What's so good about Shakespeare anyway?

[ajoe]

I really can't get over how Shakespeare is considered so great. First, nothing Shakespeare wrote is even English. More importantly, whatever he wrote lacks realism and completion. Take Julius Caesar. I remember one scene where the two enemies are about to fight. They talk, threaten, boast, and talk, and all of a sudden the fight is not even there anymore. How realistic is that? Then take Macbeth. In a good story, isn't it supposed to be explained somehow who the third murderer is and the old man Ross talks to? Now we're left to wonder all the mysteries in that story. I bet if someone in this century tries to imitate Shakespeare's, he's not gonna make it as a writer.

Now, it's not that I hate literature in general that I'm complaining about this guy, because I don't. I am a lover of literature in general and am saddened because modern literature is almost nonexistent. In fact, because I love literature so much I wonder why Shakespeare's works is under that section when I see them nothing as failures.

[Arteum]

How old are you, ajoe?

[ajoe]

I can see where this is going. I'm only 18, and thus can't really appreciate a great work when I see one.

[Blackadder]

First of all, Shakespeare was writing in English--the English of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Our language has changed a lot, for various reasons. Granted, Shakespeare is not the easiest person to read, but I really think it's well worth the effort. It could be worse after all. Trying reading the original Canterbury Tales.

One of the things that Shakespeare is most lauded for his his use of language. He can be rude and pungent and then turn around and give us the most achingly beautiful passages about love or give us chilling passages about death, revenge, jealousy...It goes on. His language is full of images and metaphors we still use today. For example (taken from a BBC website http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/teachers/literacy_7_11/word/newsid_2952000/2952673.stm):

A dish fit for the gods - Julius Caesar
A foregone conclusion - Othello
A laughing stock - The Merry Wives of Windsor
A sorry sight - Macbeth
All that glitters is not gold - The Merchant of Venice
All's well that ends well - All's Well That Ends Well
As dead as a doornail - Henry VI
As pure as the driven snow - The Winter's Tale / Macbeth
At one fell swoop - Macbeth
Bloody minded - Henry VI
Cold comfort - The Taming of the Shrew
The dogs of war - Julius Caesar
Eaten out of house and home - Henry V, Part 2
Fair play - The Tempest
Fancy free - A Midsummer Night's Dream
Flesh and blood - Hamlet
For ever and a day - As You Like It
Green-eyed monster - Othello
High time - A Comedy of Errors
I have not slept one wink - Cymbeline
I will wear my heart upon my sleeve - Othello
In a pickle - The Tempest
In my mind's eye - Hamlet
In stitches - Twelfth Night
In the twinkling of an eye - The Merchant Of Venice
Lay it on with a trowel - As You Like It
Lie low - Much Ado About Nothing
Love is blind - The Merchant Of Venice
Milk of human kindness - Macbeth
More fool you - The Taming of the Shrew
Mum's the word - Henry VI, Part 2
Neither here nor there - Othello
Send him packing - Henry IV
Set your teeth on edge - Henry IV
The Queen's English - The Merry Wives of Windsor
There's method in my madness - Hamlet
This is the short and the long of it - The Merry Wives of Windsor
Too much of a good thing - As You Like It
Tower of strength - Richard III
Vanish into thin air - Othello

There's more, but I'm going to stop there.

I know that a lot of the stories have holes in them, but opera (frankly) is any amount worse, plot-wise). There's also the fact that we don't have any copies of the plays in Shakespeare's own hand. The famous First Folio (published 1623) was actually complied by a group of actors seven years after the author's death. The plays were only written down in temporary copies with on character's lines and ques on it, nothing more. Shakspeare did sell a few plays in his lifetime--Hamlet for example. But not all of them, not by a long shot. This may be why there are plot and character problems in the texts we have today.

I have a question for you, ajoe. Have you only read these few plays, or have you seen any performed? If you only read them, you're not getting the full effect. Try reading them aloud to yourself. It really helps to hear the words spoken, you get more of a sense of their power and flow.

If you've seen a couple of plays performed, well, I find it hard to get good productions. You might try:

Midsummer Night's Dream, released in 1999
Hamlet, released 1991 (The Branagh version is technically sound, but it's boring. I prefer the Gibson version)
Richard III, released 1995

There's other good versions out there, but they escape me just now.

Oh, and remarks about realism--this is not film. Imagine trying to stage battles on a small stage with spectators actually sitting around the edges (only nobles could afford to sit this close, but they really did). Also, Shakespeare actually played around with reality and theatre. There are moments in Midsummer Night's Dream and [/i]Hamlet[/i] where the lines between the reality of the characters and the reality of the viewers intersect.

I remember having a hard time with Shakespeare when I was younger, but I have grown to love him as I learned more about the world that created him and his work, and especially his language.

[ajoe]

Just wondering... if you could choose, though, would you rather have Shakespeare never existed? Because, you know, he did create a lot :o of new vocab (and for students who have exams on them this is not necessarily a good thing)

[Blackadder]

No, I am glad that Shakespeare lived and that he got a chance to write.

And, as for adding new words and ideas to our language, good on him. :D One of the things I love the most about English is its richness, not to mention its adaptability.

[gatsbysghost]

right on blackadder. Shakespeare is not to be read. I started trying to read him when I was 13. Blah! I hated him, until an acting troupe visited my high school and did Taming of the Shrew. Hilarious.

[chrissy]

If you don't fully understand a play you read try reading some essays on
it. It may point out lots of things that you didn't notice the first time, then
try reading the play again. Reading Shakespeare isn't easy but as most
people here will tell you it's a very rewarding experience when you get the hang of it. Try to enjoy the different language and new words!

Chrissy

[Serial Experiments Lain]

Shakespeare is probably the most difficult dramatist to understand for a few reasons: First the language of the 16th century are quite detached from modern English, Secondly, Shakespeare's use of symbolism is not always clear and obvious. For example, cite Ophelia's use of flowers before her suicide. There are still debates about the significance of those flowers, and how they apply to the person they are given. Also, keep in mind that most shakespeare, (his sonnets excluded), were meant to be performed, not read. The meaning an actor gives to his or her character can be lost to the reader.
However, I digress. Shakespeare is important to the understanding of western literature for many reasons. A. He has stood the test of time, and has not been forgotten. B. Some critics would argue (particularly Harold Bloom) would argue that shakespeare redefined the way people understood human psychology, and was able to probe deeper into the human psyche then any author before him. C. Shakespeare is universial, not in language, but in themes. Once one has surpased the trapings of language, it is not hard to understand the various human themes shakespeare touches upon in his works. Shakespeare, though he may not have intended it, was not just a wonderful playright, he was very intuitive when it came to the human spirit. Thus, a great deal of his works still can effect the modern reader, and still influences literature today.

[Kendall]

I love Shakespeare. I love the whole analysing process that you go through whilst reading it, too.
It's all in your opinion, though. I love all literature. And the whole thing about it not being in English is untrue.
Look at JRR Tolkien I mean, he has created a whole world. His imagination expanded widely and took the world on a extroidanary adventure. It is timeless!
The same with Shakespeare, too.

[AbdoRinbo]

I love that avatar.

[Sindhu]

I started reading Shakespeare when I was 12 and I loved him both then and now. And I'm from India and so am not even a native speaker of English. Obviously he must have written in a language which can be understood if one makes the effort, even if one chooses not to call it English! As for the possibility of Shakespeare not having existed, personally I find that horrible to contemplate. This has nothing to do with my feelings towards contemporary literature- I enjoy it and my field of specialization is post-colonial theory. I firmly beleive that the old and the new can and should coexist. It is not advisable to give up on an author just beause he is not immediately accessible, hardly any of the Moderns or Post-moderns would be read in that case. I think Shakespeare is a writer who will certainly repay the effort one putsinto reading his works.
That said, I would ike to add that I wish the hype of Shakespeare could be downplayed. He is an author who can survive on his own merits and it is indescribably off putting to be told ad nauseum that "you are dealing with the greatest dramatist the world has ever seen" and so on and so forth. I don't think I would ever have enjoyed Shakespeare as much as I do if I hadn't started reading him on my own, without waiting to be "taught" in the conventional fashion. This is one instance where advertising has clearly had a negative fallout.

[Kendall]

I love that avatar.

If you're talking to me, thank you.

[reader]

Just wanted to second the previous advice to read essays about the plays. A great place to start (or continue) would be Harold Bloom's Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human. It covers every single play. Bloom eloquently illustrates just how influential Shakespeare has been to Western literature and thought. His essay's also really make you want to read the plays.

Also, for those who are new to Shakespeare and who are having trouble digesting the language, I think a great work to start with would be with a Midsummer Night's Dream. It is perhaps the easiest and accessible of the plays to read, but also one of the most beautiful and important. Probably a better introduction then the traditional High School staples of Julius Caesar or Romeo and Juliet.

[AbdoRinbo]

That's the only avatar I can truthfully say looks tastey.

[Sindhu]

Just wanted to second the previous advice to read essays about the plays. A great place to start (or continue) would be Harold Bloom's Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human.
I'd like to second that reccomendation emphatically. Bloom's book is a delight to read in itself, quite apart from being a real incentive to go on to the plays.

[fayefaye]

i don't think much of shakespeare either. i read julius caeser and didn't think much of it. apparently it was supposed to be a comedy, which is strange because they virtually all died, or killed thenselves-which is something his characters always seem to do. i'm no expert on it though-i studied romeo and juliet, but julius caeser's the only one i've read!! anyway, i don't think he bothered to expand enough on his characters emotions and personality and experiences for it to be deep and meaningful instead of melodramatic. but i am just an idiot spouting a self-righteous opinion of something i know nothing about after all. i don't think u can wish he never existed at all though, because no matter what you think of his writing, u must admit he made a HUGE contribution to literature and the human language in general. he created a lot of great quotes, and maybe if i read more of his plays i'd like them, because the sheer power of his plays is what's kept them going all this time-the power of his language.

[Jay]

I like Shakespeare's works.

You're not an idiot Fayefaye. That you have your opinoin is in no way a sign that you're dumb or something.

And I'm glad Shakespeare lived. Even though I have more work do be done at school, because next term we're going to study Hamlet. But then so we are going to do The Scarlet Letter, Moll Flanders and more I can't remember just now. If the authors didn't live, we shouldn't have to learn about their works, sure, but we would have much less good things to read... And probably would have to learn about awful stuff. This way we (or at least I) get to study something nice.

[IWilKikU]

I would like to reiterate that watching a shakespeare production is much more entertaining than reading one, but even better is acting in one. I always enjoyed the bard's plays, but I never truly appreciated how incredibly deep they are until I had the oppertunity to play in Hamlet. That gave a world of insite to what shakespeare was trying to say about human nature.

[Jay]

Well, a little off topic:
IWilKikU, who did you portray in Hamlet?
( And no, you won't come even near me, so sorry, no kicking... :D ;) )

[IWilKikU]

I was Claudius. It was just a collegiate performance, but it still gave me a much better understanding of the play

[fayefaye]

i'd love to watch a shakespeare prod. never have though. cry

[Armand]

you're right Blackadder.Shakespeare may not be an easy read for all.but if you feel the message is important enough,trudging thru it is worth it to get to the end result.believe me.i would have have to say the hardest read for me ever is John Updike.ive had two books of his for ages and have never finished either.(Couples And Witches Of Eastwicke).now he is REALLY hard to get into.have patience with it ajoe,its worth it.

Get Busy Living Or Get Busy Dying-Stephen King:Rita Hayworth And Shawshank Redmption.

Two Roads Diverged In A Wood,And I,I Took The One Less Traveled By.And That Has Made All The Difference.-The Road Not Taken:Robert Frost.

[Ace42]

Shakespeare is of great importance to the modern world. Some of his "lesser" plays suck, but when you consider how many there are of them, that is understandable. Look at any Director, and ask yourself if he has not produced a film that is crappy.

All of the commercially available editions of Shakespeare's plays that I have EVER come across have been in modern English. Although I have had a look at some of the unedited 16th century texts for purely academic reasons, I can safely say you'd find them significantly harder to read than you do the ones you are probably more familiar with. Consider it half-way between Shakespeare as you know it, and Chaucer's middle English.

As any literary scholars here can testify, Chaucer's middle English is relatively easy (compare that to the Petersbrough chronicle, for example) to follow middle English, and Anglo-Saxon is about as challenging again.

If you fancy a challenge, read "The Dream of the Rood" in the original Old English, and then come back and say "Shakespeare's hard"

I can't think of any Shakespeare play that doesn't have at least one bit in it that justifies the epithet "brilliant."

From the first post, I would surmise that the individual is not very familiar with dramatic conventions contemporary to Shakespeare. While this might seem "boring" and "beside the point" to some, I personally find it comparably interesting to the texts, and as it makes them more readable, and the implications therein more sophisticated, certainly useful.

I think the MAJOR fault in weighing up an Elizabethan play is placing too much importance on the *story* - at that point the Narrative was very much beside the point. Most of "the bard's" plays are based around borrowed material. Due to the lack of copyright laws at the time, polts were stolen remorselessly, and often a playwrite would find his idea on show at other theatres.

The brilliance of Shakespeare is in the language. Rhetoric was comparable to the arias of Opera today, IE the plot was merely a vehicle for the 'music'. People went to listen to the rhetoric, not just see a sword fight, etc.

Also, the context of the plays are important, as Elizabethan England is a very different world to the one which any of us live in (some more than others for the ahem 'foreigners' posting here) and as such a casual reader might overlook something significant and pointed, or else put too much emphasis on something which back then would've been common-place and thus of no particular interest.

Lastly (it is late, or rather, VERY VERY early here, so I will have to sum up) a 'novice' Shakespeare reader will often fail to appreciate that he is reading a play, and thus a lot of the technical significance and difficulties in performing a play will be overlooked. When, for example, a character is going on about how it is blacker than a sooty cloth down a well, it is not because Shakespeare is going on, but because the audience needs to know why an actor walking around a stage in direct sunlight in the middle of the day can't see the object 3 feet from him. Likewise, the reason why long diatribes about romance are so important is because at the time, women were not allowed to act. Thus, no boobs or hanky-panky could be acted (well, that is not strictly true, as Stoppard points out in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead - itself reason enough for Shakespeare-not-writing to be abhorent) thus language was the only way to convey the emotion.

I could go on about pioneering special effects, etc but it is late.

Hope this is even a little bit informative. If so, I may continue my ramblings onto the topic of the Globe theatre.

[trismegistus]

The brilliance of Shakespeare is in the language.
That's it in a nutshell. As with any artist, his brilliance is to be judged in how he uses his materials. We judge Michelangelo on how he crafted rock and paint, not on his subject matter or even the realistic accuracy of his work. (Any first year art student will tell you that the proportions of The Pieta are entirely wrong. Mary would stand about 9.5 feet tall if her thighs were as long as Michelangelo made them.)

Shakespeare's use of words is innovative, beautifully poetic, and infinitely careful. He is a master craftsman with language. Unfortunately this is the technical side of the art, the toughest for the neophyte to appreciate.

[Shea]

Hope this is even a little bit informative. If so, I may continue my ramblings onto the topic of the Globe theatre.

Hey, keep rambling! It's good stuff, and I wholeheartedly agree.

BTW, if anyone here wants a taste of the Old English language, check out my sig (minus the great eth, thorn, and ashe symbols as I couldn't get them to show up.)

I've always had a great love of books, but as I'm studying them seriously for grades, I'm finding that I enjoy them more when I have a background for the writer and the story. I think some people underestimate all that extra-textual stuff and really miss the point of the story, or play when they skip over it. All three of my Shakespeare proffs, have gone out of their way to have us read all those "piles of info" that other people run away from, just because it's more reading. It really makes it much easier and less stressfull when you have a background.

Ok, I'm done with my analysis of those who can't appreciate Shakespeare.

[Hummingbirdtat2]

I'm new to these boards, and I have to say this discussion is fantastic. I'm sure many Shakespeare novices have felt at one time or another the way our young friend here does, and the responses have been both informative and inspiring.

I must add, I think, that in addition to Shakespeare's genuis being language; it is as much what that language conveys. His insight, his understanding of all things human is in many ways even more representative of his genuis than just his word usage alone. He uses the words in a way that conveys a message or emotion much more completely than our plebeian language of today. It never ceases to amaze me how I can read a passage a million or more times, and then suddenly, in an instant, the many layers and depth of meaning become brilliantly clear to me. There is in fact a quote in Midsummer Night's Dream that is extremely apropo for this discussion, and is one such passage that I fully understood only recently. In Act 2 Scene 2 Lysander says:

"The will of man is by his reason sway'd;
And reason says you are the worthier maid.
Things growing are not ripe until their season
So I, being young, till now ripe not to reason;
And touching now the point of human skill,
Reason becomes the marshal to my will"


Sometimes it helps me to read and reread, and then like some have suggested hear or see, and read again. Although it may seem tedious, like a chore, there are very few things that give me as much pleasure as fully comprehending one of The Bard's finer, deeper points in a moment of clarity.

[Luckdragon]

A group of actors played The Merchant of Venice in my school.

If I hadn't read the play, I doubt I would have understood half of what I did. The language is difficult to wade through.

Hamlet is amazing, though.

Okay, on a lighter note, here is a nice short story Isaac Asimov, a writer who is prolific as he is topping my charts as a favourite, wrote on Shakespeare. It's hilarious!

http://rsise.anu.edu.au/~daa/coffee/bard.html

[Miss Darcy]

Okay, guys, as I'm asleep as you already know, I won't go further than say that I love Shakespeare ever since I read the Charles & Mary Lamb Classic when I was very young, and have read/seen many of his plays (and a few sonnets) since then. So I love Shakespeare, that's established. He was a fantastic author who had a profound influence on anyone able to read and write today, and even those who have never opened one of his books. He left us almost 20 000 words, either of his own creation or that he simply was first to record.

And with the phrases, yes,


.........A dish fit for the gods - Julius Caesar
A foregone conclusion - Othello
A laughing stock - The Merry Wives of Windsor
A sorry sight - Macbeth
All that glitters is not gold - The Merchant of Venice
All's well that ends well - All's Well That Ends Well
As dead as a doornail - Henry VI............

And also "Being cruel to be kind" (from Hamlet), of course among others, as you stated. :)

Well, off to bed *refrains from ya-ya-yawwwnning* ;)

Mmselle. Darcy

[marnasworld]

Hi,,,no hard feelings,,,,

YOU HAVE NOT LIVED OR LOVED .....you are "missing the forest for the trees"....it is beautiful! You have to go to another level beyond the written word...through interpretation and emotion and possibly experience,,,but, I "GOT" these in 6th grade due to extensive reading as a child.

Shakespeare is not SHAKESPEARE for nothing!

[vanessarojas]

what u know about shakespeare

[CARLISLE]

You're viewing Shakespeare through the prism of modern culture -- which is your first problem. Shakespeare did something with drama, at the time, that few -- is any -- had done before. He took concepts, mostly already established works, and presented them in away that appealed to all. Shakespeare influences much of what you read today. It's hard to see this looking back, after the fact. Shakespeare’s genius goes much deeper than a clever plot. Like a symphony, Shakespeare created works of true depth, layer after layer of meaning all coming together to establish a common theme. Shakespeare was very simply, in a word, clever. Only but few have even come close to matching Shakespeare when it comes to the command of language and the manipulation of it.

[mrredman]

I think you are really just stumbling over the language. I am in my 50s. When I was about 12, I read my first Shakepeare play, and
our 6th grade class performed it. It happened to be "Hamlet". The language barrier was unbearable for a bunch of 12 year olds,
but because we were *acting* it out, we came to understand the story. And we saw what a great story it was.
In high school, I was *forced* to read a number of other works, Macbeth, Midsummer Night's Dream, and many others I can't remember.
I hated them all. The language of Shakespeare's time is darn hard for we 21st century Americans to understand.

But the stories... ahhhhh, the stories really are great. Force your way through the language barrier.


Fast forward 20 years.
One day in 1994, I went to the movies with my children to see Disney's newest creation, "The Lion King".
Right about the time the evil brother, Scar, kills King Mufasa, I sat there with delight realizing, "Wow! This is HAMLET!"

And that, sir, is why Shakespeare is so great - because he wrote stories so interesting and so clever, 500 years ago,
that people are still "borrowing" them now.