To be fair, Tolkien probably thought it was all downhill for English literature from the Norman conquest onwards.

Should be retitled "why Tolkien sorta disliked Shakespear a bit sometimes".

He didnt hate Shakespeare. He may have taken issue with how the prophecy played out in Hamlet, not the same thing as hating Shakespeare.

My feed is flooded with videos about all the writers Tolkien hated. I wouldn't think too much about it.

I think it's mostly sour grapes because Shakespeare wrote a terrible review of The Lord of the Rings.

"To Ring or not to Ring, that is the question" - Sauron Probably

Overwriting the whimsical view on Elves and Dwarfs in our culture is probably one of his biggest archievements.

"I don't like this, it *should* be like this" is pretty much the basis for anyone to create something new or interesting.

Tolkien about Shakespeare: needed more trees and less people

I think the loophole prophecies in Macbeth work because we get to see Macbeth's arrogance beforehand. He is undone and undone cruelly and cheaply by fate. In contrast, we never look inside the Witch King's mind like we Macbeth, so cheap loopholes would carry no sting and would just look, well, cheap. Both prophecies work in both stories because they fit the essence of either story.

To paraphrase Cunk on Shakespeare, Shakespeare had it much easier in school because he didn’t have to learn Shakespeare. But it is interesting to learn about Tolkien’s take on Shakespeare. I would love to know what he thought of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus because that is sooooooo dark and messed up.

If you write literature, poetry or theater in English, whether you know it or not you were influenced by William Shakespeare. Literally; when Shakespeare started writing English grammar & spelling still weren’t standardized and his use of language helped shape our vocabulary, spelling, grammar and manner of speaking. This is in addition to creating what we think of as modern plot structure and character archetypes, pioneering many of the techniques that are now essential to theater and creating new poetic styles. Tolkien was a once in a generation literary mind, but Shakespeare was truly a once in a millennium sort of storyteller if not rarer.

It’s incredible to consider that Tolkien’s influence has been so great that his versions of Elves and Dwarves have supplanted both Shakespeare’s and Disney’s respective interpretations in the public imagination. No mean feat!

As always, Tolkein articulated his opinions clearly

If Shakespeare didn’t make the cut then it makes a little more sense why he didn’t like Narnia

Tolkien thought that Shakespeare's plays work better as performed than as just read? I doubt that Shakespeare himself would have disputed that! Shakespeare never intended for his plays to be read as literature, he wrote them to be performed on stage!

It's sad that even Tolkien fell into the trap that only 'gentlemen' and those with the 'proper' education could truly write. It's a relic of the English class system, and one held by far too many even among writers today.

“Why Tolkien had a reasonable and thoughtful critique about Shakespeare’s way of handling fantasy, and a few of the resolutions to his stories.” I guess that title would be a little too long, but what would’ve been more accurate and less inflammatory is “Tolkien’s Problem with Shakespeare”

He enjoyed the writings of Mary Renault, a former student of his at Oxford ( meaning she attended classes of his, not that he was her advisor), writing her a letter of praise for her books- even though she was a prominent lesbian and feminist, and her books, set in ancient Greece, referenced the powers of the Greek gods and goddesses, and had openly sexual elements involving heterosexual and homosexual relationships between both men and women. A catholic reader as well as a Catholic writer.

"While still a young boy, like countless others of his age and background, J.R.R. Tolkien would've been immersed in Shakespeare's works and taught them extensively during his school years." Whew! From question to answer in under a minute! _Very_ concise! So what will the next 11 minutes be about, then?

The great Tolkiens objection to the trees of Burnham Woods being cut down and moved is silly. The whole point of MacBeth not taking that prophecy serious was the common view that trees are fixed in place and can not walk. If MacBeth lived in a world where trees could move then there would be no reason for him to let his guard down regarding that prophecy.

In terms of theatre. I would agree it cannot not do Fantasy justice because of the visual limitations but Tolkien was a product of his time, it would be interesting to see if his opinion changed where he able to see fantasy in video games, or the cinema with today's technology. LoTR on stage would look ridiculous, it's too grand, too big in scale for the Theatre, but with modern technology that scale can be visualised on screen.

All of this being said, im very excited to hear about the operatic adaptation of LoTR. Tolkien's love and inspiration owing to opera really gives me hope it will go well

whether you agree with his other opinions of shakespeare or not, it's hard to disagree with him that fantasy is meant to be written not performed. in plays back then or on tv today, fantasy is always held back by the medium and the imagination of the writer, and no matter how fancy that medium is or how great the writer, it leaves no room for your own imagination which defeats the whole point. and it gets worse when you consider how those movies and plays have influenced modern fantasy writing, these days fantasy books have no subtlety or mystery about them at all which is really sad. magic is either some oddly convoluted system that gets treated like a mundane tool by the characters, or it's simplistic and tries to amaze you by being really over the top, it's always a very tangible thing that's easy to explain. there are some books that overcome this like harry potter, but for the most part the fantasy genre today fails to achieve it's main objective which is creating a sense of wonder. this isn't a personal attack but it always frustrates me when i see people dissecting the lore of lotr and explaining how things work, or worst of all when someone tries to quantify how powerful the characters are, because the entire point of the genre is that you aren't meant to know everything. you don't know how powerful gandalf is, you don't know what it looked like when he became really tall to fight the wolves, and you don't know what kind of spells he can use. that's a good thing because it lets your imagination come up with an answer, and it'll be far more enjoyable than whatever answer a screen or lore expert can give you

Interesting, considering that the Witch King's warning to Eowyn, "Come not between the Nazgul and his prey!" Is a close paraphrasal of a line from King Lear.

I "hate" to think what Tolkien felt about Delphi Oracle's prophecies.

Another great video.... I've also read Tolkien's essay on fairy tales and fantasy. It's very inspirational 🥹

"Hated" seems to be a overstatement for the evidence provided. If I say "The 3rd season of the origional Star Trek had some weak episodes", that doesen't mean I hate Star Trek, and if I was given an assignment to take the debate position that Tolken wrote poor quality literature I could make a caes for it, though I read LOTR at least 6 times.

What didn't Tolkien hate?

I think this is the second of your videos I've seen. Your presentations are well researched, well thought out, and well presented.

Tolkien's words about Shakespeare's humble beginnings reminded me of the line in his book "What is the house of Eorl but a thatched barn where brigands drink in the reek, and their brats roll on the floor among the dogs?"

The debate means nothing about Tolkien's own beliefs. It's a debate. He's required to take a stance, and as the Baconian Theory requires Bill Shakespeare to be too thick to have written the works, Tolkien therefore used rhetoric to play up Shakespeare (the man's) supposed thickness.

For Tolkien's beloved Fantasy I can understand his dislike, but I would dislike a wit that didn't love the Bard's.

What you imagine in your own mind is going to be greater than any stage play or movie. Literature is indeed the best way to convey fantasy.

I always had a problem with "Macbeth", too. If the witches' prophecies are curses, then Macbeth isn't responsible for his actions. If they are true predictions, then his fate is pre-determined, and he also isn't responsible. Even if they just put ideas into his head, the truth of their other predictions forces Macbeth to consider the ones concerning him to be unavoidable.

He hated Dune, he hated Shakespeare, he seemed to hate anything that wasn't him. What a jerk.

Tolkien makes some good points. This may seem like a tangent, but I think this might also be the reason why Baldur's Gate 3 feels so hollow to me compared to the original games. A fantasy-themed RPG game like this should have loads of text and sparse graphics and effects. A still portrait and a wall of written dialogue in a text box simply works better for this kind of game and story than a hyper-detailed 3D-animated model overacting their tragic backstory.

George Bernard Shaw also had beef with Shakespeare and compared him unfavorably with Bunyan. He too criticized Macbeth, calling the language of the play "right in feeling but silly and resourceless in thought and expression."

I revere Shakespeare but for character, language, timeless insights into human nature NOT plot, which everyone knows he ripped off. Tolkien in other words has a point but makes a category error (as I am sure he knew better than I).

Shakespeare's plays were probably written in a rush, with the deadline of the date set for their performance. Hence their defects. And yet, their genius shines down the centuries.

George Bernard Shaw: “With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer…..that I despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his.” lol

I disagree that visual medium can't portray fantasy as well as literature, a story like berserk will not work as a novel for example because its art is essential to its storytelling

Tolkien just needs to embrace a wider variety of dwarven songs: “Hi ho! Hi ho! It’s off to work we go!”

Imagine Tolkien’s attitude to the title. I wish I knew Shakespeare better than I do. The little I do know e.g. King Lear leaves one with a sense of sheer weight and transcendence upon our brief history of civilisation.

This raises the question of what Tolkien would have thought about the Peter Jackson trilogy. (Lord of the Rings of course, not The Hobbit) I wonder if he would have thought it was fantasy, would the technology used give it that fantasy element he was talking about.

Thank you. A fascinating video. Tolkien was somewhat hypercritical regarding literature. I guess CS Lewis, JRT''s fellow Inkling, would have been more sympathetic to Shakespeare as his understanding of fantasy was less literary than Tolkien's.

Great video thank you!

Regarding the prophecies of Macbeth, Tolkien may have had a point about the trees, but he, like many others, was wrong about the other one. The apparition actually said that " *none* of woman born shall harm Macbeth," so Eowyn would have been out of luck unless she had a caesarean section. Also, in Medieval times, Caesarean sections had a 100% fatality rate for the mother, so in Macduff's case, the surgeon would not have even tried it unless Macduff's mother were already dead as a last-ditch attempt to save the baby. That is why Macduff was not "of woman born:" his mother died before she could properly finish giving birth to him, so he was born of the knife. The modern C-section is more like "of woman born, with some surgical assistance."

Did he like anybody?

This makes me wonder what Tolkien felt about Wagner.

Tolkein's mantra: "only I know how to write fantasy."

I look forward to next episode of "Whom did Tolkien hate?" I expect it will be another master whom I revere. Debussy? Oscar Wilde? Richard Strauss? Van Gogh? Arnold Schoenberg? George Gershwin? Sinclair Lewis?

JRR “Britain peaked during the Neolithic” Tolkien

P.G. Wodehouse was so well educated and intelligent he had Shakespeare and the Bible almost memorized. His books bring so much humor and joy....

I’ve only read Romeo & Juliet and Julius Caesar, so I’m not that knowledgeable on Shakespeare, but great video nonetheless. 👍

Good video! There's no "-size" in any form of the verb "prophesy" (or "prophesies" or "prophesied"). E.g., 9:44

Professor Tolkien seemed to be a real pain in the *ss, that's what.

I'm not a hardcore Tolkien nerd, but I appreciate how often he and I are in agreement--all of my unpopular dislikings, lol.

I don't think Shakespeare would give af what Tolkien thought of him.

The more I watch your series on "The Things Tolkein Hated" I'm beginning to sense that Tolkein possessed quite a bit of misdirected angst.

Super interesting and beautifully scripted and read, excellent work! I also appreciate the parallels to Ancient Greek myth and legend when it comes to the ambiguity of prophecy - the foretold event occurs but in an unexpected way,- and not just in Ancient Greece, the ambiguity of prophecy is a feature of many world mythologies. To be honest, Tolkien comes across as pompous and precious for being so censorious about the "reveals" of the prophecies in Hamlet. Incidentally, in a few of the quoted letters, the word 'pan' is used in an odd way - are you sure that the word shouldn't have been 'part', which makes much more sense?

“Why did Tolkien hate the Avengers?” Future video probably

"...Tolkien believed that Shakespeare's works were at their best when they were being performed..." Well, after all, they were plays, not novels. Bernard Shaw was the first dramatist that really worked to make his plays readable as stories. In Shakespeare's day, you didn't spend a lot of money printing plays for the general public. They were printed for the actors, and each copy ended up with all sorts of marks and notes. More than that, they didn't include much detail about settings, and stage "business". When you write a story, you have to include gestures, facial expressions, etc. In a play, that is contributed by the actors.

Tangent: From a modern perspective, Shakespeare feels close to Tolkien because it's set in an historical period filled with sword-wielding knights, rapier-fencing rogues, conniving kings and evil witches. Unfortunately, most modern Shakespeare renditions render the material in a contemporary "relevant" setting, completely un-moored from the context and visual cues modern audiences need to understand the language. Richard III in World War II. Hamlet in a corporate boardroom. Besides, the farther we travel in time, the more fantastical Shakespeare gets. People like sword fights and witches. We need a real period Shakespeare movie. Not a modern setting, not a minimalist abstraction. Period, period. It would be metal AF.

From how he described what he thinks fantasy should be, i wonder what hed have thought about dungeons and dragons

It sounds like he had issues with a couple of plays, the more magical ones to be specific and even then only elements of the stories. 😁

If anyone is interested in a differing, and exceptionally well researched, opinion, regarding the authorship of the plays, read “The Truth Will Out” by Brenda James. I frankly don’t understand why anyone in the 20th or 21st century would get their panties so twisted up whether William Shakespeare may or may not have been the actual author. It doesn’t change the brilliance of the writing. At least read the first chapter.

Tolstoy took Shakespeare to task as well.

As many of Shakespeare's plays are histories and non-fantasy comedies, I imagine Tokien might have had a different opinion about them. I in fact agree with him on the cheap play on words that resolved the witches' prophecy. However, it was a kind of witchy thing to do.

Tolstoy also had issue with the Bard but was effectively rebutted by Orwell

Because Shakespeare was a great writer

The Bard of Stratford might have had humble origins, but some achieve greatness.

I think Tolkien's personal definition of "fantasy", which it seems he held since childhood, is the root of his misinterpretation of the fantasy elements in Shakespeare. They're not there because Bill is trying to write fantasy and failing, they're there because he's trying to create drama, and succeeding. Midsummer Night's Dream satirises sexual infatuation using fairies, it isn't a fairy story, and the way he's written them uses a variety of contemporary presentations that his audience would know - otherwise the satire wouldn't work. Nor does the play require a belief in fairies - which would have been considered as rather unsophisticated even then. Tolkien's view of Macbeth is even wider of the mark and he also disliked nearly all literature by his own contemporaries. Much as I have enjoyed reading LOTR over the decades, and recognise T's scholarship in philology and Old English, he was, I think, a rather a limited man in his literary taste.

Precious, precious, where art thou precious

Arguably, the reason why anyone writes a novel - or makes a film, or records an album, or creates any kind of art - is because of a certain dissatisfaction with everyone else's efforts in that direction, i.e. because no-one's done it exactly the way they would want to see it done, so it falls to them to do it. I'm sure Peter Jackson would have preferred that some other competent director had made a top-notch cinema adaptation of "The Lord of the Rings" so that he could simply watch it as a member of the audience and be swept along by it without knowing how it was all achieved. But no-one else was capable of doing it properly, and so it fell to him to do it. The curse that any creator is under is that, because they made the work, they're one of the few people on earth - or in an author's case, the _sole_ person on earth - denied the pleasure of ever experiencing it.

Is there someone or something that Tolkien didn't hate? Besides CS Lewis

Shakespeare can say three pages worth with one sentence. I find new things in his writing even after ten readings.

Is this voiced by an AI? The typo "pan" instead of "part" is spoken as pan.

The approx 5:20 point is exactly the opposite of Shakespeare - there is no attempt to 'realize'. There is only 'play' - 'the play's the thing' - Renaissance drama is a non-realistic non-fantastic genre. Tolkien is talking (well, writing!) across it. I think it's informative to recognize Tolkien's antipathy to adaptations of his work - feeling that something would be lost. Whereas in Renaissance drama the audience interaction is written into the text - drama/performance is a communal act. Implicit in Tolkien's view of Fantasy is the reader as recipient, not participant. It's not that one is right or, wrong but that there is a misunderstanding of genre and expectation here.

Wow. Didn't expect to agree with Tolkien on this one, but he certainly won me over!

Cause he’s smart. Moving on…

Plays, in the time of Willy Shake, were performed by traveling actors and the plays (not written down added too and changed etc. as time went on) As the son of a dodgy business man and having friends in the publishing world, he simply followed these players around and wrote them down in his own style and put his name to them, I suppose if he had not carried out this, what could be seen as play -giarism , the plays would of been lost. Anyway that is what this old nemo thinks.

It would be nicer ir the subtitles were bigger - they are very small when using cellphones!

There is a strong theory that Macbeth is an unfinished work. It is substantially shorter than most of the tragedies.

To be critical is not to dislike.

I agree with Tolkien up to a point. Theater and prose are very different. Although it is true the theater is less than Ideal form for fantasy, for the reasons stated, does that mean that fantasy should never be portrayed in plays?? I think that conclusion is wrong. But, we must understand Tolkien and his issues. The fact that it took 30 years for Tolkien to bring the Hobbit and LOTR to publication, and that his supporting notes are the bases for many books after his death, means that JRR Tolkien was an extreme perfectionist. Tolkien's criticism of Shakespeare comes from his wanting perfection. He rejects Shakespeare for not being PERFECT. I look at things differently. Shakespeare's work's may not be perfect. But, is the world better off with them?? Despite their flaws, doesn't the existence and reverence of Shakespeare's plays after 400 years imply a unique quality?? Few literary works have had such longevity of love. Don Quixote, Gulliver's Travels, Don Juan, Leviathan and others are still revered. But, I think none have the following and respect that Shakespeare still receives. Despite Tolkien's valid criticisms, I wish Tolkien had been more humble and accepted the greatness of Shakespeare.

The real problem that Tolkien was encountering was the snobbery of literary critics which was extreme during his time. It’s the literary critics at the time that didn’t see elves as serious entities. Shakespeare was just trying to write excellent drama. He wasn’t trying to degrade elves. Thank God Tolkien ignored the critics. In addition, great literature is usually created as a reaction to past literature, so it makes sense that Tolkien had some bones to pick with the bard. What bothers me about MacBeth is that someone is considered not to have been born of a woman if they were breeched. He’s still born of a woman-of course, this is because of my modern understanding of being born. (I’m being a bit tongue in cheek with the last point.)

Tolkien wanted a high fantasy based on the earliest myths that could be found in English folklore. He saw the potential to influence culture in a positive way. The cheap versions of these myths like Disney dwarfs greatly destroyed the potential of Tolkien’s gifts. It’s a bit like the two towers. Disney the sell out, and Tolkien the Gray.

The part in The Hobbit (book, not crap movies) where the starving Dwarves try to burst in on an Elven dinner party in the forest and it just disappears was definitely like Shakespeare stuff. Primal nature spirits that do not enjoy being interrupted by ignorant, unwashed mortals, existing just beyond their grasp (also as a metaphor for imagination and the meaning of fantasy, I guess) and that must be appeased to be made contact with. They live physically within, yet in the sense of immortality outside and beyond our world and will continue to do so even forever after it is no more, caring nothing for the troubles of those born damned with death.

Next video: “Why Tolkien would hate High School Musical”

Video liked at doggo video farewell. Good boy, thanking the patrons.

I wonder what he would have thought of Jackson's trilogy. When the technology was good enough to render it well.

Tolkien did win one battle. The noble elf and the stalwart dwarf are the primary archetypes in the popular imagination of today, championed by his book, then later in a massive way by Peter Jackson's adaptation, along with all the works _LOTR_ inspired. I'm enjoying the anime series _Dungeon Meshi_ at the moment, and it traces a long but direct line to Tolkien, via its source manga, computer/video games, tabletop games, and the rest.

why he hated dune why he hated frank herbert why he hated shakespeare why he hated cars why he hated science why he hated foreigners why he hated americans why he hated britain why he hated islam why he hated atheism why he hated future why he hated past why he hated science fiction why he hated fantasy why he hated harry potter why he hated the lord of the rings why he hated men why he hated women why he hated children why he hated animals why he hated aliens why he hated tolkien why he hated sky why he hated ground why he hated water why he hated earth why he hated space why he hated this why he hated that why he hated you why he hated me why he hated us why he hated them why he hated himself why he hated everyone why he hated no one why he hated everything why he hated nothing why he hated life why he hated death why he hated love why he hated hate and most importantly Who the fuck is he? And why so many people give so much fuck about his hate???!!!!! 😂

Whats funny is both are the same personality type yet clearly that doesn't mean they naturally will enjoy each other's works. I personally love jrr tolkien and while i see the talent of shakespear it is not my preference.

Tolstoy also hated Shakespeare. Orwell wrote an article about it entitled, “Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool.”

Tolkien's dislike of Shakespeare's use of fantasy is precisely why the movies are so exasperating for a true fan to suffer through.

He used a direct quote from Shakespeare in the Fellowship.

Si despreciaba a Shakespeare es porque no era tan culto como él suponía,ni sabía nada de teatro y prefería en sus ratos libres leer novelas policiacas,lo mismo pasaba con Tolstoi,que también menospreciaba a Shakespeare y a su amigo Chéjov.

I knew I liked JRRT for more than just the Lotr stories.