Why would you want to read a play?

[Jtolj]

I like to fancy myself an ammature playman, who does writing and acting, when I get the chance. I've read plays before, and one thing usually strikes me. This would be an awesome play. The whole concept of a written play is that it is a guide for actors, so they can perform the play and make it more enjoyable. Reading the play is baffling. Would you rather read a book or a detailed outline for a book?

Even as an actor, I only read what I must know for my part. Especially Shakespeare, reading a play is baffling.

Not only is his writing too wordy and antiquated to be highly avaliable to the modern reader, and not only are his plays 10x more enjoyable and exicting and fun, when they are performed, but the writer himself wrote the plays purely as guides, and not to be read as books. He wrote only the amount that he would need to put on the show.

It's just that, plays, unless edited to books or the excepetion, where the dialouge is too static to be read, are meant to be performed, and usually they're way more awesome as plays than as books.

[Shannanigan]

We read plays usually because the plays you want or have to learn about either are not being performed nearby or at a convenient time or we can't afford to go see performances of all of the plays we would like to see. Also, many great plays are very rarely performed nowadays, and the next best thing, since seing them performed is not available, is either to find the resources to perform it yourself, if you have that time and ability, or, if not, to read the play.

I enjoy reading plays, I love watching them, but reading is fun as well since you can take it at your own speed, picture it in your head and form character's appearances and demeanors for yourself. I've never really had a problem reading Shakespeare or any plays as long as I take it at a pace that I can understand...

[Jtolj]

We read plays usually because the plays you want or have to learn about either are not being performed nearby or at a convenient time or we can't afford to go see performances of all of the plays we would like to see. Also, many great plays are very rarely performed nowadays, and the next best thing, since seing them performed is not available, is either to find the resources to perform it yourself, if you have that time and ability, or, if not, to read the play.

I enjoy reading plays, I love watching them, but reading is fun as well since you can take it at your own speed, picture it in your head and form character's appearances and demeanors for yourself. I've never really had a problem reading Shakespeare or any plays as long as I take it at a pace that I can understand...But the movie?

[Charles Darnay]

Movies made from plays (especially Shakespearian ones) are too often done poorly.

Although, I don't mean to critisize your acting abilities, but not reading the entire play you are acting in is something an actor should never do. Everything a character does is done wihtin the context of the paly itself - everything is influeenced by what came before. Your character will not be convincing or realistic if you do not have the background of what is going on before he enters the stage.


As to reading plays, I generally like to read plays. The reasons stated above are good: usually the plays you want to see, you just can't. Readign plays are not that different than reading novels or poetry - some are written better than others depending on the author. The wordieness of the play is dependent on the author just as in a novel.

[Jtolj]

Well, in acting you just found out the story, when you are in a read-through. I suppose you're right, but I would rather watch it, as much as possible. Shakespeare, imo, is a terrible read, though. There are a bunch of awesome Shakespeare films, or if not, just for his good plays.

[stlukesguild]

Yes... most plays were written to be performed (Goethe's Faust may have been an exception). This does not mean that it cannot be well-appreciated as literature. Many early poems (The Iliad and The Odyssey, Beowulf, Parzival) were composed to be recited orally, but I have no problem appreciating them as books. Speaking specifically of Shakespeare, I might note that a great deal of the literature of this and earlier periods was published as we think of it. Not only were Shakespeare's plays not published in book form, but many of the great poems by the Aristocratic poets were not published for a wider audience. Until Ben Jonson, plays were not thought of as serious art worthy of publication (and then there was the need... with the lack of copywrite laws... to keep one's successful works from falling into the hands of the competition). The notion that Shakespeare is a "terrible read"... "too wordy"... and using an "antiquated" language not accessible to the modern reader is absurd, to say the least. One of the prime pleasures of Shakespeare (along with his marvelous development of character) is his absolutely gorgeous language. (Where's Petrarch's Love when you need her?) His works are no less accessible to a wide than that of many other great writers (Dante, Chaucer, Milton, Spencer, Blake... and surely Joyce, or Thomas Pynchon). Great art, however, has never been measured by how large an audience share it has. It often demands much of the reader/audience... but gives much in return. I have seen a number of Shakespeare's plays performed... live and in film... and I appreciated the experience. It gave me a different perspective, at times... but there is no way that I would ever give up on the reading of his marvelous writing... nor that of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Durrenmatt, Beckett, etc...

[ThruMyEyer73]

of course watching a play would b more enjoyable than reading a play script, scripts are written with room for the actor to give the line character and emotion. but it can b enjoyable to read a play ecspecially with a few people were each person reads their own lines.

[Wild Apple]

Well, in acting you just found out the story, when you are in a read-through. I suppose you're right, but I would rather watch it, as much as possible. Shakespeare, imo, is a terrible read, though. There are a bunch of awesome Shakespeare films, or if not, just for his good plays.


You're right in your point that Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed. This does not mean, however, that he didn't want his plays to be read. In fact, a few quartos of his plays were in print in his own lifetime. All of his plays were published very shortly after his death.

There are a couple more points I would disagree with you on.

1) A script is more than a "guide." While there is certainly room for interpretation, good directors/actors will not deviate from what they can honestly infer from the text. If you are doing this, you should try to fix that.

2)To say that Shakespeare's words are "too wordy and antiquated to be highly avaliable to the modern reader" is perhaps the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on this forum. No one mastered language or the human more than Shakespeare. His writing is eternal. I generally hate comments like this, but I feel I can say it when it comes to Shakespeare: If you haven't found something extremely appreciable in almost every one of his plays and poems, I severely question your ability to read and comprehend any literature.

I was very skeptical of your post. It is so outlandish that I think it may be a flame attempt, in which case I'd ask the moderators to take control. If it is legitimate, I am not forcing you to admit you love Shakespeare - I would just say don't abandon his writing. Give it an honest chance, and you will find it infinitley rewarding.

[Jtolj]

You're right in your point that Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed. This does not mean, however, that he didn't want his plays to be read. In fact, a few quartos of his plays were in print in his own lifetime. All of his plays were published very shortly after his death.

There are a couple more points I would disagree with you on.

1) A script is more than a "guide." While there is certainly room for interpretation, good directors/actors will not deviate from what they can honestly infer from the text. If you are doing this, you should try to fix that.

2)To say that Shakespeare's words are "too wordy and antiquated to be highly avaliable to the modern reader" is perhaps the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on this forum. No one mastered language or the human more than Shakespeare. His writing is eternal. I generally hate comments like this, but I feel I can say it when it comes to Shakespeare: If you haven't found something extremely appreciable in almost every one of his plays and poems, I severely question your ability to read and comprehend any literature.

I was very skeptical of your post. It is so outlandish that I think it may be a flame attempt, in which case I'd ask the moderators to take control. If it is legitimate, I am not forcing you to admit you love Shakespeare - I would just say don't abandon his writing. Give it an honest chance, and you will find it infinitley rewarding.I adore Shakespeare. It's just that alone as words, they are not much. They become awesome when they are acted and made violent!

[stlukesguild]

I adore Shakespeare. It's just that alone as words, they are not much. They become awesome when they are acted and made violent!

???!!!:eek2: They are not much as words???!!! But that is exactly what they are. I might note that the dramas... the actual narrative stories were often borrowed from other sources. Shakespeare's strength was never narrative inventiveness. Many writers are far greater at this. He is not a writer of great action. Where Shakespeare is unequalled is in his sheer invention of human characters... (characters which often undergo great development over the course of the play... and characters whose inner thoughts... whose emotions and motivations we are made audience to... characters who reveal the depths of the psychological workings leading up to and in response to events... drama... action)... It is there and in his use of the most exquisite... beautiful... and inventive language where he is so brilliant. He is not merely a playwrite... but a poet... THE poet. I can't think of a single poet in the English language who has penned as many unforgettable lines as Shakespeare. I can't think of a single poet in English (unless it is John Milton at his absolute finest) who can match many of the extended poetic dialogs, declarations, exclamations, and musings. To my mind, to suggest that Shakespeare is not much with words... not much worth reading... but makes for exciting drama, is not far removed from suggesting that Mozart's, Wagner's, Verdi's or Puccini's operas are fine to watch as dramas, but not worth much as music.

[Jtolj]

I adore Shakespeare. It's just that alone as words, they are not much. They become awesome when they are acted and made violent!

???!!!:eek2: They are not much as words???!!! But that is exactly what they are. I might note that the dramas... the actual narrative stories were often borrowed from other sources. Shakespeare's strength was never narrative inventiveness. Many writers are far greater at this. He is not a writer of great action. Where Shakespeare is unequalled is in his sheer invention of human characters... (characters which often undergo great development over the course of the play... and characters whose inner thoughts... whose emotions and motivations we are made audience to... characters who reveal the depths of the psychological workings leading up to and in response to events... drama... action)... It is there and in his use of the most exquisite... beautiful... and inventive language where he is so brilliant. He is not merely a playwrite... but a poet... THE poet. I can't think of a single poet in the English language who has penned as many unforgettable lines as Shakespeare. I can't think of a single poet in English (unless it is John Milton at his absolute finest) who can match many of the extended poetic dialogs, declarations, exclamations, and musings. To my mind, to suggest that Shakespeare is not much with words... not much worth reading... but makes for exciting drama, is not far removed from suggesting that Mozart's, Wagner's, Verdi's or Puccini's operas are fine to watch as dramas, but not worth much as music.
Those words when performed become something truly grand. Shakespeare is one of my favs, but I want to see his stuff. By not much as words, they as themselves are not so great in their purely written form, although they are a huge amount of great lines. The awesomeness come together in performance.

[vili]

I don't quite see the problem regarding reading plays. Or do you never "perform" the plays in your head while reading them? I personally stage every play I read, and indeed play all the parts myself (mentally, not physically, of course).

[Nightwalk]

Jtolj: I agree with your comments on Shakespeare. His tragedies are generally plodding and dull, unreadable as you aptly put it. First time I read it I didn't finish the book. I intend to give the man the benefit of the doubt and re-read his plays in the future but for me he excelled as a poet.

I guess one reads plays as a great play is just as good as any great poem or novel.

[stlukesguild]

Jtolj: I agree with your comments on Shakespeare. His tragedies are generally plodding and dull, unreadable as you aptly put it. First time I read it I didn't finish the book.

As Wild Apple noted in response to a similar post, such comments are much more likely to call the reader's abilities into question than they ever are to cause a serious re-evaluation of Shakespeare's writing. I don't assume that everyone will like every work of art that is considered a "great" or a "masterpiece" (I know that surely I don't), but before I thought of making a blanket statement that surely would seem to go against common thought (something like "Mozart sucks!", "Michelangelo can't draw", or "Shakespeare's plays are plodding, dull and unreadable") one might think to make it clear that this was a personal opinion ("In spite of his reputation, I found Shakespeare's plays dull, unreadable, etc...). It might also make sense to offer some reasoning behind such opinions if you in any way feel that such opinion should be taken at all seriously. Just a suggestion.

[vili]

I don't assume that everyone will like every work of art that is considered a "great" or a "masterpiece" (I know that surely I don't), but before I thought of making a blanket statement that surely would seem to go against common thought (something like "Mozart sucks!", "Michelangelo can't draw", or "Shakespeare's plays are plodding, dull and unreadable") one might think to make it clear that this was a personal opinion ("In spite of his reputation, I found Shakespeare's plays dull, unreadable, etc...). It might also make sense to offer some reasoning behind such opinions if you in any way feel that such opinion should be taken at all seriously. Just a suggestion.
I don't think I could agree more.

[Jtolj]

Nightwalk was referring to the written play. His plays are "plodding and unreadable" but if you see them put on a show, it's breathtaking. Written plays are supposed to be dull to some degree! That's why they have actors, who make it better. Compound that a written play is in outdated language and is more bare than today's standards of plays, then it's not hard to see, why many don't like to read it. I refuse to read Shakespeare unless I have to, or I want to skim through shock someone with a bit from Titus Andronicus.

[vili]

Ah, Titus, the good old Titus... Completely off-topic, but I once counted that the play has something like 70-80 references to hands. Most of them not that pretty, as you may imagine being familiar with the play.

Which, actually, goes on to show that there may in fact be more to the purely textual side of Shakespeare's plays than you might admit. I don't think I would have come to think of the issue of hands in such detail had I just seen the play. And while Shakespeare himself did not seem to have any particular desire to collect and publish his own plays, assuming that he didn't think of them as written works as well would perhaps make it somewhat difficult to explain the existence of endless volumes of critical works dedicated to Shakespeare's drama (as opposed to his theatre). Or, at least a lot of critics seem to find the texts valuable.

To be honest, I may be somewhat biased here as my own experience with Shakespeare is that I seem to generally enjoy him far more on the page than on the stage. And I wouldn't subscribe to the "plodding and unreadable" argument, either, as I really like Shakespeare's language. But well, I grew up reading rather than watching plays, so it may just be that I am more accustomed and skilled a reader than I am a watcher. Which might in the end only suggest that I should go and watch more plays.

[T.D. Anderson]

Perhaps it is just a problem of perception. Every written and spoken word carries beside its obvious semantic meaning, emotions und a kind of virtues. Maybe the emotions intended by Shakespeare to be inspired in the reader trough his gorgeous use of language and his unrivaled charakter building are better peceived by some through words and by others through the charismatic acting of an actor.

Personally I think both reading and seeing plays can be quite good if you concentrate on the acting or devote your fantasy to the reading.

Everyone should have his own views and should stick to them, but I agree that it is highly necessary to distinguish between personal opion and argumantativ analysis.

[Koa]

when i was at school and had to read plays, I hated that. It's boring as hell to read a play. They're meant to be watched, not read.

[stlukesguild]

For something so "plodding and unreadable" I find that I have little problem reading Shakespeare's plays. The suggestion that the language is "outdated" might again prove to be the clue here. The problem may lie with the reader rather than with the writer. As I noted earlier, great art often makes great demands upon the audience... sometimes cognitively... sometimes in terms of prior knowledge. Dante requires a good deal of prior knowledge before one can truly get into his Comedia in any depth. Joyce assumes his audience is as well read as he and then challenges them with his word play and stream-of-consciousness. Emily Dickenson can be a tough as John Milton's sonnets or Geoffrey Hill's poems to truly wrap one's brain around. Shakespeare demands some a mastery of English vocabulary that is quite a bit more broad than that used by a modern novelist. He also demands some understanding of the flow and rhythm of poetic form. I might be tempted to think that it is a weakness upon the part of the author (or at the very least, a mere personal disliking upon my part) if I found Shakespeare dull and plodding, but had no problem reading Chaucer, John Donne, Christopher Marlowe, Spencer, John Milton, and other older writers. If I found much of this writing to be plodding, I might start to assume that there was something I was missing.

Personally, I most certainly don't find Shakespeare to be at all plodding, dull or antiquated. Neither do I agree that plays SHOULD be dull to any extent. I personally loved reading MacBeth, Durrenmatt's The Physicists, Beckett's End Game, and numerous other dramas.

As for Titus Andronicus... most certainly not my favorite Shakespearean play. I know that many critics share this opinion... and many have suggested that the play was not by Shakespeare or only partially by Shakespeare. Harold Bloom has made the interesting suggestion that the work's obvious wallowing in gratuitous violence and bombast was something of the young Shakespeare's attempt at a parody of his great predecessor, Marlowe.

[vili]

when i was at school and had to read plays, I hated that.
In my compulsory education I hated whatever my literature teachers would care to put in front of me. In my case, at least, it had less to do with the quality of literature itself and more with the simple fact that it was compulsory. Nothing takes the joy away from reading better than the fact that you need to read (and to a large extent memorise!) X number of pages by tomorrow.

[vili]

As for Titus Andronicus... most certainly not my favorite Shakespearean play. I know that many critics share this opinion... and many have suggested that the play was not by Shakespeare or only partially by Shakespeare.
Yes, the critics tend to call foul whenever something that is thought to be by Shakespeare doesn't quite live up to the "absolute genius" label so readily attached to him. I must personally say that despite of its obvious shortcomings, Titus is in fact one of my favourites from Shakespeare. But then again, I really tend to give it a comic reading, rather than even trying to see it as a tragedy.

I suppose that in some ways this a bit like when you enjoy a b-class action film just because it is so unintentionally funny. Of course, I have no idea what Shakespeare's intention with Titus was, but I don't think that it in the end needs to have been a parody of anything -- there are, after all, bloodier and more insane plays in the early Elizabethan theatre.

[Petrarch's Love]

Well, Stlukesguild, Vili, Wild Apple and others have all put forth some marvelous defence for the reading of plays, but I have to jump in with my own two cents as well.

First off, yes, plays are wonderful performed and there is a lot you get in a performance that you simply couldn't get from a reading. On the other hand, there's a lot you get from reading that you could not get out of a performance. I can't believe that it is an actor who brought up this subject. Surely as an actor you would want to be even more deeply familiar with the script, the motivations of all the different characters, and the way the language is working in the lines. Most actors I know read the script very carefully, especially with Shakespeare in which the poetry matters so deeply. One reason to read a play rather than watch a performance of it is that a performance will present a certain point of view, a specific kind of performance and a take on the way to present the characters and the action and the way to deliver certain lines. Surely as an actor or director you would want to read the play and imagine for yourself how these words are being spoken and what each of these characters are like rather than only rely on someone else's vision of the play.

Apart from this, Shakespeare in particular begs to be read because his plays are largely poetry, and the language matters very much. It's only by reading the plays that you're going to have the time to reflect on and analyse things like the meter of the poetry, the complexity of his metaphors, how certain speechs are constructed and what recurring themes are present in the play. Being aware of things like the meter of the poetry or having a detailed understanding of the way Shakespeare's language works in a speech could have a significant affect on the way an actor delivers the lines. It's like the difference between someone going in to perform heart surgery saying they have an idea of where the heart is located and get the point that it pumps blood around but hasn''t ever made a detailed study of the human anatomy as a whole, and a doctor who's studied anatomy in depth and knows the way the body works both as a whole system and in every part in detail.

Reading Shakespeare also simply gives the same things that reading any poetry gives: beautiful language expressing different experiences and emotions in a way that nothing else can. The words are the essential part of the experience because they (not the story line) are what produce the action and the emotions and make them memorable whether on the stage or in the mind of the reader. I can't imagine how you could say a script is a "guide" to a play. The play owes its existence to the script. Without the script there would be nothing to guide.

[Woland]

A poor performance of any of the plays can even bring Shakesy down. Given the choice between seeing a poor/bizarre performance or reading the play myself, Id choose to just read the play from a good edition that has ample footnotes and definitions.

[cuppajoe_9]

Because the local theatre group is not putting on a production of Dr. Faustus or King Lear at any point between now and my midterms?

[stlukesguild]

Petrarch's Love- ...there's a lot you get from reading that you could not get out of a performance.

SLG- Indeed. While experiencing a play performed has sometimes given me a certain insight into how a phrase or grouping might flow... into how the words mesh with the action... I also find that I cannot catch all of Shakespeare's incredible word-play... that I cannot get my mind around some of his more cognitively challenging bits of poetry... that I miss out on the manner in which a certain image or concept runs through a piece like a theme in a piece of music if I cannot take my time... go back... re-read at my own pace and not that established by the director or actor.

PL- One reason to read a play rather than watch a performance of it is that a performance will present a certain point of view, a specific kind of performance and a take on the way to present the characters and the action and the way to deliver certain lines. Surely as an actor or director you would want to read the play and imagine for yourself how these words are being spoken and what each of these characters are like rather than only rely on someone else's vision of the play.

SLG- As a reader I want the same. I might think of the analogy of translation. As a reader unable to enjoy Dante or Baudelaire or Homer in the original Italian, French, or Greek... I must rely upon a translation by another. If at all possible I will go out of my way to explore several translations with the clear understanding that each is but one person's take on the original work of art. The ideal would be to master the original language in which the work was written. The same situation applies to music. I do not have the ability to "read" music in any manner approaching that which would allow me to glean my own take on what Mozart or Beethoven had written. I must thus rely upon how a given conductor/orchestra/soloist has interpretted the work. Realizing that the manner in which Herbert von Karajan and the berlin Philharmonic interpret a piece versus how John Eliot Gardiner and the Orchestra Revolutionaire et Romantique imagine the same piece may be highly dissimilar... I again opt for the multiple interpretations while accepting that being able to "read" the original would be the best. With Shakespeare, there is no such problem. The "originals" are there for me to read... whenerever and whenever... and they demand very little by way of broadening my vocabulary. Of course, I'm one who agrees with Ezra Pound's rant upon lazy readers, where he declared that any reader too lazy to master the few words needed to read Chaucer in the original, should be forever banned from reading good books:lol:. I can just imagine what he might have thought about those who complain of the archaicisms in Shakespeare!:brow:

[alennox21]

As a reading specialist, I sometimes ask students to use a dialog only technique in reading text for meaning.
Kids love plays. role-playing is a sure way to get reluctant readers moving in a good direction.

one of my favorite reads is "enemy of the people" I'm also fond of Romeo and Juliet.
There is nothing more sublime than the balcony scene in a ninth grade class.

re-v

[mortalterror]

Personally, I've seen a lot of bad performances of good Shakespearean plays. Shakespeare's writing is as good as it gets in the English language, and possibly any other. I've never seen an actor act at the same level as Shakespeare wrote. Poor actors can ruin his plays. Good actors can only hope to bring out what is already in the text, if they don't simply depart from it. Should they depart from the script, their transgression is only forgivable if their new lines are at least as good the ones Shakespeare wrote, and good luck with that.

I agree with what SLG said about translation. The actor stands between the audience and the artist in some cases. The actors can be an impediment to enjoying a work of art. But it is not just the actors that I blame for poor performances. The director, set designers, lighting technicians, gaffers, makeup artists, etc. all help mediate the script. Drama depends on a single author, while stagecraft is the work of many hands. If one of them is off, the entire performance suffers. It is a rare thing to see a number of exquisitely talented people working together in one place united by a common artistic goal. Often the work is marred here and there by inferior hands. But coming to Shakespeare, purely as a text, you only meet with the master.

My take on the original question that started this thread is that it is not meant to be inflammatory. It is indicative of a dominant prejudice against writers in the dramatic arts. There's a systematic, if unintentional, belittling of writers contributions among the various constituents of theater and film, from the actors, to directors, and producers. They attempt to frame an artist's worth only through and dependent upon the work of other artists. This marginalizes script writers within their own community, and has a direct effect on their earning power, as well as their creative control of the medium. I find the concept that people only go to the theater to see actors, or that words are nothing until somebody says them on a stage or a screen to be incredibly insulting on a number of levels.

[NickAdams]

For no other reason than being able to cast the roles myself. I get to interpret it myself. Stage directors read the plays to decide how it should be performed.

[wisemidnighthag]

To the original question, just as you could read plays or novels purely for entertainment, once you've done that, I read plays to study what moves them along, and to figure out what language the author uses, and to use that to better my writing. It's hard to analyze and learn from a play if it only happens once and you can't stop to ponder a line or scene.

Though I know there are many people who think that the best way to experience poetry is through the author's reciting them, and I don't think they would say it's useless, or "not true poetry" if you read them written down.

[kelby_lake]

To person who asked the question- why are you an actor then? You speak about plays so coldly and imply that reading them is a chore. Reading bad plays is a chore, like reading bad books, but here are some of the pluses of reading a play:
1- No longwinded descriptions (you can make up what the characters look like)
2- Better dialogue
3- More dramatic/emotional
4- Quick to read
5- Better characters
You can read a play after watching it to see how you would have staged it. What's wrong with reading a play? Plays have stories like novels do.

And all the stuff about Shakespeare being old-fashioned: that's because he's a poet! that's why the words are like that and many of the speeches from his plays are known (or put down as) poems

Read a play by Miller or Williams. It's like reading a very good novel but shorter.

And read the plays all the way through so you can see how your character should act/speak.




I love reading plays

[Nikolai Fomich]

Plays aren't always even written for only the stage. Strinberg's Miss Julie had a preface which basically outlined his entire play and what it meant - his ideas on women and how they ruin men. (needless to say, his thoughts are extremely sexist).

Goethe's Faust, especially Part Two, is almost never produced, and almost always read because of it's complexity on all levels.

[lakeside_girl]

i like shakespeare for the puns....but truly he is not my favorite...i agree with an earlier post about trying arthur miller or tennessee maybe. these really only feel uncomfortable for about a page. shakespeare feels uncomfortable because he coined words, he punned all the time, he referenced so many antique plays. he is the master by due right, though

[kelby_lake]

Shakespeare is harder to read because it is essentially poetry and he is more fussed with language than conveying an instruction. Nevertheless he is good- but only to read aloud or watch

[LitNetIsGreat]

While experiencing a play performed has sometimes given me a certain insight into how a phrase or grouping might flow... into how the words mesh with the action... I also find that I cannot catch all of Shakespeare's incredible word-play... that I cannot get my mind around some of his more cognitively challenging bits of poetry... that I miss out on the manner in which a certain image or concept runs through a piece like a theme in a piece of music if I cannot take my time... go back... re-read at my own pace and not that established by the director or actor.


Yes, this is the same with me and I only fully enjoy watching a Shakespeare play that I am very familiar with. Even then I personally enjoy reading the plays over watching a production, despite the fact they were originally intended to be performed.

I think this has more to do with me being more of a "reader" than a theatre goer, I rarely really enjoy a theatre performance as much as I do with a book, often little things bother me during the production: acting, stage set, annoying woman behind me rattling things, too hot, too cold, etc, my mind is rarely absorbed fully into the production to appreciate the performance and then I seem to find fault with things. Strange that I don't feel this way about film? Though I can't think of very many Shakespeare film productions that have really done much for me on film either.

For me the beauty and power of Shakespeare comes through in the words and they don't need anything else.

[hhc]

Seriously, I've never heard anyone actually say that plays aren't meant to be read. A play in nothing less than a book, when it comes to literary value. It is different from a book because it has two aspects: the original text and its interpretation by the director and the actors.
If one decides to read the original, he will
a. have time to reread, understand and savour the play
b. be reading the actual play, without any distortions or alterations made by the director and his colleagues.

A play is a work of art that is meant both to be read and to be seen. To master a play completely you have to not only see it over and over, but to read it as well.

[kelby_lake]

I heartily agree. A lot of the time I prefer reading plays. Some make for fascinating reading.

[Lioness_Heart]

I like reading Shakespeare because there are too many bad productions. I hate coming out of them with that disappointment, because it spoils the whole play for me. But when you read them, you can decide everything about how it's 'performed', there's no bad acting... you can make it perfect.

[JBI]

I would prefer to see every play I read, but that cannot be arranged, so I make do. Seriously though, it's a relatively strong literary form onto itself.

[byquist]

Yea, but how often do you get a chance to see Cymbeline or Coriolanus: about once every 10 years if lucky, which is sad. Same with Ibsen. Almost nobody does his lesser-talked-about plays, but they can all work to perfection. When was the last time you ever head mention of "John Gabiel Borkman"?

[kelby_lake]

A lot of plays are performed badly. Orpheus Descending is fantastic to read but didn't seem to work on film.

[DapperDrake]

"Why would you want to read a play? "

Not all plays read badly, take Oscar Wilde for example, it's easy for anyone to read his plays and enjoy them without even giving second thought to the fact that they are plays. Yes a play should ideally be seen in theatre but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed on the page.

[Psycheinaboat]

When I read a play, especially a good one that engrosses me completely, I can see the players and scenes so crisply in my head. It is sometimes better than watching a play being performed by others.

[The Comedian]

I'd rather read a play than see one performed. For me it's a control thing -- in reading a play, I control the stage, character appearance, backgrounds, etc. . .in watching a play, I can never quite get past the fact that that I see people pretending to be other people on a stage.

[kelby_lake]

Not all plays read badly, take Oscar Wilde for example, it's easy for anyone to read his plays and enjoy them without even giving second thought to the fact that they are plays. Yes a play should ideally be seen in theatre but that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed on the page.

If you can't read the play and enjoy it, it's a bad play. It has to be emotional and visual enough in its writing to be able to perform it well.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? makes for fabulous reading