Say w00t if you dislike Shakespeare

[TheFernando]

I hope I don't offend anybody, but I really can't stand the works of William Shakespeare.  I've read quite a few of the plays (R & J, Hamlet, King Lear, The Tempest, A Midsummer's Night Dream, ect.) but found them somewhat mundane and lacking in several respects.  I don't think he's a terrible artist; I just don't see him in the light as most people.  Does anybody else agree?

[Radio Saturday]

I don't dislike Shakespeare; I just think that many of the plays can seem anticlimactic because the big action scene (i.e. the poisoned-sword fight in Hamlet) are stage directions. ("They fight." Oh, wow.) But I think my mind would be changed if I saw them performed, and performed well. But I can see how the characters would become fascinating to people. I also love some of the works that the Shakespearean influence has given us, like "He Knew He Was Right" by Anthony Trollope, parts of Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" and, of course, the climactic ending scene in D.'s own "The Idiot."  

[Canerican]

w00t

[MikeK]

Radio Saturday makes a great point about the stage directions.  People have to remember when they want to read Shakespeare that it's not going to be like novels.  The scenes that may make the biggest impact in novels may be, as R.S. pointed out, reduced to stage direction in Shakespeare.  (Raskolnikov's murders in C&P would have been stage directions).

Another obstacle to Shakespeare is the language.  Remember, he wrote in blank verse.  His plays were quite literally poetry.  So again, that will make it a very different experience for people who are used to reading prose - novels or short stories.

Because of those two principal reasons, people who want to give Shakespeare a try should be forewarned, even if they love reading books, that it will be a completely different experience trying to read Shakespeare - or as you put it Fernando, you will have to see him in a different light.

Yet still, I always encourage others to stick with Shakespeare since it took me a great long while to come around, but now I love his work.

[Canerican]

The only play of Shakespeares that I thoroughly enjoyed was the merchant of venice. I really like the social mesages, and some of the speeches and forshadowing are amogst the most profound. My favorite line of any book come from that play: "Hath not a Jew blood, if you prick him does he not bleed". I am quoting it from memory, but you get the point.  I love that particular quote because of the message it gives about the equality of men, and it is unbelievably perfect foreshadowing. And as MikeK said, I am reading it as a modern play, even as a modern novel, not as a poem...

[Worm]

WooT

That means I like Shakespeare.

Don't mess with geniuses.

[lerik]

 I think that so many people find it hard to read Shakespeare  and dislike him because his works are written in a language that hugely differs from modern english(that is if you read it in original) and because in Shakespearean times the society was very different too.But I personally like him.My favorite play is 'Hamlet'(my favorite play number 2 is "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" by Edward Albee,i like them both equally)

[poor knight]

Sorry, but I have to defend WS' honor here. Truly one has to see the plays to fully appreciate them. I know I do. But how one can not weep openly at the end of Lear or roll on the floor with laughter in Henry IV.I...

I go to Ashalnd for the Shakespeare Festival every year and have seen about 30 of his 37 plays at least once. The biggest challenge is finding a production where the actors have a clue about the language and a dramaturge who knows the nuances of the story.

I agree, reading the text without seeing the play is probably a lot like reading a screenplay without first seeing the movie. Imagine Taxi Driver....

                          Bickle
        You looking at me? You looking at me? You looking at me? You looking at me?

Give Branaugh's "Henry V" a shot then read it. Or Ian Mckellen's "Looking for Richard."

[TheGoldenFlamingo]

I think that so many people find it hard to read Shakespeare  and dislike him because his works are written in a language that hugely differs from modern english

What she said.

[Suvorov]

The problem with Shakespeare is not with the plays themselves but with the ways that Shakespeare is taught.

I remember how I was taught about Shakespeare during my school years: we were given a text, the teacher read throught it, we made notes and then maybe (if there was time) we watched one of the film adaptions on a tiny television in the middle of a classroom with 25+ bored children clustered around it. Hardly what you would call a magical experience.

I always enjoyed Shakespeare and the poetics of his language. However most of my friends (who shared the above educational experience, as have almost all British school children) detest him and would never read or watch one of his plays unless there was a modern adaptation of one on television.

Shakespeare cannot be appreciated if experienced in the manner I have just described. In order to appreciate Shakespeare, you have to go and see it performed by professional actors at a professional theatre. There is no other way. The roles of Shakespeare are too difficult to be entrusted to amateur actors and the scenic effects are too important to be entrusted to amateur theatres.

I am fortunate to live only one hour away from Stratford upon Avon and this year the Royal Shakespeare Company have been showing (for the first time ever I think) the complete works of Shakespeare (that includes all of the sonnets as well). I have been to see two plays they are showing as part of this Shakespeare marathon: Julius Caesar and King John. Both were very traditional productions, especially King John which was performed in the Swan theatre, an indoor reconstruction of what a Shakespearean theatre would have looked like. Only after seeing these two plays did I really appreciate the art and the genius of Shakespeare. The acting, the language, the location, the props, the production, the text...they all fuse together and produce the art form, the art of Shakespeare.

[lerik]

I think that so many people find it hard to read Shakespeare  and dislike him because his works are written in a language that hugely differs from modern english

What she said.

Sorry,what do you mean??
I have to agree with you Suvorov that to really appreciate Shakespeare,you need to watch his plays in the theatre.Hope that I can at some point.

[Childe Harold]

I disagree. The greatest thing about Shakespeare's plays, as with all great literature, is the depth of his characters' sentiments and the way they express them. Shakespreare is and will likely for evermore be unrivaled in both regards: both in aesthetic and philosophy. Few writers ever achieve both, and seldom to the degree he does. (Dostoevsky it must be said really only attained to philosophical greatness.)  

You don't really need to go to the theater to appreciate this; the language is right there for you on the page. In fact, if you do insist on going to the theater, you probably aren't able appreciate Shakespeare at all. The same more or less goes for all great plays.

[Radio Saturday]

In fact, if you do insist on going to the theater, you probably aren't able appreciate Shakespeare at all. The same more or less goes for all great plays.

I would beg to differ. For me, it's difficult to appreciate the language and ideas in a book or a play unless I'm already familiar with the story. It makes it easier because if I'm already familiar with the plot, then I don't have to try to figure out what's going on and can focus more on things like characterization, philosophy, et cetera.

[Childe Harold]

I understand. The first times I read Shakespeare plays I missed a lot of the action (too busy underling things). So I'd definetly suggest second readings of his plays as a more than good enough substitute for seeing them performed in the theater.

[MikeK]

Apropos of nothing, really; but if I don't use this bit of trivia on this thread, I can't imagine when in my life I'd be able to use it next:

Abraham Lincoln said that he prefered reading Shakespeare's tragedies, but seeing his comedies performed.

I wonder if others decide between reading and viewing in a similar way.  And where did that leave his history plays and romances?