Printable View
I can read his stuff and appreciate the writing, but I seldom feel anything more than appreciation of good work. I tend to agree with those who point out that they're plays and meant to be watched in performance rather than just reading the script. I know reading Macbeth pales in comparison to watching Ian McKellen and Judi Dench tear it up on screen.
In other words, where Shakespeare's concerned, the movie really is better than the book.
I should also say that I in no way dispute that Shakespeare's genius as a writer. I just don't enjoy his work.
Being a science geek, I only studied one play "in class" (Macbeth), and most of the students in the class, like me, enjoyed it greatly. The teacher obviously enjoyed teaching it. Sounds like you have had really bad luck with teachers. This one, serious encounter, inspired me to (eventually!) read most of the plays, and gave me a love for literature in general. So thank you Shakespeare! You gave me a new, consuming interest. When quantum mechanics paled, I had you to turn to. Happy birthday, indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
I found Macbeth to be more interesting than Hamlet.
Maybe I need to re-read both to see why the majority of his readers prefer Hamlet.
Although his portfolio is greater than that of Milton, not a single work of his matches Paradise Lost.
I repeat, a single work as in one-to-one comparison, not all of his plays combined.
I am sadden by the current state of poetry today. Since the advent of the novel's dominance, poetry has been reduced as a secondary concern of literature. A discussion of such matter deserves its own thread. I will start as soon as I am done with my project.
They are planning something big this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babyguile
I'm in the UK, and they keep on dropping hints about the "Shakespeare Unlocked" season, before any half-serious programme. Here's a link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/abouttheb...eason-qa.shtml
What class? I'm talking about freshmen students, ages 14-15.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
It is unknown but as he was baptised on the 26th, they guessed that he was born shortly before that, so they picked the 23rd (probably because it's St George's Day).Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
It's tying in with the Cultural Olympiad.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Okey Dokey then Henry IV it is first. I'm kind of putting off all the King's Plays till last but I will be guided by your recommendation here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
We had lots of people who liked it in my class and we were thirteen (at our school you learnt Shakespeare from age 11). Granted, they were the "easy" plays but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
People are often afraid of the histories, but Henry IV is a great one to start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
why would they afraid of history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
do you consider shakespeare as a true of portrayer of history?
Thanks Kelby I was just pontificating about why his birth was unknown since they every single detail about his life his parents his house etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
I imagine the records of births and deaths were not quite as accurate as they are now and I had heard that often the date of baptism was often considered the more relevant date too. Is that true?
I am not sure because I have heard that youneed a date of birth to be baptised. The other thing is that his parents were alive at the time of the baptism and so for them not be aware of his date of birth sounds rather weird to me anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
There are others much earlier writers and scholars that have a date of birth to them, recording dates of birth was a crucial part of the roman church laws and baptisms because it records the number to citizens who adhere to the church through baptism and those who don't are then considered heretics. One is not able to be baptised if one has not a date of birth to them because then they are automatically considered as being born outside the laws of catholicisms and marriage. The time of Shakespeare was in the middle ages and under the roman church and so for him to not have a date of birth he would have been considederedas being born outside a marriage or an oprhan.
It does not make sense that he does not have a date of birth.