Shakespear

[spectre]

If any of you have read my portfolio entry then you would be able to see that in first draft at least my characters are kind of flat. I think it's because I'm kindle introverted. I seem to do a better job creating very emotional characters when I knock off Shakespear's style. I thought if marketed right it could catch an eye or two but is that plagiarism? I don't want to be known as the #:!*@ that plagiarized Shakespear. Do you think it would be marketable if it wasn't?

 

[Heliotrope]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? Could you clarify?

 

[spectre]

I'm just asking if it's plagiarism to "revive" the style of a deceased writer and whether you think a story written in Shakesperian style is marketable . The many modern reworks of Shakespear were awesome, but that WAS Shakespear. Insofar as relaying ideas and emotion though Shakespear objectifies a lot of his characters. Much of their emotion is openly portrayed in interactions and the tragic or excited nature of their feeling is supplemented by other characters. I tend to remove a lot of character to character identity when I write and offer that socialization as omniscient matter of fact. It means I have to use more stylistic wording to make readers see the quarks in a character's behavior. It's kind of hard to do but I always have. When I really sit down and try a Shakesperian style though that objectified sensation between character's where Mercutio knows what Romeo wants and Romeo depends on him to tell it because he can't figure it out alone being starstruck, removes a third party and the need excessively express introverted ideas. Or like when Hamlet is incessantly goung on in his own mind he is always conversing with his father's spirit and he objectifies the guards and his friends and their reactions to each other create intensity because there is no villainy in his uncle at first. When his Uncle openly becomes the villain he is the object but is wholly defiant to Hamlet and the intensity is between interactions with Hamlet's mother.

 

[Ireth]

I seriously doubt you need to worry about plagiarism with such an old set of writings. There are countless books and movies out there that directly take from his plotlines, and he himself blatantly borrowed/stole from even older stories when he was writing.

 

[Penpilot]

I don't think you can plagiarize style. It's also not plagiarism if you freely admit what you're doing. Plagiarism is taking something that doesn't belong to you and presenting it as if it did.

Ever watch a Tarantino film? He freely borrows stuff from other films and freely admits he does. It's kind of what he's know for.

The world runs on taking the old, adding to it, and making it new again.

 

[MineOwnKing]

If you can't even bother to spell his name right then I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[K.S. Crooks]

Also remember that several many of William Shakespeare's work such as Richard the III and Julius Caesar are historical fictions. Dan Brown has done much of the same yet no one compares the two. If you don't use the same characters in the same context then do whatever you're inspired to do.

 

[Heliotrope]

I'm not really sure how what you are describing would be plagiarism? Are those not strategies used by all play writes/ screen play writers?