The "I Hate Shakespeare" Thread.

[mortalterror]

I have to agree with Atheist on this one. The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than. That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair, and it would be like calling Canadians racist because of their unfair immigration policies and what they did to the Native Americans. Most of Canada's wrongdoing is in the past and they didn't act much worse than other powers of their day. Sure, even now their Natives are crowded into reservations, live ten years less than white Canadians, are twice as likely to be unemployed or poorly educated; but isn't the Canada of today a city on a hill, no worse than it's time? I use Canada as an example of modern liberal progress, of political correctness, or success and equality, which it has a well deserved reputation for. Yet, the Catholics in the East still make a third less income than the Protestants in the West, and no non-white minority is more than 4% of the population, in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism. Now, is that progress? If the Canadian's with all their advantages cannot help but be racist, then what hope does the rest of the world, our world have, and what hope did Shakespeare have living without those advantages?

[wessexgirl]

The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than.

Another sweeping generalisation. The fact that we feel sympathy for Shylock, and Othello, does not bear your statement out. I don't know how you can say "Shakespeare was definitely a racist". You, and no-one else knew the man. You have to go by his writing, and Othello is a "flawed hero" in a tragedy, and Shylock is a man driven to extremes by his treatment. If the play was anti-semitic, why are we not more in support of the "victim" and less empathetic to his "tormentor?" Perhaps because the "victim" has been the "tormentor" for so long along with his friends.

[kasie]

I view Shakespeare's work like the people who the plays were originally written for. The plays written to be performed as just that, plays. A means for entertainment. And I personally do not enjoy his work. That being said, perhaps my opinion is more "valid" than the person ripping his work to shreds an analyzing the hell out of it. Because as the core of all of it, tragedy or comedy - they were a source of entertainment.

I wonder how many of the plays you have had the good fortune to see on the stage? A talented cast directed with insight and sensitivity may well change your perception of the Bard, lj (and atheist).

[mortalterror]

Another sweeping generalisation. The fact that we feel sympathy for Shylock, and Othello, does not bear your statement out. I don't know how you can say "Shakespeare was definitely a racist". You, and no-one else knew the man. You have to go by his writing, and Othello is a "flawed hero" in a tragedy, and Shylock is a man driven to extremes by his treatment. If the play was anti-semitic, why are we not more in support of the "victim" and less empathetic to his "tormentor?" Perhaps because the "victim" has been the "tormentor" for so long along with his friends.

I don't feel empathetic towards Shylock. He's obviously a villain, and a schemer like Iago or Aaron and I laugh when he is justly punished, because Merchant is a comedy, not "The Tragedy of Shylock". What's more, it is based on Marlowe's The Jew of Malta which is even more explicitly racist than Merchant. You really have to go out of your way to get your interpretation, and I don't think it's born out by, well... anything.

You make a further mistake in supposing that just because a character can be empathetic, or that his villainous motives are rational or justified, he must therefore be a hero. As for Othello, it can still be racist even portraying the object of that racism as noble. Gunga Din by Rudyard Kipling is a slightly racist poem even though it's a panegyric on a minority.

[Petronius]

I won't say I hate Shakespeare as much as I'm indifferent to him. As an Eastern European, I'm distanced from the cultural environments that his image dominates. As far as Romanian culture goes, shakespearian influences are few, and are either indirect or tardy. Certainly, his acknowledgement arrived in the wake of western political and cultural prevalence, so he was already an effigy of a great power when it came in contact with my own culture.
Seeing how he is not particularly relevant to my own tradition and how, in my experience, the praising of local artists tends to bear more or less striking nationalist tones, I have to agree that the almost religious reverence many people seem to have for Shakespear is a sad exaggeration - and a dangerouse one at that.

The mistake, as I see it, is that he is being judged relatively to his times, and the result is projected in the present. Judging an artist not by how great he is on its own, but how great he is compared to his peers will obviously put older writers in advantage, because competition was different. Today, when everybody has access to education and a drowning sea of information and ever-growing knowledge, it's nigh-impossible to have a singular intelligence distinguish itself above a whole culture - but that doesn't mean a college kid can't be smarter and more creative than Shakespeare was, as an individual - and if some author manages to become widely popular the crtics will be more keen to find flaws than qualities.
It's a sad attitude because culture needs to be alive, not patriarchal praises. I've read someone's comment on this forum, some months back, saying that it's better to stick to 100 years old works, because only survival beyond the author's death can guarantee quality. Such cold contempt for the artist - and the reader, demanding them to acknowledge the dubious quality of no longer searing, dusty old works - I find disheartening and sick. In an art-loving environment, artists deserve and need to be praised during their lives, and to be able to live off their craft with dignity. The canon-cultists deserve Harry Potter - fanboy popularity is the only way a writer gets any respect these days.

The main reason I side with the Atheist on his first two points (I don't care much for anti-semitic charges) is that Shakespeare's (and some other classics') position today is detrimental to the contemporary growth of literature - these unassailable great names are stifling fresh ones.
It's not that Shakespeare is bad, but he's begun to lose his present-day relevance long ago. I think he's earned some rest as much as he earned respect, but his place now is in a teenager's literature curriculum, and not on the throne of "greatest English writer" - a vain title as it is.

The perspective of anyone who can read is just as valid as any other? Does that apply to other discipline's as well? My medical opinions are just as valid as those of my doctor? My opinions on quantum physics are just as relevant as those of Stephen Hawking? In every field there are those who invest a great more in terms of effort, time, experience, etc... It would seem that the opinions of those generally hold more weight. This is not to say that they themselves always agree... nor that at times they are not wrong. In my own field I doubt I am going to consider the opinion of someone with next to no experience in art with the same degree of weight as I might the opinion of another artist or an art critic.

I would also comment on this bit by Stlukesguild from the thread where this discussion originated. There's a stark difference between artists and critics; the latter are not practitioners, but simply professional consumers, and some of their views verge on class or cultural supremacism. Few critics actually become good artists, inspite of their claims of vast technical knowledge.
While I don't deny the use of their role, I think art is widely meant to be experienced without the help (or distraction) of theory and critical texts (or even the dedication of multiple reads), as a free expression of cultural identity or means of entertainment.

[MattG]

This thread reminds me of:

SCENE I. A cavern. In the middle, a boiling cauldron.

Thunder. Enter the three Witches
First Witch
Thrice the brinded cat hath mew'd.

Second Witch
Thrice and once the hedge-pig whined.

Third Witch
Harpier cries 'Tis time, 'tis time.

First Witch
Round about the cauldron go;
In the poison'd entrails throw.
Toad, that under cold stone
Days and nights has thirty-one
Swelter'd venom sleeping got,
Boil thou first i' the charmed pot.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Third Witch
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravin'd salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digg'd i' the dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat, and slips of yew
Silver'd in the moon's eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar's lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-deliver'd by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab:
Add thereto a tiger's chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron.

ALL
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch
Cool it with a baboon's blood,
Then the charm is firm and good.

[LitNetIsGreat]

The mistake, as I see it, is that he is being judged relatively to his times, and the result is projected in the present. Judging an artist not by how great he is on its own, but how great he is compared to his peers will obviously put older writers in advantage, because competition was different.

Shakespeare is not a writer who only spoke to his own time, far from it as Ben Jonson famously said.
.................................................. ..........
Not wishing to cause offense but I have always found it somewhat odd when a serious student of literature finds little or no value in Shakespeare. I can't understand it. I once had a tutor at University who was equally uninterested in "Billy"; I made it my duty to avoid the modules she taught in the future.

For any neutral of Shakespeare, or for those who have only read a little of him, flick though the complete works and choose a page at random, there is beauty and magnificence on every page, even out of context of the narrative/story.

[MattG]

For any neutral of Shakespeare, or for those who have only read a little of him, flick though the complete works and choose a page at random, there is beauty and magnificence on every page, even out of context of the narrative/story.

For the record I agree!

To me the magic in his work is in how he underscores man's innate ability to make complex the simplest things, love in particular. His imagery is beautiful and his pen was truly afire. I've never dwelled on some of the things that are at issue in the above posts as I've always written them off as zeitgeist of the time or of the tale.

You all who dislike him certainly have a right to do so, he'll always be near and dear to me though.

[mortalterror]

I'm not sure we can chalk Shakespeare's popularity up to cultural hegemony. I mean, Henrik Ibsen is a well revered modern figure, and who did Norway conquer? I don't think anybody can properly beat Shakespeare hands down, but he has his faults, his weaknesses, like other people. I don't like the way he stands all alone at the top of drama the way he does. I think he ought to be considered in a triad of great authors including Racine and Calderon, the way Homer is compared to Virgil and Milton, or Aeschylus shares space with Euripides and Sophocles. To be sure, he's reached the utmost bounds of human expression, but there are other people who have too.

[Petronius]

Shakespeare is not a writer who only spoke to his own time, far from it as Ben Jonson famously said.

So says one who was himself a man of Shakespeare's age. What gives him more right to talk about the distant future than me who live it, ey?
Your reaction to those who dislike him is a good example of stifling absolutism. Negative reactions are not as ignorant as you may think, they are signs of a desire for something better or something different, which I think is never bad when it comes to culture. Maybe the critic has to be objective, but the genius must have clear preferences. Nabokov had to consider Dostoyevsky mediocre.

I'm not sure we can chalk Shakespeare's popularity up to cultural hegemony. I mean, Henrik Ibsen is a well revered modern figure, and who did Norway conquer?

I never said England conquered any countries in Eastern Europe either, but its influence extended to the far-reaches of the continent centuries after Shakespeare's time, and now western literature is reinforced as english becomes a widely spread second language. Ibsen got his fame outside the borders of Norway. So did writers of Romanian origin, like Eugene Inesco or Eliade who earned a certain status writing in France or the States, but I bet you haven't heard of Caragiale, although he is utterly brilliant in romanian, but I guess a poor candidate for translations.

[kiz_paws]

... That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair, and it would be like calling Canadians racist because of their unfair immigration policies and what they did to the Native Americans. Most of Canada's wrongdoing is in the past and they didn't act much worse than other powers of their day. Sure, even now their Natives are crowded into reservations, live ten years less than white Canadians, are twice as likely to be unemployed or poorly educated; but isn't the Canada of today a city on a hill, no worse than it's time? I use Canada as an example of modern liberal progress, of political correctness, or success and equality, which it has a well deserved reputation for. Yet, the Catholics in the East still make a third less income than the Protestants in the West, and no non-white minority is more than 4% of the population, in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism. Now, is that progress? If the Canadian's with all their advantages cannot help but be racist, then what hope does the rest of the world, our world have, and what hope did Shakespeare have living without those advantages?

Ouch.

Anyhow, back to the "I Hate Shakespeare" thing -- when I hear people discussing this topic in my circles, the most common problem with WHY they dislike Shakespeare is due to the language, if you can believe it. I think that these people are just lazy, because think of all the helps that are available for us, with our modern tongue, to untangle this (beautiful) language. That is what I tell them, anyhow, and to be honest, this is a bit of a feeble reason to dislike someone who was a master of the pen.

Anyhow, thems my thoughts.

[The Atheist]

I think you're being a little disingenuous here Atheist. Can you honestly tell me that you're not made to feel sympathy for Shylock with that classic speech? How is that being anti-semitic?

Well, it wouldn't be a play without it, so I see that as more of a plot develop ment than the anti-semitic rants earlier.

On the basis you're working on, Shakespeare wouldn't have needed to build the anti-semitism first. In those times - as in all times - the Jews were not a popular people, so why play to stereotype first? If your premise of Shakespeare wanting to portray Jews sympathetically rather than Shylock the lender sympathetically, then I think you rubbish his writing skills, because it's unnecessary and weak.

In hindsight, I should have picked a different example - I was going to go with McBeth, but decided on TMOV and we've got stuck in the Jews.

It's plain that it isn't only me, so I'll try to let this angle die off, and it's one of many criticisms I have.

(I have seen Shakespeare on stage with excellent casts.)

I wonder how many of the plays you have had the good fortune to see on the stage? A talented cast directed with insight and sensitivity may well change your perception of the Bard, lj (and atheist).

A few at varying levels of acumen in acting, but including a couple of well-regarded company productions.

I won't say I hate Shakespeare as much as I'm indifferent to him.

That would probably be a more correct position for me, but it makes a lousy thread title.

...In an art-loving environment, artists deserve and need to be praised during their lives, and to be able to live off their craft with dignity. The canon-cultists deserve Harry Potter - fanboy popularity is the only way a writer gets any respect these days.

The main reason I side with the Atheist on his first two points (I don't care much for anti-semitic charges) is that Shakespeare's (and some other classics') position today is detrimental to the contemporary growth of literature - these unassailable great names are stifling fresh ones.
It's not that Shakespeare is bad, but he's begun to lose his present-day relevance long ago. I think he's earned some rest as much as he earned respect, but his place now is in a teenager's literature curriculum, and not on the throne of "greatest English writer" - a vain title as it is.

Extremely well put.

For the record I agree!

To me the magic in his work is in how he underscores man's innate ability to make complex the simplest things, love in particular.

I actually see that as a bad thing, but that's just the materialist in me.

His imagery is beautiful and his pen was truly afire.

Yes, and he introduced a whole new way of writing, bless his heart.

On the other hand, his imagery is outdated and bland. A hawk or a handsaw?

I've never dwelled on some of the things that are at issue in the above posts as I've always written them off as zeitgeist of the time or of the tale.

Try Lady McBeth then.

There's no cultural problem there, just lousy writing.

Julius Caesar?

I'm dredging into things I haven't read for aeons, but there are a couple for you to get on with.

You all who dislike him certainly have a right to do so, he'll always be near and dear to me though.

Hey, you still hold the majority opinion so far!

I'm not sure we can chalk Shakespeare's popularity up to cultural hegemony. I mean, Henrik Ibsen is a well revered modern figure, and who did Norway conquer? I don't think anybody can properly beat Shakespeare hands down, but he has his faults, his weaknesses, like other people. I don't like the way he stands all alone at the top of drama the way he does. I think he ought to be considered in a triad of great authors including Racine and Calderon, the way Homer is compared to Virgil and Milton, or Aeschylus shares space with Euripides and Sophocles. To be sure, he's reached the utmost bounds of human expression, but there are other people who have too.

I'd go along with most of this. I wouldn't agree with your authors, though.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ouch.

Anyhow, back to the "I Hate Shakespeare" thing -- when I hear people discussing this topic in my circles, the most common problem with WHY they dislike Shakespeare is due to the language, if you can believe it. I think that these people are just lazy, because think of all the helps that are available for us, with our modern tongue, to untangle this (beautiful) language. That is what I tell them, anyhow, and to be honest, this is a bit of a feeble reason to dislike someone who was a master of the pen.

Yep, that sounds like a typical school students' response to Shakespeare, you are right, it is mostly laziness on their behalf. It is strange that "non-readering" adults feel the same way too, they instantly dismiss something they might have very loosely studied ten or tweny years ago. I have often come across this type of species - sometimes they suggest they might enjoy Shakespeare if it was translated! and I'm talking about from English to English. Our school scars stay with us it seems.

[The Atheist]

Anyhow, thems my thoughts.

Cheers.

That's not one of my criticisms, so feel free to cover off Lady McB or Julius Caesar.

Or Shakespeare generally with regard to plagiarism, missing plots, etc.

Our school scars stay with us it seems.

In terms of an argument against elitism - which I hadn't intended using - this is pretty sharp encouragement.

Can we leave that one out and concentrate on the mechanics for a while?

Thanks.

[JBI]

I have to agree with Atheist on this one. The Merchant of Venice is an anti-semitic play and any other interpretation is revisionist and wrong. I think it stings modern liberal sensibilities to think that their favorite writer could write such things, as much as it offends their dignity that they cannot deny it as a masterpiece. Shakespeare was most definitely a racist, but that is probably because he lived in a racist world, which he is no better or worse than. That sort of hindsight judgement is unfair, and it would be like calling Canadians racist because of their unfair immigration policies and what they did to the Native Americans. Most of Canada's wrongdoing is in the past and they didn't act much worse than other powers of their day. Sure, even now their Natives are crowded into reservations, live ten years less than white Canadians, are twice as likely to be unemployed or poorly educated; but isn't the Canada of today a city on a hill, no worse than it's time? I use Canada as an example of modern liberal progress, of political correctness, or success and equality, which it has a well deserved reputation for. Yet, the Catholics in the East still make a third less income than the Protestants in the West, and no non-white minority is more than 4% of the population, in a society that prides itself on multiculturalism. Now, is that progress? If the Canadian's with all their advantages cannot help but be racist, then what hope does the rest of the world, our world have, and what hope did Shakespeare have living without those advantages?

Where's your data from? Some of the things are true, whereas others aren't really, or misinterpreted. I would like to just take the easy proof against you, and say that Chinese-Canadians alone make up over 4.3% of the population, and your data is forgetting that you have grouped all white people together, without sensitivity to their backgrounds, be they Italian, German, Irish, British, Scottish, or Russian. But even so, these are issues, not to mention the fact that the bulk of immigrants entering the country happen to not be British, which you failed to mention. I don't see how any of your evidence suggests a racism in the Canadian immigration system, and I don't know where you get your numbers for "protestants make more than Catholics" as, the most common religion in Quebec, and Ontario, and elsewhere, and that you are looking more over a cultural, and resource divide, being that Alberta has oil coming out of their ears, than at a racist policy. But again, this is off topic, I was just pointing out that your data seems to come from nowhere, and contain gaps and holes, and flat out wrong data. To think we have a divide geographically of protestants in the west, and Catholics in the East is a bit of a joke. In Ontario, Catholicism is the largest religion. In Canada, Catholicism is the largest religion. There are Catholics everywhere, and protestants everywhere, and minorities everywhere. The divides in the U.S. are nothing like the divides in Canada.

But still, I don't think Shakespeare passes any judgment. If anything, his two would-be-"other" characters, Othello and Shylock, are put forward sympathetically. Keep in mind, especially here, Shylock is a minor character, a very minor character, (as you probably know, the merchant in the title refers to Antonio, not Shylock), and yet he has had such effect. Racist or not, he is still a potent character, and by and large, he is far rounder than, lets say Barabas, who he was vaguely modeled after. But to say anything about Shakespeare himself, because of a play, is mere guesswork, to fit an agenda. One could propose that he is a misogynist from a reading of The Taming of the Shrew, yet one could also rework that, and say but hang on - his treatment of women in As You Like It, or in Much Ado About Nothing undermines said theory. We have only one contemporary Jew in the Shakespeare canon, and he seems to be one of the strongest, most powerful characters. The term Anti-semitism doesn't really apply - it is a mere speculation. No one knows how the play was originally preformed. No one knows the true intention of the character. I think, even if you accept Shylock as a "villain" than one can even question the depth of his villainy, and how it is attached to his Judaism. For instance, Macbeth was Catholic, and a villain, yet we aren't running around calling Shakespeare an anti-catholic now are we. It's just convenient to suggest a Jew is only, or perhaps is, a villain because of his Jewishness, but I don't see the connection in the play. There is no proof that there is a genetic disorder - as seen in the character of Jessica - there is no genetic evil, mutation, or anything of the sort. From then on, it becomes a matter of whether or not Shakespeare was interpreting Jewish culture of being bad, for, as it has been shown, usury. That then, is the real debate, whether or not Shakespeare dislikes Jewish culture, of which he knows very little, and comments even less. Shylock may be evil, but is it he being Jewish, or is it the fact that he has been wronged for such a long time? I think a more nuanced reading, even if you want to suppose there is a level of anti-antisemitism is in order. The play is rather ambiguous, which is fitting, given that it is a play, rather than a closet-drama.