Another literary post..

[shreena]

Why I don’t really like Shakespeare.

The first thing to note is that I don’t hate Shakespeare, I mean it literally when I say that I don’t really like it.

I don’t think that I hold this opinion out of a desire to be contrary or iconoclastic - I have read a lot of Shakespeare and seen performances a number of times too. It took me a long time to

Comments

[biascut]

It's not really the case that he always has been revered. The elevation of Shakespeare as the model of genius was a Romantic thing, and then he's taken up and made the cornerstone of English Literature in the nineteenth century, which is all to do with the development of the public school system and Empire and nationalism and things, and we're still inheritors of those traditions.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a nineteenth-century or a Renaissance scholar, so anyone who works in those fields is welcome to give a more nuanced view!)

[robert_jones]

IAWTC, but I wonder if by "FSVO always", Sam might not have meant to signify "for over a century". That's close enough to always for the purposes of anyone living.

[thekumquat]

I do love Shakespeare, but have to admit the plays vary inmerit and characterisation. and plot was definitely a weak point, usually nicked from someone else.
Definitely an author whoneeds good direcvtion as otherwise i'mwith you on not caring.

i'd recommend Lear or the Tempest if you haven't seen then, but otherwdise each top their own.
Do you like marlowe or any other jacobean playwrights?

[shreena]

I don't hate Lear or the Tempest but I don't love them either.

I do enjoy Marlowe. And Webster - _Malfi_ is one of my favourite plays.

[robert_jones]

I do love Shakespeare, but have to admit the plays vary inmerit and characterisation

But isn't that a little like saying that the music of J S Bach varies in merit? When it is good, it is great beyond mortal skill, but when it is bad, it's still pretty good.

[thekumquat]

No - wwhileIdon't know Bachwell, bad Shakespeare is trite doggerel and shit.

[aphenine]

I must admit that I've often struggled to see the point in Shakespeare at all and my relationship with his works has been a bit love/hate.

I too find problems with the characters, plot and language and that made it hard to get into it for me.

However, I did find, like you, that the language used was really pretty in places and that is one of the things I really like about it.

I always thought that the real lure of Shakespeare was that it was good for its time and a point in the evolution of English literature. The plots are starkly simple and archetypical and the characters either stereotypes or caricatures. It's very raw and primal literature and is interesting more about what it says about our literature now than intrinsically.

[ingaborg]

Please can I jump on your bandwagon and agree with you 100%? Macbeth is quite fun because it has story and some characters and generally gets on with it, but I don't see the point of any of the other Shakespeare's I've seen at all!

It doesn't help that they are usually done by the RSC, who are (in my experience of about 3 plays) utterly shite. They never act, they only declaim, and between the shouting and the mumbling I can't even hear what they are saying. People prancing about reciting Literature isn't a play.

[lisekit]

They never act, they only declaim

So, so, so, so true. How they got to be a touchstone of thespianism is beyond me. I was particularly disappointed by a Branagh Hamlet back in the early 90s (before he did the film) which was dead from the waist up.

On the other hand, I've seen student productions with energy, sympathetic playing, non-declamatory speaking and direction which connects the action on stage to the audience, which were quite enjoyable. So I think the RSC bear a lot of collective blame for making Shakespeare dull with their dire, deadly presentations.