I hate shakespeare... as literature

In My Humble Opinion
21

I adore many of Shakespeare’s plays, and as previously stated, I believe a thorough knowledge of the texts is central to a deep appreciation of the plays.

That being said, often the reading of Shakespeare in high school does a disservice. Take something beautiful. Reduce it to a lifeless skeleton. Call it a high school Shakespeare class.

I won’t deign to call high school readings of Shakespeare a textual appoach, for quite frankly high school students have neither the backgound in the history of literature and drama, nor the background in early modern English, nor the background in critical analyis to get much out of the process.

They need an introduction to Shakespeare, which means anything other than dry, nearly foreign texts. They need to have Shakespeare brought to life for them, for they do not yet have the skills to bring the texts to life on their own.

I wonder how much of this is a holdover from the days when AV at high school was more trouble than it was worth. When I went through, vinyl records played through remarkably poor quality one speaker phonographs where the height of AV resources. Thirty or more kids, some protesting too much, all sitting in a room listening to one wheezy old phonograph did not make for a quality learning experience. Teachers who knew little of Shakespeare did not help either.

Similarly, the non-annotated or marginally-annotated texts were not useful. They seldom assisted in setting forth what the basic words meant. They were not even up to Coles Notes, let alone at the level of being able to help one learn the language and crack the text.

About the only benefit to high school Shakespeare readings was that they were cheap (re-useable, inexpensive texts), and easy (no extra effort required to arrange for an AV presentation, or god forbid, actually put on a play).

High school Shakespeare readings were to Shakespeare what high school cafeterias were to fine dining: somewhat nutritious, but for the most part thoroughly depressing.

22

Shakespeare is wasted on high school kids. I don’t think they are in a position to appreciate Shakespeare’s tragedies, intellectually or emotionally. I was required to read 3 of his plays in high school, and frankly I didn’t enjoy it. It wasn’t until I was about 25 that I came to appreciate him. Reading annotated editions helps, as does having a copy of Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare. If Shakespeare should be required reading in high school (and I don’t think he should), they should at least teach the comedies, which are easier reading. The neglect of Shakespeare’s comdies is a tragedy. :wink:

There is nothing wrong with seeing stage productions or films of the plays. But I think you’re missing something if you don’t also read the plays.

23

Am I the only person on earth who’s never had to LEARN (ie, actively taking the time to find out their meaning, rather than simply absorbing it from the usage) most words from Shakespear?

It’s really quite simple, if you don’t shackle yourself with the idea that Elizabethan English is so far removed from Modern English that you’ll never figure it out.

24

When I’ve read Sheakespeare, alone, I read it out loud.
I only have to read it once that way - silently I often
need to read the same line two or three times.

25

Saw one play (A Midsummer Night’s Dream) and four movies that I remember (Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Julius Ceaser) and found them all very enjoyable. Read most of them as well, and every single time it was absolutely mandatory to go to the notes just to figure out what everything meant (and even then my comprehension was limited at best).

So I’m absolutely convinced that Shakespearan plays (and any other play of this type) must be seen to be understood, let alone appreciated. Hey, I had to take those damn high school courses too, and I say something is seriously wrong when you can’t even follow what’s going on. I am also staunchly against the idea of having to learn and learn to do it “right” or whatever.

Take it from me, archaic language and dense prose are not the kind of things most readers can simply laugh off. It helps a lot to see the actual acting.

26

I agree with the above, particularly the recommendation about Asimov’s Guide (which I own and recently reread).

Yes, I believe that high school is generally too early to start reading Shakespeare.

I also agree that Shakespearean comedies are often neglected, though to be fair, I don’t believe they’ve stood the test of time as well as the tragedies or histories (the humor is often “dated”)
**

Again, I agree. I also agree with the sentiment that seeing the productions first also helps to understand the literary aspect.

27

Professor: I want a 2,000 word essay due next Monday describing the symbolism behind the following comment Trinity made to Agent Smith: “Dodge this.”

28

Book recommendation:

Shakespeare’s Bawdy by Eric Partridge [ISBN: 0415050766]

I am on my fourth copy (when will I ever learn not to loan books I really like). You will definitely gain some new insights and interpretations: an eye-opener, if you will. If you do not own a copy, I highly recommend it, especially for those who see the language as dry*.
*[sub]Sorry, DRY, I tried to get some sort of dry/DRY pun in there, but none of them were working.[/sub]

29

Theatre Student here…Acting over anything else, but I also have an affinity towards costuming and other than acting, my second strongest area is in stage management.

I love Shakespeare. I am absolutely MAD about his works! I love performing him and watching him be performed, over reading him. So I understand the desire to watch over reading him. I don’t (and can’t) sit with one of his plays and read the whole thing through, like a novel. I may read portions aloud, but I can’t read it like a book. However, I live to perform Shakespeare, those wrods and phrases rolling off my tongue. I could just eat them all up!! I have to agree that Shakespeare should be considered great literature, because of the many statemens he made about humans being humans and the base line of behavior. The characters he wrote were ones that encompass people of all walks of life, past, present and future. The man was an amazing writer. I do think that Shakespeare should be studied in schools, maybe even younger than it is currently taught. And I encourage the performances of Shakespeare in class to help learn it all. It is certainly the best way for students to grasp Shakespeare’s language.

So, yeah, that’s all I have to say about that.

:smiley:

30

I guess I’m the only one who really doesn’t like Shakespeare huh?

I can’t stand him to read being watched or heard. Part of the reason is the language, but even more so his stories are boring and unintersting. About the only thing going for him is he SOMETIMES has something funny, but not often enough to make it worth wading through all the other crap. I fail to see why so many people are so excited about him.

I like to read and I read all sorts of stuff. I prefer action books, but I also enjoy Greek tragities just not good old Bill.

31

Edward The Head - pick up the book I mentioned. A lot of the jokes will be far clearer (the ‘global tour’ of Nell in A Comedy of Errors, for example), if less cleaner.

As for boring and uninteresting, I can’t help you there (an opinion is an opinion, after all) except for a few suggestions:

  1. Get a condensed version (Cliff notes) and read the plot synopsis for each scene. This will give you a better idea of what’s going on, who dies and who is banished in each scene.

  2. If you are confused as to what is happening on-stage and where each character is, tape a character name to each piece of a chess set and move them ‘on’ and ‘off’ stage (or banish them to the coffee table in some cases, or put them back in the box if they die). This can give you a clearer picture of where each charater is, who is speaking to who, and who is already dead in Hamlet - note, you may need a supplementary box of checkers.

  3. If you have a good grasp of English history and royal lineage, the histories are much easier to understand, what with all the backstabbing and doublecrossing. (Although Willieboy did play fast and loose with the timeline and characters.)

Granted, the plots are a little far-fetched - cross-dressing characters are never exposed until the end of the play when they meet their identical twin and the havoc created in the meantime is all forgiven. But how different is that from most of the tv sitcoms and made-for-tv movies that pass for entertainment now?

Check out the Quickest Way to End Famous Plays thread, particularly the Jerry Springer episodes. That should give you a quick and dirty run down of the plays.

Also, pick up a copy of the play, “The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged): The Reduced Shakespeare Co presents [UNABRIDGED]” by Jess Borgeson, Adam Long, Daniel Singer, J.M. Winfield) [ISBN: 1557831572] [Also titled as “The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (abridged)”.] Better yet, see the play. All 37 plays and a couple of the sonnets in two hours. I can almost guarantee you will not be bored.

32

I don’t see why not, assuming the screenplay has sufficient literary merit. I read screenplays from time to time and I haven’t found anything wrong with the process. You can find classes in existance currently that dissect screenplays, though they probably aren’t general literature classes.

Of course, since viewing a movie is quite a bit easier than viewing a play I doubt any class would read the screenplay without also watching the movie, and ideally readings of plays would be accompanined by a performance, but that’s not always the easiest thing to do. If I never read plays unless I had the chance to see them in the theatre, I never would have read The Zoo Story, The Playboy of the Western World, or Agamemnon, among others (including some plays of Shakespeare, such as Richard III), and you’ll have a hard time convincing me that I would somehow be better off for it.