The "I Hate Shakespeare" Thread.

[mortalterror]

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.

Not exactly racist, but certainly nationalistic. Shakespeare has few good words for his countrymen in Scotland.

'If that you will France win,
Then with Scotland first begin:'
For once the eagle England being in prey,
To her unguarded nest the weasel Scot
Comes sneaking and so sucks her princely eggs,
-Henry V, Act I, sc. ii.

Calling all of Scotland opportunistic weasels might seem inflammatory in today's society. But it's nothing compared to what his contemporary Edmund Spenser wrote in A View of the Present State of Ireland.

"The pamphlet argued that Ireland would never be totally 'pacified' by the English until its indigenous language and customs had been destroyed, if necessary by violence. Spenser recommended scorched earth tactics, such as he had seen used in the Desmond Rebellions, to create famine."
- Wikipedia

Shakespeare's insults seem positively mild in comparison, though they may be said to spring from the same source. This is just the sort of views that they had, completely common and banal. It was a society full of a sort of casual racism and factional bigotry that was just accepted gratis. Genius that he was, I don't think it would have occurred to Shakespeare to treat the subject of race relations or religious orthodoxy ironically, and so you get the usual cast of poisonous cozening Jews, fiendish Muslims, and unfaithful Catholics in his plays as everyone else of his time wrote. Take Christopher Marlowe for example:

BARABAS. As for myself, I walk abroad o' nights,
And kill sick people groaning under walls:
Sometimes I go about and poison wells;
And now and then, to cherish Christian thieves,
I am content to lose some of my crowns,
That I may, walking in my gallery,
See 'em go pinion'd along by my door.
Being young, I studied physic, and began
To practice first upon the Italian;
There I enrich'd the priests with burials,
And always kept the sexton's arms in ure<80>
With digging graves and ringing dead men's knells:
And, after that, was I an engineer,
And in the wars 'twixt France and Germany,
Under pretence of helping Charles the Fifth,
Slew friend and enemy with my stratagems:
Then, after that, was I an usurer,
And with extorting, cozening, forfeiting,
And tricks belonging unto brokery,
I fill'd the gaols with bankrupts in a year,
And with young orphans planted hospitals;
And every moon made some or other mad,
And now and then one hang himself for grief,
Pinning upon his breast a long great scroll
How I with interest tormented him.
But mark how I am blest for plaguing them;--
I have as much coin as will buy the town.
But tell me now, how hast thou spent thy time?

ITHAMORE. Faith, master,
In setting Christian villages on fire,
Chaining of eunuchs, binding galley-slaves.
One time I was an hostler in an inn,
And in the night-time secretly would I steal
To travellers' chambers, and there cut their throats:
Once at Jerusalem, where the pilgrims kneel'd,
I strewed powder on the marble stones,
And therewithal their knees would rankle so,
That I have laugh'd a-good<81> to see the cripples
Go limping home to Christendom on stilts.
-The Jew of Malta, Act II, sc. iii

Here you have both the prototypical evil Jew and the evil Muslim. When Shakespeare re-uses this speech in his own play Titus Andronicus, it's to paint Aaron as your usual black skinned villain:

LUCIUS

Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?

AARON

Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
Even now I curse the day--and yet, I think,
Few come within the compass of my curse,--
Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
As kill a man, or else devise his death,
Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
Set deadly enmity between two friends,
Make poor men's cattle break their necks;
Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
Oft have I digg'd up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends' doors,
Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
'Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.'
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
As willingly as one would kill a fly,
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
-Titus Andronicus, Act V, sc. i

I think it's safe to say that racism, and regionalism, and other isms of that ilk, were systemic to all English literature of the time. They are shown either in conversation, or in the various roles given to minorities on the stage, and Shakespeare was not above it.

[Thespian1975]

Dickens created Fagin and had the same criticism.

Shakespeare created many horrible characters. Iago, Edmund, Richard III yet nobody bats an eyelid at those. (How dare he call a King a Misshappen crookback!!!!) They are creations to move the play along and keep people coming to the theatre. His plays were heavily censored so they obviously felt nothing wrong with Shylock.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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

Plagiarism? That's highly anachronistic isn't it? Such a thing never existed in Shakespeare's time, it was an accepted thing to take a classical theme and create your own twist or slant to the story or even to improve upon it - which he almost always, if not always did. That's a weaker argument than the anti-Semitism which was pretty tedious to say the least.

Really, I think you just like to wind people up a bit with all your talk of Shakespeare. Maybe you attack Shakespeare in order to try to rattle the foundations of elitism which you perceive exists around the bard? In shooting Shakespeare however you shoot the messenger who spoke to all segments of society.

[mortalterror]

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.

Yes, Chinese-Canadians are your largest non-white minority, and they make up 4.3% of the population. I think I mentioned that 4% barrier in my remarks. You are a diverse people of Eastern Europeans, Western Europeans, Northern Europeans, Southern and Central Europeans, as opposed to the U.S. which is 15% Hispanic, 13%African, and 5% Asian, among other things. The frozen north is an endless expanse of white, and then there's the glaciers. The people of Canada are uniformly the color of Moby Dick and Vanilla Ice Cream, differing from the snowflake in that they actually are all the same.

If you want to check my sources, this is one of the site's I used when collecting information about Canada's immigration policy: http://www.geocities.com/mnsocialist/canada1.html

You used a quote from Henry James when discussing racist American attitudes. I thought you might be interested in a quote that I thought summed up Canadian attitudes.

— I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?
He frowned sternly on the bright air.
— Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.
— Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.
-Ulysses, Ch. 2, James Joyce

You don't have any race problems because you don't have any races. Though that's not entirely true. Toronto is the international base of operations for Canadian hate group The Heritage Front. Then you have some other home grown groups like Canadian Liberty Net as well as the other usual suspects like the KKK and Aryan Nations.

The divides in the U.S. are nothing like the divides in Canada.

Well, you tell me. Is it true you actually had a head tax on Chinese people entering your country?

Consider that Canada is the world's second biggest nation spanning more than 9 million square kilometers, with a combined population slightly larger than the city of Mumbai. You didn't wrestle all that land away from it's original owners with tea and kindness. No, that sort of conquest takes imperialism and systematic oppression, a little genocide if you will, the echoes of which can still be heard from the outskirts of your aboriginal ghettos. "Behind every great fortune is a great crime (Honore de Balzac)."

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.

I think he's definitely anti-Catholic since that wound was still ripe in his day. You have Mary Queen of Scots running around in the north. You have Spain and France aligned against England at the same time. Shakespeare's anti-Catholic bias comes out in little things like the French King's defection to the Pope in King John. Again, it's not quite as blatant as Spenser's Duessa in The Faerie Queene, but Shakespeare was a more subtle writer.

[Petronius]

You are a diverse people of Eastern Europeans, Western Europeans, Northern Europeans, Southern and Central Europeans, as opposed to the U.S. which is 15% Hispanic, 13%African, and 5% Asian, among other things.

Not my discussion but I had to comment because this, and the whole derailing on north american ethnic problems are too funny. It's like... all Europeans (or Africans for the matter) are the same, and differences are only meaningful if visually starking.
Technically, the vast majority of the population in the Americas, especially North America, are former colonists, willing, forceful, free, slave, no matter, and all of them fused into a new culture. There are no meaningful ethnic qualms, save for human stupidity, because there applies the same principle Romans considered when recruiting soldiers from a newly conquered tribe and sending them to distant corners of the empire, therefore severing them from potentially igniting roots.

You don't have drawn out conflicts over land and identity carried out for most of the existance of neighbouring states, leaving behind spread out pockets of ethnic minorities, independant little states of bitter people who speak your own language but want to be different, countries that minutely changed their borders or shifted in and out of existance for a number of years, foreign settlers left behind and the whole tangled mess that results. The only relevant ethnic issues you have are native-americans... and that's not something to pride about as far as my limited knowledge goes, *plus, I had to add, your conflicts with islamic cultures.

[JBI]

Yes Mortal, that site is really impartial - first of all it isn't even footnoted, second of all it isn't even a real, professional website. Seriously, you should know that. And you should also know, that skin heads and violent groups exist everywhere, even amongst minority groups within Canada.

Either way, you pretend like Canadians don't have minority groups. You forget that not all white people are the same. 1/3 of the Canadian population is French Canadian, and close to a million is Italian Canadian, and from there you get all sorts of other minority groups, but you fail to see that. You forget, that we don't have a refined "national identity" so these groups aren't just black and white, as may be the case in the States. But yeah, all white people are the same... right, then why do the French Canadians, or at least a significant portion of them, wish to separate.

And yes, we had a head tax, which I believe you guys did as well (I think though, you simply followed your Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882). But even so, Canada has apologized to its citizens and the world, and although didn't do what would be equal, refunded the money.

[The Atheist]

Plagiarism? That's highly anachronistic isn't it? Such a thing never existed in Shakespeare's time, it was an accepted thing to take a classical theme and create your own twist or slant to the story or even to improve upon it - which he almost always, if not always did. That's a weaker argument than the anti-Semitism which was pretty tedious to say the least.

How on earth is it weak? The weakness is the lack of originality.

Whether or not it was accepted is irrelevant, someone wrote the story in the first place, so how is any kudos possible from merely recounting a tale? I used the example of Julius Caesar, because I think he pales next to the original Latin.

Really, I think you just like to wind people up a bit with all your talk of Shakespeare.

There's an element of that, but I do genuinely believe that he's over-rated, irrelevant today and that many of his staunchest supporters overlook glaring problems with his plays.

Maybe you attack Shakespeare in order to try to rattle the foundations of elitism which you perceive exists around the bard? In shooting Shakespeare however you shoot the messenger who spoke to all segments of society.

Nah, I'm leaving elitism out at this stage; I had a dig at that a while back, and while talking about Shakespeare touches on it, it's not one I'm pursuing here. And I don't recommend shooting Shakespeare - he was unquestionably one of the greatest English writers, but I don't see him at the top, or worse still, alone at the top, as many see him.

[Niamh]

— I just wanted to say, he said. Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?
He frowned sternly on the bright air.
— Why, sir? Stephen asked, beginning to smile.
— Because she never let them in, Mr Deasy said solemnly.
-Ulysses, Ch. 2, James Joyce

I could not help but laugh at the absurdity of this quote, for my dads family grew up along side the Jewish quarter in inner city dublin! But i'm sure being Joyce, he used this as a point of ignorance and not as a racist remark. (yes i cant believe it! I defended Joyce!)

Anyway can we move away from the ethnicity of Canada and return to the main discussion please which is why some people hate shakespeare.
Thank you!
Niamh
Mod.

[LitNetIsGreat]

How on earth is it weak? The weakness is the lack of originality.

Shakespeare, lack of originality?

It's all about the language, the words on the page, the power and energy and philosophy of the characterisation and drama. It is not about where you acquire your original spark from, it never was, but the mastery of the end result. In this Shakespeare's originality was huge.

Whether or not it was accepted is irrelevant, someone wrote the story in the first place, so how is any kudos possible from merely recounting a tale? I used the example of Julius Caesar, because I think he pales next to the original Latin.

I've not read the original Julius Caesar in the original Latin so I'll have to believe you on that one. I will say that Shakespeare does more than "recounting a tale" in his works that have been translated and read and loved in almost every language on earth over the past 400 years. You speak as if he is some bloke in a pub telling fishing stories to his mates.

There's an element of that, but I do genuinely believe that he's over-rated, irrelevant today and that many of his staunchest supporters overlook glaring problems with his plays.

Irrelevant today? He's not over-rated, maybe some others are under-rated in comparison, I keep hearing a lot about Racine and so on, but he's not over-rated.

Nah, I'm leaving elitism out at this stage; I had a dig at that a while back, and while talking about Shakespeare touches on it, it's not one I'm pursuing here.

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.

And I don't recommend shooting Shakespeare - he was unquestionably one of the greatest English writers, but I don't see him at the top, or worse still, alone at the top, as many see him.

You see I don't understand your comment here in conjunction with the "irrelevant today" tag. Maybe you would like to see Ben Elton sitting at the top alongside him?

I am all for exploring the forgotten or overlooked masters of the past, or even for seeking out potential contemporary classics, but I'm not going to forget or ignore the more obvious masters sitting there right before my eyes on the top of my bookshelf.

[The Atheist]

Shakespeare, lack of originality?

We've already covered that many of his plays were copies of other people's stroies. Better copies, maybe, but his originality rating isn't that high. Especially when I compare him to Swift, say.

It's all about the language, the words on the page, the power and energy and philosophy of the characterisation and drama. It is not about where you acquire your original spark from, it never was, but the mastery of the end result. In this Shakespeare's originality was huge.

Yep, on that basis, I can agree. I just don't rate it as highly as some.

I've not read the original Julius Caesar in the original Latin so I'll have to believe you on that one. I will say that Shakespeare does more than "recounting a tale" in his works that have been translated and read and loved in almost every language on earth over the past 400 years. You speak as if he is some bloke in a pub telling fishing stories to his mates.

Isn't that exactly what it is? Storytelling evolved, just like every other human endeavour, and I'd guarantee the first stories were just that - around a campfire, although maybe defence against sabre-tooth cats rather than swapping whoppers.

Irrelevant today? He's not over-rated, maybe some others are under-rated in comparison, I keep hearing a lot about Racine and so on, but he's not over-rated.

Well, you won't hear about Racine from me, but I have to stick with over-rated. I just don't believe he stands ahead of many other authors. When I compare the all-round skills, the method of delivery and the message, I don't see Shakespeare as any better than many others - and not as good as some.

It isn't his fault that he's irrelevant today, times change. Swift isn't all that relevant today, and while I doubt another satirical piece will ever approach the brilliance of A Modest Proposal, I wouldn't recommend anyone not aware of the political background reading it, because they just won't get it.

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.

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 I don't understand your comment here in conjunction with the "irrelevant today" tag. Maybe you would like to see Ben Elton sitting at the top alongside him?

Oh, come on! You expect me to allow him to reach that kind of lofty height?

I am all for exploring the forgotten or overlooked masters of the past, or even for seeking out potential contemporary classics, but I'm not going to forget or ignore the more obvious masters sitting there right before my eyes on the top of my bookshelf.

No, and I agree with that. I said I wouldn't dispense with him, that's impossible, but I'd certainly reduce the emphasis on his work by an order of magnitude.

[kiz_paws]

The people of Canada are uniformly the color of Moby Dick and Vanilla Ice Cream, differing from the snowflake in that they actually are all the same...

Wow.

Anyhow, I won't rebuttal any of this, it makes me wonder at times what the 'outside world' thinks of us, so yeah, this is one man's (woman's?) opinion ... the source questionable, but anyhoo, let us take the Mod's advice and get on with the original intention of this thread and hash out the why's and why nots of hating The Bard...

**tears some hair out**

[andave_ya]

Oh, good. Now I don't have to feel bad about not liking the Bard.

I've read five of his best-known plays and would only reread Macbeth. Though for the sake of knowledge I intend to read King Lear and the Merchant of Venice.

I signed up for the Sonnet-a-Day and have nearly all of them unread in my inbox.

[JBI]

Honestly guys, just rent Looking for Richard with/by Al Pacino. That seems to explain everything - the fact that people who read Shakespeare either pretend, or misread. Really though, if one studies, reads properly, that is, with a good teacher, one picks up on stuff. If one reads looking for "literary devices" than of course they won't like it. In general, most people don't particularly like what they study for school.

[Drkshadow03]

So let me get this straight, we have a play where a Jewish character practices the stereotypical job of usury, whether historically accurate or not, displays many other stereotypical Jewish qualities of greediness (after all, why must a usurer necessarily be greedy?), demands his pound of flesh instead of payment even when he finally has the opportunity to do otherwise thus practically demonizing the character, finally repents offering us sympathetic moments only when he's screwed, which ends with him being forced to become a Christian in the end. . . And no one, but The Atheist, can see that this might come off as remotely anti-Semitic . . . not only do I find that sad, but I find that downright disturbing.

On the other hand, I agree with JBI that Shakespeare does depict Shylock in a sympathetic light at times, where you could read it in part as a critique of Christian treatment of Jews.

I personally think the best and most accurate reading combines both A and B. I cannot see why it must be one or the other; and that's always been my personal feeling while reading the play as both Jew and critic. It also reflects how I was taught the play in undergrad. The depiction of the character is clearly anti-Semitic, and Shakespeare clearly imbibes the anti-Semitism of his times, but I think Shakespeare's skill and interest in character and human beings cannot help but humanize and soften the character, which simultaneously creates moments where it critiques that very same anti-Semitism, despite the fact that he himself is engaging in it.

[Virgil]

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,

I tend to agree. That one speech by Shylock in the play is the sole means of our pity. But everything else in the play ridicules him extensively and cruely. Though to be honest I feel the label of anti-semitism and racist are too strong words. These are characters in a story. I'm not aware of Shakespeare physically doing harm in anyway to a real life person. Attitudes are prejudice, but racism is doing something harmful to a living person. At least that's how I regard it. As to your Canadian comments, such analogies are best left not made. You can't compare people and attitudes of a different era and place.

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.

You can read my comments above to Mortal on racism. But Shylock was not a flawed hero, or a hero of any kind. He was the villain of a comedy, the person who was ridiculed. You can compare him to the character Jaques of As You Like It. He too is made the butt of ridicule. It seems that in certain comedies Shakespeare needed an outsider type to hold up as a contrast to the lead characters. Both Jaques (the puritan) and Shylock (the Jew) serve as characters to feel contempt for, and yet both have their human side we pity. I think Shakespeare wants them to not just be stock characters, but realistic characters to accentuate the ridicule. In short I don't think Shakespeare is sincere in that speech he gives Shylock. It's the only sympathetic moment he gives him.

I could not help but laugh at the absurdity of this quote, for my dads family grew up along side the Jewish quarter in inner city dublin! But i'm sure being Joyce, he used this as a point of ignorance and not as a racist remark. (yes i cant believe it! I defended Joyce!)

Anyway can we move away from the ethnicity of Canada and return to the main discussion please which is why some people hate shakespeare.
Thank you!
Niamh
Mod.

You are absolutely correct. That is not Joyce's attitude but the prejudiced character of Deasy, which not by accident almost sounds like Sleazy.

I think he's definitely anti-Catholic since that wound was still ripe in his day. You have Mary Queen of Scots running around in the north. You have Spain and France aligned against England at the same time. Shakespeare's anti-Catholic bias comes out in little things like the French King's defection to the Pope in King John. Again, it's not quite as blatant as Spenser's Duessa in The Faerie Queene, but Shakespeare was a more subtle writer.

Actually I have seen published argument that Shakespeare was himself Jewish and another that he may have been a hold over Catholic. I have sensed a sort of Catholic senstivity in places (can't recall them off the top of my head) but as I've thought about it over the years, he probably wasn't. The similarity between Roman Catholicism and High Anglican is almost indistiguishable, other than allegence to the Pope.