Does anyone else acknowledge these as Shakespeare's flaws?

[Watershed]

Now I love Shakespeare, favorite writer of all time hands down. His works have influenced as a person more than any others, and I enjoy them and am fascinated by them as the great works they are. They're not just great works in an academic sense, but they are great stories that have amazing philosophy and poetry and characters and violence and imagery that are so entertaining and powerful.

However, I feel that he still has flaws in many of works. Some of his greatest works are near flawless, such as if I may be so bold, Hamlet, while others of his greatest works have clear flaws in the them, such as if I may be so bold, MacBeth and Romeo and Juliet. And some of his works just aren't written that well or are flawed as to lessen their appeal, such as if I may be so bold, 12th Night. The thing is though that the joy of being such a huge lover of something so incredible is that its flaws actually add to the experience. It is Shakespeare, the imperfect writer, that I fell in love with.

Anyway, here is what I think are Shakespeare's largest flaws.

- There's far too much use of cheap storytelling devices such as prophecies, arbitrary requirements for courtship, and people disguising themselves.

-Referring to the latter to mentioned in the above, many times the motivations and developments for his characters are very unclear. Now, this may have to do with that the actors should consider that part of their interpretation, but still, a lot of his characters seem to be motivated by the needs of the story above all else. This isn't nearly as bad as it sounds, because we can always just paint our own motivations or assume that Shakespeare's universe is just brimming with evil people.

-His histories many times read like propaganda, there being a lot of heavy-handed "oh, praise the current regime".

-His poetry was not the language of the day. It was flowery and intellectual for the day, so sometimes it feels like the use of metaphor detracts from plot.

-A lot of his stuff is exploitative. Not that I have anything against violence and cruelty in drama, especially in the spirit of a good time, but many of his plays are basically just smug celebrations of it. This really doesn't bother me, because I love fake suffering and glorification of violence, etc., but there are times when it is at the expense of the plot, especially in the comedies. So many of his comdies are based around sociopathic characters devising some ridiculously harmful scheme for their own amusement, so they can watch how much the other characters suffer. 12th Night I think is probably the worst offender of the comedies. When I acted in a performance of it, and when I told people what it was about I said this, "A group of drunken trouble-makers decide to ruin the life of a man that objects to their antics and there's also a girl that dresses as a man to encounter a duke for some reason." I mean 12th Night is easily his cruelist play I think, because at least in his bloody tragedies he tries to have moral depth, but 12th Night has about as much moral depth as a National Lampoon's movie.

But that's why I love Shakespeare! He's all those things, and that's part of why he's so great! He's going to have all these stupid arbitrary devices for stories! He's going to have terrible characterization! He's going to be talking ad nauseum about the great English people and the stupid French people! He's going to be writing in complicated poetic ideas that occsaionally beckon the need to contemplate just what was said, and he's going to throw human decency off the table and appeal to the groundlings!

So, what do you think? Is he perfect, or are his flaws with his great strengths why he is so awesome? Or is he not that good?





-

[mayneverhave]

-Referring to the latter to mentioned in the above, many times the motivations and developments for his characters are very unclear. Now, this may have to do with that the actors should consider that part of their interpretation, but still, a lot of his characters seem to be motivated by the needs of the story above all else. This isn't nearly as bad as it sounds, because we can always just paint our own motivations or assume that Shakespeare's universe is just brimming with evil people.
-

I can think of at least one example in which this particular criticism becomes one of the greatest strengths of the play.

In Othello, Iago, the antagonist, lacks any discernable motivation for his destructive actions. Although he puts out a few possible motives to other characters, given his deceitful ways, we have no reason to believe him.

This lack of any clear motivation is what makes Iago one of the most terrifying, or at least interesting, villians in all of Shakespeare. There is no simple, "oh well I'm jealous" or "he killed my father", kind of motivation, and instead we are given an ambigious reason. This ambiguity, combined with Iago's sublime rhetoric and genius, pushes the character beyond merely being a "good" villian, to the level of one of Shakespeare's greatest creations.



Also, as for general flaws. There are a few in the play you labeled "flawless"; that is Hamlet.

Hamlet's age has been debated and debated to death. He is constantly referred to as a young man, he attends Wittenberg, yet the gravedigger makes the claim that he is in his 30s and Hamlet does not correct him. Whether this is a mistake of Shakespeare's or not, oddly enough, it contributes to one of the major themes of the play, and Hamlet's characterization.

For a character who is able to question everything (and manages to in his absurd amount of lines), and that is mainly enigmatic throughout, it is only fitting that not even his age is clear to us.

[Watershed]

I can think of at least one example in which this particular criticism becomes one of the greatest strengths of the play.

In Othello, Iago, the antagonist, lacks any discernable motivation for his destructive actions. Although he puts out a few possible motives to other characters, given his deceitful ways, we have no reason to believe him.

This lack of any clear motivation is what makes Iago one of the most terrifying, or at least interesting, villians in all of Shakespeare. There is no simple, "oh well I'm jealous" or "he killed my father", kind of motivation, and instead we are given an ambigious reason. This ambiguity, combined with Iago's sublime rhetoric and genius, pushes the character beyond merely being a "good" villian, to the level of one of Shakespeare's greatest creations.



Also, as for general flaws. There are a few in the play you labeled "flawless"; that is Hamlet.

Hamlet's age has been debated and debated to death. He is constantly referred to as a young man, he attends Wittenberg, yet the gravedigger makes the claim that he is in his 30s and Hamlet does not correct him. Whether this is a mistake of Shakespeare's or not, oddly enough, it contributes to one of the major themes of the play, and Hamlet's characterization.

For a character who is able to question everything (and manages to in his absurd amount of lines), and that is mainly enigmatic throughout, it is only fitting that not even his age is clear to us. Well, how I'll respond to that is to say that the play definitely takes place over a number of years, and that Hamlet begins as a younger man, possibly late twenties, and ages into his early thirties as the play moves on. We don't know how much time he spends abroad after he has been exiled, and we are not sure how long it just takes for the events of the earlier acts to play out. We know that as the play begins it has all been a few months or so since the king's death, but clearly Claudius becomes much more established as the play moves forward.

The flaw of one of my favorite adaptations of Hamlet, Kenneth Brannagh's four hour one, is that it includes no season-changes, when clearly the play is an epic one, going well beyond just the Danish winter.

As to the lack of motivation, I agree that times this can be an asset and not a flaw, and if I may also say, Richard III's motivation of "I may as well be a villian" is classic.

[AuntShecky]

Well, first may I say that I envy your self-confidence as a critic.

Secondly, though I am gratified that despite his "flaws" you consider Shakespeare to be your "favorite" writer,I hasten to add that an artist's place in the pantheon of Western civilization does not depend on whether you or I "like" him.

The so-called "cheap"devices which you describe were quite common within Elizabethan drama. These were the conventions of dramaturgy of the day, much like a twentieth-century screenplay (when the writers are not on strike) must conform to certain criteria, for instance the 100-page length, the prescribed script format. The thing to remember is not so much that Shakespeare used the conventions but what he did with them, so much more masterfully than any other artist of his own time or any subsequent era.

Next, you object to the "violence" within his works. Though violent acts were most commonly performed off-stage in Greek tragedies, some of the Elizabethan dramatists placed in on stage. Even some of Shakespeare's early efforts, Titus Andronicus, for instance, really go over the top, even by Revenge Tragedy standards. It is a mistake however to paint Shakespeare with the same bloody brush as we twenty-first century viewers slop on contemporary directors like Quentin Tarantino. For most unlike Quentin and his ilk, Shakespeare didn't exploit violence per se as spectacle, but used violent thoughts and deeds as a springboard to present his genius in understanding human nature.

And I can't believe that you find Shakespeare's language "flowery." Your statement that his poetry "was not the language of the day." Admittedly, his poetry was better than anyone else's, but anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the English language would know that the Elizabethan Age was a garden in which language bloomed. Indeed, in no other era had so many new terms and verbal inventions entered the common lexicon, in every segment of society from the nobility right down to the groundlings. The invention of the printing press was partially responsible for this gift.
So was the increase in trade and contact with other cultures. Interest in language, moreover, was at an all time high. Wordplay, punning, and other linguistic highjinks were the equivalent of YouTube or wii today. I don't want to say that you, Watershed, don't know what you're talking about -- but-- your out-from-left-field statement reminds me of the callow college freshman who announced that she "didn't like Shakespeare" because he used so many "clichés"! The truth is they weren't hackneyed when Shakespeare used them-- zounds, he invented them!

I have more things to say, but I'm rapidly running out of time. However, I don't want to log off without saying that if you truly believe that "12th [sic] Night" is no better than a "sketch from a National Lampoon movie" I strongly suggest that you go back and read Twelfth Night
again.

Additionally, if you are having trouble understanding the motivations of his characters, again, go back and re- read those 37 plays. There are also five hundred years' worth of volumes -- upon volumes --of critical studies on Shakespeare. I haven't read ALL of them myself, but I do know that the insight within those volumes is much less
vacuous and superficial than your gloss.

Finally, I have to admit that your posting here on the Literature Network Forum this morning certain got ol' Auntie's blood a-boiling. (At my rapidly-advancing age that's no mean feat!)

I will leave you with a line from the Bard himself:
"He jests at scars who never felt a wound."

So long now -- keep reading!

[SleepyWitch]

if I may add my two cents, it's unfair to set Shakey up as a genius and then criticize him for falling short of an ideal image that was only created after his death. He was not born a genius (although he was certainly more talented than most of his contemporaries), but honed his craft through practice. his writing developed over time and if some of his early works don't live up to the "genius" image we (or was it the Romantics?) have created, it's not his fault but ours.
as for violence, you can even interpret his most violent play (Titus) as a portray of a man who is misled by his unflinching belief in outdated principles of honour etc. although this play is certainly very gory and some of the violence is gratuitous, you need not read it as a glorification of violence.
(OK, I must admit I'm kinda biased because I love the Titus film starring Anthony Hopkins and I even prefer Titus to some of the not so very funny comedies* )

*yep, I know that comedy means it's got a happy ending, not that it's funny

[Watershed]

The violence is not the flaw. The violence is one of his best parts. The problem is the celebration of cruelty that sometimes detracts from the plot through smugness. Sometimes it seems like he takes his celebration of meanness way too far that it works against the story. Nothing at all to do with actual violence in the play.

Now, I just want to say here that I believe we do Shakespeare the best service judging him by the standards of our day, and the joy of Shakespeare is that it holds up today magnficently well. To put Shakespeare on an academic pedestal undermines his greatness as a writer.

[Woland]

Isn't individual perspective an amazing thing. Twelfth Night is my favorite play of his Ive read. Hamlet is not one of my favorite plays though it's still excellent.

"A group of drunken trouble-makers decide to ruin the life of a man that objects to their antics and there's also a girl that dresses as a man to encounter a duke for some reason."

Talk about propaganda...:)

"An overreaching bore decides he's better than everyone else and once the mere chance of attaining a higher station is offered up to him vows to do anything it takes to achieve it. Three gregarious men with the help of one of his staff (who he has probably treated poorly over the years) decides to have some fun at his expense. In the end no harm is done except perhaps to the steward's reputation.

[GnomictheGnome]

you may not be so bold!