Alright, here's just one small example of why your first statement in this thread is dumb. You state that '[Shakespeare] was meant to be performed for the lower class' and call it 'lowest common denominator of theatre'. What you are saying in this is theatre or art in general is only good if it is made for some tiny niche group or for the wealthy. Anything that can be enjoyed by the 'lowest class' is automatically garbage apparently. This is pure elitism and it's wrong, by the way, as has been seen time and time again in current mediums such as movies and music. It's not even true for Shakespeare, because while he clearly had characters and scenes in most of his plays that 'play' directly to the common folk they aren't the main thrust of any play I've read and are there to throw them a bone so to speak. And to reduce Shakespeare to 'murder and sex' says nothing about its quality because you can do that for any work of art.

As an aside it's pretty humorous that the plays are supposedly so base, simple, and accessable by the lowest of the lowest in 17th century Britain, yet many Americans probably can't or won't read them because of how hard to understand they are. Perhaps you would take a shot at the American education system here, and I would totally agree with you, but that's not the point.

Here's a small list of a few other issues:
-you state that it wasn't meant to be studied, uh no s**t no art is written or made 'to be studied', it's studied after the fact when people see how seminal it is
-the 'murder and sex' label fits the majority of drama ever made, it probably also fits every single religious mythology for f**k's sake
-another way to interpret my first point is that you say 'popular = bad' which is a fallacy
-it's not 'brilliant' because you don't like it. Despite Shakespeare's legendary status, his plays still being performed and remade into movies today, and being taught in English classes everywhere, it's no good because you don't like it. If only everyone was as intelligent as you and saw the blinding light of obviousness.

Your 'personal belief', i.e. that you know more than everyone else, be it about this, your stance on religion, or video game design, is laughable, and if you don't want to be called on it stop posting it. Perhaps if you posted simply your beliefs without the 'everyone else who has this commonly held view is wrong and here's why, because I am smarter' there wouldn't be any problem. And if you see some sort of irony in me making that statement than you know why I'm laughing at you.

[EDIT]damn, Fishy just schooled me with a more effective post 1/10th my size. I've been trying to work on brevity but damn it is hard.

Well that's meant to be directed at Mr. Toast, not at the general readership. You see the 'irony' but not why I would be laughing, since my first post is a half-troll half-truth said tongue-in-cheekly meant to facilitate a response (in this case debate about the merits of Shakespeare) whereas that's his actual real-life view in the debate at question, as embarassingly weak as it is.

say what

Why can't people read? This is an internet forum where the only means of communication is typed word after all. I explicitly added 'first' post to my last post so you'd know that the post I'm referring to is the very first post I made in the thread and French Toast's initial response to it, nothing else. There is nothing 'tongue-in-cheek' about my second and third posts.

As for your post, I dunno what to say since you based it all off an incorrect premise. Thanks for trying though I appreciate the effort.