The "I Hate Shakespeare" Thread.

[JBI]

But there is still the question, yet unadressed, if Shylock's villainy stems, as shown by Shakespeare, from he being Jewish, that is, a genetic thing, or from something else, mainly provocation. There is nothong to suggest, as I have noted with the Jessica example, that Shakespeare implied a genetic barbarism, yet how then can he be antisemitic? Because Shylock loses, and he is the only minority, or visible (that is, physically) on stage?

You'd get more calling Charlotte Bronte a racist. She at least burns the Creole woman alive in what Frye called Tyrannical Teleology. Shakespeare merely has him humiliated, for no other reason than that the crowd wished him so, showing a layer of irony, given that the judges at Shylock's trial resemble the attitude of the audience, and seeing Shylock fall provides the same emotion, or even more so, given that we know Portia is there hiding, and really tricking him. Either way, really, no one can be certain with Shakespeare, as we know virtually nothing of use about him. And beyond that, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth, As You Like It, Henry IV p1 + p2, etc. more than show his skill as a writer.

He is going nowhere, his reputation is earned because quite clearly, nothing of his time came even close. I do not consider Shakespeare to have written the greatest work of literature - I personally give that title, of all I've read, to Dante, but what I do think is that in general, he was one of the top, if not the top all around writers, and, given what he had to work with, is all the more impressive.

The term overrated itself is kind of stupid - no one is overrated, really, as rating is relative to the opinion, which in itself causes the rating, meaning the term overrated doesn't make much sense, unless one assumes that ones own personal ratings are far superior to consensus, or that the consensus has made a mistake. The term is thrown around, but really means nothing - ratings are there because those who make them believe such are do, thereby making the rating just a rating, and not possibly an overrating, given that it was meant. If one made an argument "Shakespeare is x, or Shakespeare is bad, or Shakespeare's style is terrible, or Shakespeare's..." then we could have a discussion. But a simple internet consensus on whether or not he fits a nonsensical word is a mere waste of time.

[Virgil]

But there is still the question, yet unadressed, if Shylock's villainy stems, as shown by Shakespeare, from he being Jewish, that is, a genetic thing, or from something else, mainly provocation. There is nothong to suggest, as I have noted with the Jessica example, that Shakespeare implied a genetic barbarism, yet how then can he be antisemitic? Because Shylock loses, and he is the only minority, or visible (that is, physically) on stage?

I've heard that case made. To be honest I see nothing that Shakespeare was anything but Christian.

Edit: I miss read your comment. I thought you were saying that Shakespeare was Jewish. Disregard my response here.

You'd get more calling Charlotte Bronte a racist. She at least burns the Creole woman alive in what Frye called Tyrannical Teleology. Shakespeare merely has him humiliated, for no other reason than that the crowd wished him so, showing a layer of irony, given that the judges at Shylock's trial resemble the attitude of the audience, and seeing Shylock fall provides the same emotion, or even more so, given that we know Portia is there hiding, and really tricking him. Either way, really, no one can be certain with Shakespeare, as we know virtually nothing of use about him. And beyond that, Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth, As You Like It, Henry IV p1 + p2, etc. more than show his skill as a writer.

I haven't read the play in the last year or so, but it's not just the crowd that ridicules him. Shakespeare endows him with the typical steroetype of Jewish "love of money." Doesn't he choose money over his daughter? I can't quite remember. But his own daughter abandons him.

He is going nowhere, his reputation is earned because quite clearly, nothing of his time came even close. I do not consider Shakespeare to have written the greatest work of literature - I personally give that title, of all I've read, to Dante, but what I do think is that in general, he was one of the top, if not the top all around writers, and, given what he had to work with, is all the more impressive.

On this we completely agree.

[bazarov]

Why is it so hard to accept that someone doesn't like Shakespeare? I don't get that.
Hamlet is really great, Othello is very good, but The Tempest is really bad, and I gave up on Henrik VI.

[wessexgirl]

Virgil, I never said Shylock was a "flawed hero", I said that about Othello.

I still maintain that Shakespeare was only "shining a mirror onto his world" with regards to how Jews were treated. I haven't read the play for a long time, but I can remember not being enamoured with Jessica, and her behaviour, or even the rest of the characters. They are not likeable. As I said, if people can't get empathy from Shylock's speech, as to why he is how he is, then they're missing the point.

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

With the references to being kicked and spat upon, and the fact that usury was the only profession open to Jews, which Christians like Bassanio and Antonio have made use of when it suits them, how can those who do, think that Shakespeare is being anti-semitic? I don't feel any sympathy with the rest of the cast. And surely today of all days, Holocaust Memorial Day, that speech should be plastered on walls around the world.

[Nightshade]

I wouldn't use the word anti semitic, mainly because anti semitism differs from anti Judaism ( which is what I think is what you are talking about really) and the general consensus among academic is as far as I can tell that anti semitism with notable exceptions tends to refer to 19th century onwards.

But as to his anti Judaism I don't think you can argue that really. Id go more for the whole he was xenophobic, ethnophobic and what ever fear of someone who is of a different religion is. And its not surprising considering the political goings on of the era, I'm fairy sure I read somewhere once that along with association, with the catholics and the Scots Liz the first had a tendency to chop the heads off people who associated with Jews and Arabs , Muslims and Spaniards. . He would obviously need to reinforce his lack of sympathy to stay in favour with her. And if he was really Marlowe he really really didn't need to get into trouble with the crown again.

I am not the greatest hater or lover of Shakespeare, although admittedly Ive begun to like some aspects of Shakespeare more since Ive stopped having it forced on me. The thing I do hate though is the assumption that all Shakespeare is good because it was written by Shakespeare, or that Shakespeare is great simply because he is widely known read and studied.
And he wasn't original not that it isn't acceptable to turn over already known stories and either fictionise them or retell them, but he didn't pull the stories out of nowhere except for a Midsummer night's dream ( which is probably my least favourite ).

I also think that Shakespeare is meant to be watched not read, that they were never meant to be more than enetertainment, or prehaps occasionally slight political diggs, or even tools. But 'literature' no. I think that there is a whole level of shakepeare lost because its nt preformed in the same conditions as it would ave originlly and I would pay alot of good money to go see shakespeare renacted by an all male,cast with no lighting no modern sound effects. ( ok to clarify before I get myself in trouble concider the irony in As you like it of Rosalind being a boy pretending to be a girl pretending to be a boy roleplaying the part of a girl. Or in othello the line about being 'far more fair than black' or the one about his colour only skin deep, whne in fact he literally was a man with a bit face paint on his face quite literally far more white than black) Im not saying do away with women and non whites in shakespearen plays Im saying I would occasionally like to see shakespare as it would have been!

[kiki1982]

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

Yes, that was just what I was thinking when this argument up. That was the most touching moment in that whole play.
Where the Christian who granted his pound of flesh for collateral gets almost punished for his imprudence and pride (wanting to lend when he has no money and is worrying about his ship being lost at sea), the Jew is denied his collateral and the Christian is acquitted on the grounds of a mere sentence in the contract, by a woman of all people...
Indeed, given that Jews were reduced over time by the Christians willingly, to lending them money, the term anti-semitism does not the same meaning as now.
Nevertheless, maybe The Merchant of Venice is rather a sneer towards the Christians than towards the Jew. Because it is the Christian himself who voluntarily puts his flesh and his life on the line and then dares to complain about it and when the Christian then gets saved, this is not enough, but he even takes all the Jew's possessions to take revenge... Then the Jew is forced to convert to Christianity, as if that is a better example, given what just happened... If you ask me, it is not the Jew who is the avaricious one here...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Originally Posted by Neely
OK, let's leave the big E out of it, but don't forget (as I am sure you haven't) that Shakespeare was loved by the working classes of his time and still is.

Originally Posted by Atheist
Are you sure about the current situation?

I'd like to see some figures on how many working class families either read or go to the theatre for Shakespeare compared to the higher decile groups. I know from personal experience that tickets to Shakespeare plays sell best in affluent areas, so while I acknowledge that they started out as everyman's theatre, those days are long gone.

You see this is one of the tragedies of Shakespeare, the fact that he has become to be associated with the middle or upper classes for many reasons. I am not arguing that he isn’t in some respects, but he is still and can be still loved by all segments of society if given the opportunity to do so. This opens up a whole new area of how Shakespeare is studied in school and when is the correct time to do so and so on, which is another matter for another time perhaps. Yes it takes time and dedication to read and understand literature and Shakespeare properly, but class need not be a barrier to this acquisition at all.

The cost of theatre tickets to see Shakespeare in the UK is not that expensive in comparison to other areas, say football matches. You would probably pay around £25/£30 to see the RSA perform Shakespeare in London or Stratford upon Avon, which is about equal to most football matches in the Premier League and Championship. Other productions of Shakespeare can be much cheaper and almost as good, certainly for the layman, so to speak. Cost is not the barrier then in reality here. His plays if bought individually to be read or even as a collection cost about as much as a four-pack of lager. Cost again is not an issue for the working classes (and when I use the term “working classes” I place myself amongst them.) This social stigma and myth which surrounds Shakespeare as floating in the echelons of the “higher orders” is a myth that needs breaking.

[mortalterror]

Virgil, I never said Shylock was a "flawed hero", I said that about Othello.

I still maintain that Shakespeare was only "shining a mirror onto his world" with regards to how Jews were treated. I haven't read the play for a long time, but I can remember not being enamoured with Jessica, and her behaviour, or even the rest of the characters. They are not likeable. As I said, if people can't get empathy from Shylock's speech, as to why he is how he is, then they're missing the point.

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands,
organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases,
heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter
and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If
you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?
And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the
rest, we will resemble you in that.

With the references to being kicked and spat upon, and the fact that usury was the only profession open to Jews, which Christians like Bassanio and Antonio have made use of when it suits them, how can those who do, think that Shakespeare is being anti-semitic? I don't feel any sympathy with the rest of the cast. And surely today of all days, Holocaust Memorial Day, that speech should be plastered on walls around the world.

The characters in any comedy are all models of misbehaviour. You aren't supposed to like and emulate them. They are avaricious, greedy, lustful, spendthrift, violent, and stupid. They get into trouble for the dumbest reasons, and then try to get out of trouble by the dumbest methods. The traditional stick in the mud, the stuffy old dean, the boss, the pompous soldier/cop, the clerk, are all just doing their jobs and being responsible adults. I can see why if you don't realize something is a comedy you would empathize with them and say, "Why are they picking on that poor man?"

You probably sympathize with Olivia's steward Malvolio in Twelfth Night. He's just trying to run a respectable house and is made the butt of jokes, pranks, ridicule, abuse, and in the end is cast out like a scape goat because he cannot find it in himself to join the revels. What was his crime? Nothing in our world, with our rules. But in the comedic world, where things are turned upside down, that stands for justice. We laugh because of the incongruity, because things don't make sense, are not nice, are patently unjust, unreasonable. To do otherwise would be to cry.

To discuss The Merchant of Venice in terms of racism is to give it a very modern interpretation not intended by Shakespeare. The theme is there, but it's a minor theme incidental to the play. We do the same thing when we talk about Huckleberry Finn. It's a comedy and we ought to be discussing the jokes, and did they work, and is the incident where they paint Jim blue effective? How does he parody genre fiction here and there? But we don't talk about that because it doesn't suit our interests. What the modern era is fascinated by is race relations, and it will seize upon any opportunity to do so.

[wessexgirl]

The characters in any comedy are all models of misbehaviour. You aren't supposed to like and emulate them. They are avaricious, greedy, lustful, spendthrift, violent, and stupid. They get into trouble for the dumbest reasons, and then try to get out of trouble by the dumbest methods. The traditional stick in the mud, the stuffy old dean, the boss, the pompous soldier/cop, the clerk, are all just doing their jobs and being responsible adults. I can see why if you don't realize something is a comedy you would empathize with them and say, "Why are they picking on that poor man?"

You probably sympathize with Olivia's steward Malvolio in Twelfth Night. He's just trying to run a respectable house and is made the butt of jokes, pranks, ridicule, abuse, and in the end is cast out like a scape goat because he cannot find it in himself to join the revels. What was his crime? Nothing in our world, with our rules. But in the comedic world, where things are turned upside down, that stands for justice. We laugh because of the incongruity, because things don't make sense, are not nice, are patently unjust, unreasonable. To do otherwise would be to cry.

To discuss The Merchant of Venice in terms of racism is to give it a very modern interpretation not intended by Shakespeare. The theme is there, but it's a minor theme incidental to the play. We do the same thing when we talk about Huckleberry Finn. It's a comedy and we ought to be discussing the jokes, and did they work, and is the incident where they paint Jim blue effective? How does he parody genre fiction here and there? But we don't talk about that because it doesn't suit our interests. What the modern era is fascinated by is race relations, and it will seize upon any opportunity to do so.

The fact that I feel sympathy towards Shylock, and dislike the other characters is important. If Shakespeare is being accused of being anti-semitic, then I think it's fair to defend him by showing how he portrays all of the characters. The skill of the writer is paramount here in making us feel a certain way. If he wanted us to go along with the "anti-semitism", he would let us feel nothing but empathy with Shylock's tormentors, and nothing but revulsion for Shylock. Surely the fact that Shakespeare doesn't do that proves his intentions, and makes it clear he was a more humane person than some are alleging.

[The Atheist]

Yes it takes time and dedication to read and understand literature and Shakespeare properly, but class need not be a barrier to this acquisition at all.

Couple of things in that:

Everyone who reads and understands Shakepeare won't necessarily love him, or even like him.

Why is it that the makeup of Shakespeare fans is largely limited to academia and people of high-decile groups? Why don't the hoi polloi read and attend Shakespeare?

The cost of theatre tickets to see Shakespeare in the UK is not that expensive in comparison to other areas, say football matches.

Agree; I don't think cost is an issue - the people who buy football tickets probably go to 5 or 6 games a year, but don't see a Shakespeare play once.

This social stigma and myth which surrounds Shakespeare as floating in the echelons of the “higher orders” is a myth that needs breaking.

Is it? I find it hard to see how it's not the case in 2009, and it seems to me that it's been the case for at least a century.

[Janine]

Oh Atheist, I'm going to have to disagree. If you compare the level of drama and poetry of his peers in his era, you will see Shakespeare is head and shoulders above them. There never was anything quite like Shakespeare before him and frankly until the novel developed to capture the full psychological fullness of a character, there wasn't anyone to match him for centuries. As to the anti-semitism, the others have made an arguement that he wasn't. Not sure they are considering how anti-semitic Aaron of Titus Andronicus comes across. So Shakespeare was a man of his times. How is one to transcend certain things? No one in my opinion captures humanity as well as Shakespeare in his prime. And not just for one or two plays. There are literally a dozen to 18 plays that are shear masterpieces.

I totally agree with Virgil on this one. He could not have stated this any better. Thanks, V!. Especially about the masterpieces, I agree whole-heartedly.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Everyone who reads and understands Shakepeare won't necessarily love him, or even like him.

See I find all those people who don't appreciate Shakespeare somewhat odd, I don't really trust them - like the University tutor I have avoided and will continue to do so. I don't see how you can be a true lover of literature and not appreciate Shakespeare on some level at least, I don't care how elitist that may sound, it's how I feel. I simply don't really trust their judgement.

Why is it that the makeup of Shakespeare fans is largely limited to academia and people of high-decile groups? Why don't the hoi polloi read and attend Shakespeare?

This goes back to the educational systems I suppose which would vary between country, even within each country. It is a big question and not one that can be answered fully in a short paragraph. It probably heads us down the political system path again, which is probably not a wise street to drive down and conversations of mass culture. Why do you think the so called "hoi polloi" don't engage in Shakespeare, even if that is huge a sweeping statement which you are making?

Is it? I find it hard to see how it's not the case in 2009, and it seems to me that it's been the case for at least a century.

I don't quite get what you mean here. I was speaking about the myth that Shakespeare is only for the upper echelons as it were. Intelligent people from all walks of life often tell me that they don't/can't/won't understand Shakespeare despite the fact that they might not have tried for over a decade, if at all. I am speaking generally about "non-readers" in this case, they assume that Shakespeare is not for them. This is the myth that needs breaking. I have seen below average children "get" Shakespeare's language after actually trying, figure that actually reading it instead of whining! I don't know, I'm not out to convert the world here, but whenever people come at me with such nonsense (I can't "get" Shakespeare) I say "why?"

Of course we are not talking about "non-readers" (non-students) attitudes we are talking about well read people not liking Shakespeare, which is, just sort of weird. Cross the street to avoid them.

[The Atheist]

See I find all those people who don't appreciate Shakespeare somewhat odd, I don't really trust them - like the University tutor I have avoided and will continue to do so. I don't see how you can be a true lover of literature and not appreciate Shakespeare on some level at least, I don't care how elitist that may sound, it's how I feel. I simply don't really trust their judgement.

I find that a bit odd.

Why do you think the so called "hoi polloi" don't engage in Shakespeare, even if that is huge a sweeping statement which you are making?

Yes, it is a sweeping statement, but I think it's largely correct. Why don't they? That's what I asked you!



I suspect that some of it is the typical resistance to things that are seen as elitist, but mostly because they don't like Shakespeare.

I don't quite get what you mean here. I was speaking about the myth that Shakespeare is only for the upper echelons as it were. Intelligent people from all walks of life often tell me that they don't/can't/won't understand Shakespeare despite the fact that they might not have tried for over a decade, if at all. I am speaking generally about "non-readers" in this case, they assume that Shakespeare is not for them. This is the myth that needs breaking. I have seen below average children "get" Shakespeare's language after actually trying, figure that actually reading it instead of whining! I don't know, I'm not out to convert the world here, but whenever people come at me with such nonsense (I can't "get" Shakespeare) I say "why?"

This is a different subject, because people who haven't got what Shakespeare intended have merely missed the point. There's no doubt that it's a lot easier to read a Mills & Boon than Shakespeare, so laziness is going to be a factor.

If it's a myth that Shakespeare is for the elite, where does the myth come from?

Of course we are not talking about "non-readers" (non-students) attitudes we are talking about well read people not liking Shakespeare, which is, just sort of weird. Cross the street to avoid them.

I'll let you know when I'm coming the other way.

[Niamh]

Nightie i think you made so very good points there!.
Personally i have a respect and an appriciation for Shakespeare. I really do like many of his plays but in truth, i would not say i truely love him, for there are many of his plays that make me cringe! Loves Labour Lost being one of them.
I will not frown at anyone for not liking shakespeare. I can understand why he would not appeal to some, the same way Fantasy or romances dont appeal to all of us. And i definitely think there are more modern dramatists out there that out shine him. Brian Friel for example.

[JBI]

Shakespeare historically was well liked by both commoner and aristocrat. The reason it is mostly upper class people who like him today, can be for a few reasons. 1) detachment from language, which means he is harder to understand, and subsequently, b) because there is a strong correlation between education and income (money, class). Name one classic author who is generally better liked by the lower classes - it is hard to do. Even someone like Milton Acorn, the Canadian People's Poet only exists within academic and can-lit enthusiast circles today, despite his goal of "speaking to the people" and his socialist agenda.

I think, generally, if one looked, they would find the lower classes probably read less on average. And beyond that, if you look hard enough, you will realize that Shakespeare requires a relatively high amount of knowledge of the English language, and a lot of work.

It's as if you are calling John Clare an Elitist Poet because his biggest fan base is probably in Academia - nonsensical rubbish.