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. 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.