Say w00t if you dislike Shakespeare

[Suvorov]

In fact, if you do insist on going to the theater, you probably aren't able appreciate Shakespeare at all

Shakespeare's works are plays: they are meant to be seen performed on stage, that is their entire purpose. If you can't appreciate the plays on stage, then Shakespeare might as well be branded a failure. Reading them as flat texts will never convey the full effect of his artistry. The texts are little more than an aid to the plays: they are secondary to the visual experience.

(Dostoevsky it must be said really only attained to philosophical greatness.)

I disagree again. Dostoevsky is not only a philosopher of profound depth but also a great artist.

[Childe Harold]

Yes they are plays and, yes, they are meant to be performed on the stage. But this is not always feasible. So we make do with reading his plays like we would read any book. I can't believe you say the texts are secondary to the visual experience. This is of course the other way around. Visual experience!?? This isn't Hollywood Suvorov; this isn't the silver screen. You speak of Shakespeare as if he were just any other form of entertainment.

The chief beauty of Shakespeare is his language, i.e the text. The action is a backdrop for the language. This goes for most plays. It is in fact the defining characteristic of their genre.

[Suvorov]

Visual experience!??

A play is a visual experience.

This isn't Hollywood Suvorov; this isn't the silver screen. You speak of Shakespeare as if he were just any other form of entertainment.

Hardly. It is you who has compared Shakespeare to Hollywood, not I. I understand the great differences between a play and a film, although they both remain visual experiences.

The chief beauty of Shakespeare is his language

The majority of the language in Shakespeare is verse. Verse is meant to be spoken and heard in order for its true brilliance to be apparent. Poetry is about the sound of the language, not just the meaning of words. Thus, Shakespeare's language is at its most beautiful when it is performed.

[Childe Harold]

Yes films and plays are both visual experiences. The thing with plays is that their prodction, unlike that of films, is limited by the props on the set. Theatre then relies on the power of a script. So yes of course it is a visual experience in that the audience watches the play, but ultimately it is a literary experience. And in this case it is really more auditory than visual.

What you say of verse is true, and when reading Shakespeare, one is always welcome to declaim. But this doesn't mean you need an actor to do it does it? Sure it's nice but neccesary? No way.

[underworld men]

lol

Best of luck
Suvorov!

[Childe Harold]

Care to comment underworld?

[underworld men]

Care to comment underworld?

Already have stef.  

[Childe Harold]

Oh sorry I meant a real comment.

[Suvorov]

What you say of verse is true, and when reading Shakespeare, one is always welcome to declaim. But this doesn't mean you need an actor to do it does it? Sure it's nice but neccesary? No way.

I really do not think you can compare your own occasional declamations to having the lines acted out by professional thespians.

The texts are a good way to get to know the works but will they provide you with a complete picture of Shakespeare's art? No. You have to see the play performed by professionals. The langauge in Shakespeare is written to be spoken out loud, the actions are written to be performed, the time scale is designed to be carried out in the confines of a theatre production.

There is simply no way of escaping this. If you believe that Shakespeare cannot  truly be appreciated through theatre (as you stated earlier) then you must view Shakespeare to have been a failure: he set out to provide a dramatic experience first, a literary experience second (if at all).

[Childe Harold]

But I never said Shakespeare cannot be truly appreciated in the theater. This is a given. All I was saying was that you don't need to have the luxury of a theater production in order to appreciate him.

[underworld men]

Oh sorry I meant a real comment.

Apology accepted.

[omahaha]

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?

Very true, Honest Abe. Shakespeare's comedies seem to translate to the audience better when seen acted out. For me, anyway.

[Childe Harold]

Oh sorry I meant a real comment.

Apology accepted.

Oh no no it wasn't an apology. That's the last thing you and your offended pride will get from me.

Trust me.

[Suvorov]

Could the pair of you please keep your petty, childish squabbling off this thread? Thanks.

[underworld men]

Oh sorry I meant a real comment.

Apology accepted.

Oh no no it wasn't an apology. That's the last thing you and your offended pride will get from me.

Trust me.

OK I accept this.
But rather I will apologize to you.
There I am sorry, for stabbing your temperament. Forgive me.

But rather you believe it or not. I do not hate you. I harbour no such anxieties. I wish you no ill will. If only you would stop the hatred and anger. I must of course protect the board. So be it.