4 ms·
It is definitely not supposed to be taken at face value. He explicitly mentions that Hamlet cannot be graphed like this - it is too ambiguous whether the events
by goto11 4y ago
It is definitely not supposed to be taken at face value. He explicitly mentions that Hamlet cannot be graphed like this - it is too ambiguous whether the events are "good fortune" or "ill fortune". He concludes that "Shakespeare was a poor storyteller".
His actual point is that we don't know enough to tell whether events are actually good or ill fortune, and therefore stories like Cinderella (or the Bible) does not reflect the ambiguities of real life.
- SamBam 4y ago> He concludes that "Shakespeare was a poor storyteller". He certainly does not, or, if he says those words, he's being deliberately facetious. He says: “I have in fact told you why this is respected as a masterpiece. We are so seldom told the truth. In Hamlet, Shakespeare tells us we don’t know enough about life to know what the good news is and what the bad news is, and we respond to that. Thank you, Bill.”
- goto11 4y ago> He certainly does not, or, if he says those words, he's being deliberately facetious. It's irony. That is Vonnegut for you. His point is of course that Shakespeare isn't a poor storyteller, so it must be the model which is insufficient.