is coriolanus shakespeare's most underrated play??? it'S A FUCKING REVENGE STORY, THESE ARE ALWAYS THE BEST, THINK HAMLET, COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO OR JOHN WICK anyway what do you think, desu i doubt anyone even read it
>>23981266I've read it. It's not even his top ten.Shakespeare's most underrated is Henry IV Part 2.
>>23981266It's underrated because libtards are terrified of a strong man who found meritocracy in the military calling bullshit on republics run by plutocrats and propped up by plebs. Hits too close to home for them.
>>23981266I’ve also read it and want it to be my favourite but Hamlet is too good.>>23982023is right
>>23981266>A...REVENGE STORYHamlet won't no mama's boy, yo
"How about you just die for being poor" is too unsympathetic to make for either good verse or a good story. Deflecting to the politicians is a weak cover for this being exactly what he says repeatedly through the play. Shakespeare does a surprising amount to make the end product readable but it‘s still a Rand-tier egomania trip treasured only by a handful of chumps nowhere near the required virtue to meaningfully self-insert. I‘d probably rank it around the mid 20‘s among his plays.
>>23981266Quite possibly his best tragedy. It's fantastic, and the closest approximation of Nietzsche's philosophy before Nietzsche (and I don't say that as a Nietzschean, I think it just reflects the all-encompassing nature of Shakespeare). The balance between the genius of Coriolanus' character and the external action of the story is just perfect. Everything is so concise, almost too concise, especially that ending, with less focus on the inner life of the characters than a play like Hamlet, but in a good performance I'm sure it would come off entirely satisfactory.
Coriolanus is amazing. Probably my personal favorite; I’m really in need of a reread.
>>23982113Utterly retarded post. The point is not whether Coriolanus actually does or does not want the plebs to starve, he just does not value them at all, because they lack all virtue and constancy. The latter is shown so obviously throughout the play, you would have to be a full libtard to refuse to see it. Yes, Coriolanus is an extremely harsh and aggressive character, too much so for his own good, but that is only the flipside to the proud Roman virtues, and the heroic greatness of his character, which Shakespeare is envisioning.Can you not appreciate this without your stupid moralising tendencies getting in the way? Shakespeare is not setting up Coriolanus as an ideal to imitate, but he's also not condemning him. Because it's an objective portrait of life. If you want slop propaganda about democracy then don't read Shakespeare.
>>23982129Constancy to a government which is starving you isn‘t virtue. That Coriolanus on the other hand has no allegiance to the actual Roman nation outside his personal military career puts him far below the moral level—which is indeed a significant base factor for tragic downfalls to resonate—which would require the play to function. You‘re making up on your own account that I said anything about democracy, which lends more to the notion that I‘m not the one with an axe to grind coloring my assessment.
