William Shakespeare

[Haphazard]

If you're willing to consider these typings of Wilde as evidence of his type, why not WS, who has plenty of sites typing him as INFP?

Because you're insisting that I use outside references. It's because you won't accept that my opinion and interpretation has any weight on its own.

 

[dynamiteninja]

If you're going to insist,

I'll settle on INTP and use Keirsey as my reference.

On that basis, we haven't gained much from this discussion, if I'm going to reference Myers as my reference for INFP. But I don't type WS on this basis alone, if you look back to my earlier posts in this thread, in conjunction with other proponents of the INFP theory, I think a decent argument has been made for the case of WS being an INFP, whihc the INTP proponents have not matched.

 

[Salomé]

I find it a bit... suspicious, I guess, that Shakespeare was typed an INFP by Isabel Myers, an INFP, and by Keirsey, an INTP, as an INTP.

Isn't that true of Jung too, or was that the other way around?

Like I said, everyone wants to claim Will as their own. What an egotistical lot we are! I'm sure he'd have something devastatingly incisive to say about it all

 

[dynamiteninja]

Because you're insisting that I use outside references. It's because you won't accept that my opinion and interpretation has any weight on its own.

Well you didn't personally argue the case for your ENTPs, but I would not have dismissed them out of hand.

Very well, argue WS's INTP case...

 

[Haphazard]

Very well, argue WS's INTP case...

The meter.

Plots can be stolen, depth can be faked, but the meter was either entirely stolen or created on his own. If it was entirely stolen, then we have a case for ExTP again... but if it wasn't, I'd be willing to settle for INTP. Even if he had plagerized just parts of the meter, he'd still have to have stuck it in and worked around it. Which would have required Ti.

Whether the plays are cynical or not is solely up to interpretation. An INFP's work wouldn't allow for this much.

Also, there's that I think an INTP would be better able to stand the the lifestyle that you described... even though it wouldn't be particularly easy on either INTP or INFP.

 

[Jack Flak]

I haven't read the whole thing, and I have no idea about Shakey's type, but I think Haphazard wins this thread on general principle.

 

[dynamiteninja]

The meter.

Plots can be stolen, depth can be faked, but the meter was either entirely stolen or created on his own. If it was entirely stolen, then we have a case for ExTP again... but if it wasn't, I'd be willing to settle for INTP. Even if he had plagerized just parts of the meter, he'd still have to have stuck it in and worked around it. Which would have required Ti.

Whether the plays are cynical or not is solely up to interpretation. An INFP's work wouldn't allow for this much.

Also, there's that I think an INTP would be better able to stand the the lifestyle that you described... even though it wouldn't be particularly easy on either INTP or INFP.

Anyone can write a plot, the plot isn't an indicator of artistic greatness. That WS borrowed elements of many of his doesn't mean much. No one enjoys Shakespeare for the plot, they appreciate the character development, and the fantastic writing. Depth can not be faked for the prolific opus of WS. You seem to be making more and more fanciful and implausible arguments, bending the facts to make WS an NT.

You couldn't simply have stolen the meter as you imply. WS wrote too much. What sort of argument suggests a writer is a plagarist in order to fit a type? If you can't take some one at face value when typing, then you can't reasonably type anyone.

To essentially type WS on the basis of the meter alone is overly simplistic and redundant. It is an example of an NT trying to systemise something that isn't there. Your theory just doesn't hold. It makes far too many assumptions and jumps to too many conclusions.

Shakespeare's greatness was not simply to do with his meter!

 

[dynamiteninja]

Even foul creatures such as Caliban are given a level of warmth in portrayal that are the product of NFs

 

[Haphazard]

Anyone can write a plot, the plot isn't an indicator of artistic greatness. That WS borrowed elements of many of his doesn't mean much. No one enjoys Shakespeare for the plot, they appreciate the character development, and the fantastic writing. Depth can not be faked for the prolific opus of WS. You seem to be making more and more fanciful and implausible arguments, bending the facts to make WS an NT.

The only depth in a work is what the reader reads into it.


I know plenty of good writers who can develop fantastic characters. And I don't know ONE INFP writer. Just because somebody is a good writer does NOT make them an INFP.

I really, really, honestly don't care if Shakespeare is an NT. Or an NF. Or an SP. or an SJ, and according to Keirsey, I'm supposed to hate them! The only thing I care about is everyone typing Shakespeare as their own. It's happened too often, and I'm mighty sick of it.

You couldn't simply have stolen the meter as you imply. WS wrote too much. What sort of argument suggests a writer is a plagarist in order to fit a type?

Oscar Wilde wasn't a plagarist. Neither was Mark Twain. The only thing I'm implying was that if he stole to meet his audience's needs, he'd be more likely to be an extrovert.

Either way, he was a very, very clever man.

If you can't take some one at face value when typing, then you can't reasonably type anyone.

To essentially type WS on the basis of the meter alone is overly simplistic and redundant. It is an example of an NT trying to systemise something that isn't there. Your theory just doesn't hold. It makes far too many assumptions and jumps to too many conclusions.

You must really hate INJs, don't you?

Shakespeare's greatness was not simply to do with his meter!

And why not?

 

[Salomé]

I see no evidence of the NF preoccupation with self-actualization and growth in Shakespeare's psychological portraits.

His characters tend to move towards self-destruction rather than enlightenment.

He was iconoclastic and subversive.

He was sarcastic.

He loved to play with words and meanings.

Many of his plays rely for comic effect on social incompetence and the impossibility of human communication. He finds people largely ridiculous and unsympathetic.

He was cynical about both love and human frailty. His lovers are fickle at best, and not infrequently imbecilic.

He wasn't overtly religious/spiritual.

 

[SillySapienne]

Iambic pentameter, IAMBIC PENTAMETER?!?!?!?

This is why Shakespeare's works were/are deemed as being so genius, and *NOT* because of the actual content of his plays/sonnets?!?!?!?!?

Haphazard, you have just made baby Jesus cry.

 

[Haphazard]

Haphazard, you have just made baby Jesus cry.

It's what I do best.



Another argument: The fact that we can even read whether Shakespeare was entirely romantic or entirely cynical implies that he had neither allegiance (Ti), or that we cannot even look at his work without projecting ourselves onto it.

Shakespeare is dangerous territory.

 

[dynamiteninja]

The only depth in a work is what the reader reads into it.

This I cannot agree with. So the Garfield comic has potentially as much depth as Hamlet? You're not just disagreeing with me, but the whole literary establishment!

I know plenty of good writers who can develop fantastic characters. And I don't know ONE INFP writer. Just because somebody is a good writer does NOT make them an INFP.

Nobody at any stage ever said this. I believe that you are predujuiced against mine and many other people's typings of WS because I am an INFP myself. DO you honestly believe that people are capable of impartiality. If not, you don't rest much faith in humanity.

I really, really, honestly don't care if Shakespeare is an NT. Or an NF. Or an SP. or an SJ, and according to Keirsey, I'm supposed to hate them! The only thing I care about is everyone typing Shakespeare as their own. It's happened too often, and I'm mighty sick of it.

Why blame me, for your experiences at that hands of others? I think your frustration has led you to be impartial yourself in this typing.

Oscar Wilde wasn't a plagarist. Neither was Mark Twain. The only thing I'm implying was that if he stole to meet his audience's needs, he'd be more likely to be an extrovert.

Just how is a plagarist more likely to be extraverted?
More importantly, give evidence for WS ever plagarising something.

Either way, he was a very, very clever man.

At least this we can agree on.

 

[dynamiteninja]

Iambic pentameter, IAMBIC PENTAMETER?!?!?!?

This is why Shakespeare's works were/are deemed as being so genius, and *NOT* because of the actual content of his plays/sonnets?!?!?!?!?

Haphazard, you have just made baby Jesus cry.

Thank you CC.

It's a point that NFs just can't persuade NTs on.

 

[Jack Flak]

Perhaps a point which NFs are resistent to is that his OVERWHELMING GENIUS might not have to be the topic of every sentence spoken of the man.

 

[Haphazard]

This I cannot agree with. So the Garfield comic has potentially as much depth as Hamlet? You're not just disagreeing with me, but the whole literary establishment!

I do that sometimes.

They are, after all, the ones who force me to CITE my own goddamned OPINIONS.

Perhaps a point which NFs are resistent to is that his OVERWHELMING GENIUS might not have to be the topic of every sentence spoken of the man.

Okay, I'm going to have to go around and proclaim Jack Flak's overwhelming genius all the time now.

 

[dynamiteninja]

Iambic pentameter, IAMBIC PENTAMETER?!?!?!?

This is why Shakespeare's works were/are deemed as being so genius, and *NOT* because of the actual content of his plays/sonnets?!?!?!?!?

Haphazard, you have just made baby Jesus cry.

NTs just don't get WS and never will. That's why I think God I'm an NF.

 

[Haphazard]

NTs just don't get WS and never will. That's why I think God I'm an NF.

And this is exactly the sort of insistence I hold objection to.

 

[Salomé]

NTs just don't get WS and never will. That's why I think God I'm an NF.

WOW! WOW! and WOW!
And they call us arrogant!

 

[dynamiteninja]

WOW! WOW! and WOW!
And they call us arrogant!

I've only called you arrogant bluemonday.

And the previous statement does fall under the irony umbrella once again.