Heights is teh worst book cuz I sed it duh," feel free. But otherwise, this is getting ridiculous and sullying a humble forum for no reason.

Alright, this has gone on way too long.

Perhaps you should listen to some enka, and calm your call for supervisory tactics.

I get it. You're here, you're having fun bashing some book that you *might* have read once because they forced you to for high school.

I am only 15, so I'm still attending high school. I had to read it last year, and only last year, with the essay still saved on my computer, so the memories are still fresh in my head.

...Ara, unless I seem like such an old lady that you'd assumed my age to be higher? So cruel.

Pretending to sound really stupid just to get a reaction and switching to a more intelligent attack when you get called out for it.

Whoever said I pretended? I had much the same attitude then as I do now, only I am presently using more sophisticated vocabulary and rhetoric when they requested it. Am I not polite, to conform to their demands of literary supremacy?

Ara, but why am I asking you? Surely you are intelligent enough to understand my kindness in typing the way that they wish me to.

Laughs and giggles, right?

ハッ ハッ ハッ

Glad someone is having fun.

Ara, how selfless of you.

But to be a bit more serious, as I am a part of this forum and consider Wuthering Heights to be one of my all-time favorite books, I'll give you an answer to your question even though you don't actually deserve one.

Oh, would you? How I have so been anticipating this, rather than a poorly disguised fangasm that is nothing more than a glorified summary using a fair few quotations that tell me nothing about personal opinion, reinforcing only the redundancy that lies within the pages.

In my opinion, the reason is because it inspires us to follow our hearts, to stop suppressing our passion for the sake of tradition or society. It serves as a warning that those who ignore the pull of their own hearts will only reap desperation, misery and woe.

A reason I can respect, though not agree with. It is by pure interpretation that you have reached this, and it is known that many people read far too deeply into a text than is originally intended by the author; therefore, I can consider this subjective, and not, in fact, a grounded reason, but a personal one.

Other points could also be made, but that is one that speaks to me.

By all means, make them. I'm not unreasonable, and I will respect the thoughts of those, as long as they stay within logical boundaries.

Now if you want to discuss the work in a serious manner, rather than just saying "Wuthering Heights is teh worst book cuz I sed it duh," feel free. But otherwise, this is getting ridiculous and sullying a humble forum for no reason.

Ara, and yet, the fans of the book are allowed to claim that it is the best, simply because people have agreed with them? Double standards is the terminology, I believe.

I apologize for jumping into previous posts without first introducing myself and discussing the thread's main topic, but I felt that I must address something.

A reason I can respect, though not agree with. It is by pure interpretation that you have reached this, and it is known that many people read far too deeply into a text than is originally intended by the author; therefore, I can consider this subjective, and not, in fact, a grounded reason, but a personal one.

What other reason is there to love a book than a personal one? Why do I like Wuthering Heights, Harry Potter, Othello, or Les Miserables? Why do others obsessively adore The Lord of the Rings or (for goodness' sake) Twilight? Why have people read and found themselves drawn towards countless pieces of literature throughout the history of the world if not for a personal reason? Especially concerning works of fiction, there is no reason in the world that I would love a book other than simply because I do. Perhaps it is the writing which pulls me in, or the characters that speak to me, or events that fascinate me, but it is that fact that I have connected with the book in some manner that makes me love it.

So when you ask someone for their reasons behind an opinion on a book, do not dismiss the personal ones; that's all that the true reader can ever give.

A personal reason is not a valid reason to consider a book to be intellectual and of great quality. It is a reason to enjoy it, you are correct, but not a reason why the subject matter itself should be considered anything more than overrated rambling.

Ara, but I presume too much of this forum's participants, it seems.

You could make the same argument about Shakespeare's Hamlet, which is also a great work of literature, or at least is a darn good play. With either work, logic fails before stubborn dislike and the only comment one can possily make is ...

È bellisimo.

(On the other hand, it can't hold a candle to Shakesspeare. Few things can.)

I thought it was well-known that Shakespeare actually took incredibly old stories and remade them, adding extra material? He was essentially copywriting, instead of playwriting them all.

pft

• Forums are not to be used to post stories.
• All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
• The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
• All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.