Personally, I always got more from reading the plays than from hearing or watching them. It gave me the ability to see the notes on the language, and look back at some point that had eluded me at first, and to reread passages that seemed especially worthwhile to get a feel for the verse. JMHO.
I think that seeing a play performed before studying it is a good idea. The school could get a video with one or more of the greatest actors. That would be Olivier and Gielgud for my generation (YMMV). Olivier’s Hamlet, Burton/Taylor/Zeffirelli’s Mating of the Wersh - er, Taming of the Shrew. Just listening to Gielgud recite Shakespeare is a sublime experience.
Nah, Hamlet sucks when you get right down to it. Why does he always delay killing Claudius? WE NEVER REALLY FIND OUT!!! Sure, he has all these speeches which have a zillion ideas in them just to keep us guessing. And he always seems to find something else to do first. He takes his own sweet time about it and screws everything up in the end. Psychological trauma, my foot. Hamlet was just a slacker with the attention span of a spoiled brat. 
Pshaw! Hamlet couldn’t kill the king right away. He was too educated from the high falootin’ college to act that rashly. But he tried.
“If I kill him now, can I really be sure he killed my dad?”
“If I kill him now, he’ll go to heaven. That’s not where I want him.”
“If I kill him now, the play will be over. Then we’ll all be sitting around listening to Ophelia whine about flowers for three hours!”
So you see, it’s quite clear he couldn’t kill the king until the end.
Never really payed attention to the play, have ya?
He wants to force Claudius to confess. If he just kills him, with no proof but his conversations with his father’s ghost (‘Uh…yeah, Hammy…we believe you…’), it would be Regicide, not justice, at least as far as anyone else is concerned.
does a happy dance
Yay, Zarathustra! I wrote my B.A. thesis on Richard II – and I just saw Henry IV, Part I in Stratford (Ontario) today, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. I love the histories, even the oft-neglected Henry VI trilogy. (It’s not the best read, but as theater it can be positively electric. I had the privilege of seeing the RSC perform those plays plus Richard III – it was utterly spectacular.)
Anyway, I hope to teach Shakespeare someday, so I’m incredibly biased, but yes, reading Shakespeare is worth it, absolutely. My cardinal rules regarding the teaching of Shakespeare:
- Shakespeare wrote for the stage, and we should always remember this when approaching his plays.
- Even if Shakespeare is the cornerstone of the Western canon, being overly reverent sucks all the life out of his work.
- Hi, Opal! (ha, I did it!)
This isn’t to say, though, that Shakespeare is only experienced properly onstage, because if that were true my academic career would be scuttled before it ever set sail. There’s a tremendous amount to be gained from reading Shakespeare – you can pick up on ambiguities that don’t always come out onstage, where you have to make choices about interpretation. (OTOH, you can also see new possibilities of interpretation when watching a performance, so it works both ways.) And it’s easier to explore the intricacies of Shakespeare’s language on the page (especially if you also have an old-spelling edition handy – some of the wordplay is made clearer in the spelling; it also contains some clues to Elizabethan pronunciation). All that said, I’d still make people read scenes aloud (my favorite part of my high-school Shakespeare class, especially because I got to play Hotspur ;))
And yes, I memorize passages all the time just because I like them.
Oh, and the list of Shakespeare plays I’ve read. Plays I first read for school are asterisked.
Hamlet
Macbeth
Othello
King Lear*
Romeo and Juliet*
Titus Andronicus
Julius Caesar
Antony and Cleopatra
Much Ado About Nothing*
A Midsummer Night’s Dream*
Twelfth Night
As You Like It
The Merchant of Venice
Measure for Measure
The Tempest*
Edward III (apocryphal)
Richard II
Henry IV parts I* and II
Henry V
Henry VI parts I, II, and III*
Richard III
The Sonnets*
Venus and Adonis
The Phoenix and Turtle
(I’ve read Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, Measure for Measure, and Twelfth Night for class, too, but I read them on my own first. :D)
Sorry, GingerOfTheNorth, but Shakespeare actually wasn’t required reading at my school. Despite my pleas to my English teacher to let us do some Shakespeare, it was deemed irrelevant to Australian teenagers in the 90’s. Instead we covered such classics as Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH (Hey, I liked it, but I read it first when I was 8 - then we were assigned it when I was 13?!), Pennington’s Seventeenth Summer, Cry Freedom (the movie - they didn’t set book reports that year), and a bunch of others that I have totally forgotten now.
I really wanted to do Shakespeare at school because I had the crazy idea that I would enjoy it better if I had someone guide me when we began reading it. Aged 14, I bought a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare, but I never got far with it. Aged 15, I gave it away. The language confused me, and I discovered that I couldn’t read plays. This has plagued me ever since. I would love to be able to sit down and enjoy Shakespeare, but anything written in play form doesn’t work for me. It disrupts the flow of the story, and instead of living it, I merely read it. How do I overcome this affliction?
I would appreciate any advice on Shakespeare for Beginners (Shakespeare for Dummies?). What should I start with? I am sick of being a bookworm who has never read anything by only the most famous English author ever.
I love Shakespeare. But I will admit he does not always translate well especially for modern teens whose attention span seem more aimed at short music videos or long commercials.
Shakespeare’s strength lies in his understanding of the human animal. Look at Shylock and Portia in “Merchant of Venice”. Both are real and pasionate and eloquent yet completely opposed to one another. And even the shallow boy friend is so very believable.
Look at “Romeo and Juliet”. These are real teenagers. Typically they are more in love with the idea of being in love than than they are with one another. And Shakepeare understood it so well (even) in the early 1600s.
Look at “Hamlet”. Here is a guy that comes home from war and finds his father dead (probably by the hands of his uncle) and his mom and uncle are getting it on. He is so obsessed with the thing he sees his dead father asking to be revenged. All of his friends turn against him. His sweetheart flips out and commits suicide. Yet look at how Shakespeare has him deal with it. It is so very real (if weird).
And “Taming of the Shrew”. Jeez what a wonderful personification of the war of the sexes. The sexual tension Shakespeare created between between Petruccio and Kate…I haven’t seen anything like it until Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard, and they showed it best when doing “Taming of the Shrew” in a special episode.
And “Comedy of Errors”. The ultimate “Twin” comedy. Slapstick, subtle word bits, yet always believable characters.
“MacBeth”. It has it all, a ghost, witches, great fight scenes, murders, sound bites, sleep walking and characters as real as the Napali Royal family (Did the uncle really do the killing and merely blame it on the heir apparent? not unlike the killing of Duncan, eh?).
And then there is “Julius Caesar”…the manipulative eloquence of that partier and dumb jock Marc Antony. The innocence and its evil end in the person of Brutus. Each conspiritor had his own reason for taking part and the way Shakespeare drew them you saw them all. And do you remember where Cinna the poet is confused with Cinna the conspiritor? Has there ever been a better depiction of mob mentality in literature, film or television?
And with “Richard III”. Here is a man that is the epitomy of evil and yet Shakespeare finds a way of making this manifestation of evil a character that we understand and who can touch us and is a real as any modern flawed leader.
And Othello…and…
I’m rambling. I’m sorry, but hopefully I have made my point that even “bad” Shakespeare is superior to such things as “good” movies and television.
Is Shakespeare taught in schools today? It is in the small rural school in the town I reside, and I’m glad it is.
One time I was stopped talking to a maintainance crew in my town working on a ditch (I was one story short for that week’s edition of the paper), and we were bad mouthing the mayor. One of the young men in the ditch leaning on his shovel realized we weren’t exactly being fair and he launched into the “Quality of Mercy” speech from “Merchant”. It fit perfectly.
TV
Cazzle: Try this: buy a copy of a movie basd off Shakespeare, one that you particularly like. Watch it alot. Then go back and read the play. Being able to visualize the movie will help you with most of it, and make it easier to get through the portions of the play that didn’t make it to the screen. If you do this often enough, you’ll eventually learn the knack of reading Shakespeare right off the page. Reading is a skill, just like riding a bike: you get better with practice.
TV Time: Minor nitpick: Hamlet was coming home from college, not from war.
Only thing I have memorized is part of Mark Antony’s speech from Julius Caesar. I had to when I was 15 or so and it’s still stuck in my head.
Put me down as a “yes” for Shakespeare is worth it. I’m in agreement with those who have been saying that the plays were meant to be seen and heard. When I plan to study a play, the first thing that I do is go down to the library and check out a tape so that I can see and hear the dialog being performed competently, not a theatrical film version, but a taped version of a stage play. I happen to work at a University part-time, so I have access to a large selection of excellent stage performances, but most public libraries have the majors covered pretty well, and these things are always in.
It is only after I’ve gotten to know what’s going on do I go to the text, along with my trusty, well worn copy of Isaac Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare, IMHO the greatest practical guide to reading Shakespeare ever written.
In terms of writing, no doubt. But in terms of “achievement in the annals of human creation”? Nah. There are people whose creative achievements are at least comperable. Mozart, Newton, Da Vinci, Edison, all in the same class. Personally I’d put Shakespeare a tad behind Mozart, but at this level, why split hairs.
I’d completely agree with Miller on this: borrowing a Shakespeare movie is the surest way to quick enjoyment.
Because Shakespeare is very hard to act on film, however, you’ll want to avoid the experiments which weren’t so successful. I’m a writer, and have made short professional videos, so I’ll dare the wrath of fans and suggest one of a few. “Much Ado About Nothing” with Emma Thompson is a comedy, has a beautiful setting, and has some outstanding acting. “Hamlet” with Laurence Olivier is straight brilliant, but it’s old, and dramatized as if a stage play, which is a little odd. “Othello” with Lawrence Fishbane(?) and Kenneth Branagh is good. For a first try or two avoid versions where the characters wear modern clothes. Orson Wells never did good Shakespeare, and absolutely do not see “Titus” which, IMHO verges on sick (the play itself is pretty disgusting).
The nice thing about Shakespeare is that once you get it (and it really doesn’t take much) there’s so much to enjoy!
That scene kind of made me laugh and gave me chills at the same time, like the defensive reaction one has (humor) when contemplating something too horrible to think about. Like a dead baby joke, but much more disturbing for being perfectly imaginable as happening in real life.
Katisha, I’m honored by your happy dance. I didn’t know what to expect when I started out reading Richard II, and I was very surprised to find that I could relate to and sympathize with Richard. After I finish reading and re-reading each of the plays, I’m going to try to find a video of the performance with Olivier, Gielgud, or Ian McKellan. (Anybody see all three of them in King Lear?) Even better, of course, would be to find a live performance, and I’ll take those in when I get the chance.
Who? 
When I was a Junior in college I took comedies and histories of the Bard. MacBeth was not included. Nevertheless, my house burned down that quarter. I finished, got an A in Shakespeare and to this day, my “Collected Works” is one of only two books I still have from pre-fire days. And I refer to it frequently.
I agree that the best way to enjoy the man from Stratford is to see his work, either on stage or on film. I am particularly impressed with Al Pacino’s attempt to examine “Richard III,” among the most complicated of Shakespeare’s works.
At the same time that the play is being performed on film, Mr. HOO-wah explains the intracacies of the plot and staging. One can really appreciate the process that goes into interpreting the Bard’s work and making it pertinent to a modern audience. And that, in my opinion is why Shakespeare is so good: he tackled issues that were pertinent in his day that remain controversial today. Additionaly, his use of language and creation of idioms is so wonderful that his efforts deserve scrutiny.
Still, as a Tudor historian, I recognize that the man wrote shit, too. I am waiting for the person who can claim to have read “Henry VIII.” I think those of you who list your conquests are pretentious. If you can claim to have read that one, you are either a liar or certifiable.
I’m a novice at Shakespeare, and I appreciate the contributions by all the people in this thread who’ve read so much more than I have. I’m also glad to see people mentioning works that they’ve read and how they felt about them. Based on the example of others, I hope I can get some sense of how I should proceed in reading Shakespeare.
That goes for you too, Oscar–based on what you say, I imagine that I can safely leave Henry VIII for last.
I read Henry VIII. And I am neither a liar nor am I certifiable. Well, the latter is currently under debate at the Malibu Institute of Psychology, but I think I’ve got a real good chance!
Anyway, I read it because I promised myself I’d read everything Shakespeare wrote just so I could someday say I had. I wish I’d saved it for last, because it truly is the most snore-inducing, long-winded, muddled, confusing piece of garbage I ever had the displeasure of reading. No wonder no one ever performs it.
Troilus and Cressida is a marvelous, under-appreciated play with an intensely modern feel. It is about disillusionment, betrayal, and courage in the face of disaster. Sir Kenneth Clark said that lack of confidence ruins civilizations. This play may have been on his mind when he said that.
Shakespeare isn’t a big part of my life any more, but I reread Troilus about every other year because it breaks my heart. I’ve been lucky enough to see it performed once, but I hope to see it again with a better cast. 
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I’ll return them next Saturday.
The evil that men do lives after them
In the progeny that reap the benefits of the life insurance.
The great thing about Shakespeare’s plays is that they are enjoyable so many different ways. Put them on stage, and they are fun theater. Read them as literature, and they are fascinating. Study them for clues about living in the 1500’s and they give you a ton of insight. Review them as propaganda for the Tudor monarchs and you begin to see the effort used to make Henry and Henry et alia acceptable. Compare them to the works of Marlowe or Bacon and … oops, we won’t go there. 
I think the growing lack of attention to Shakespeare in high school reflects a snowballing lack of breadth in our education. Once a teacher makes it through high school without running into the plays, the thought creeps in that it isn’t a needed part of high school learning. And it can be hard to establish the relevance of reading something from so long ago; that is why I think more people get engrossed in the works if they start out by putting on a play rather than just reading the words. Show the kids West Side Story, THEN have them learn Romeo and Juliet.
Ok, so I like the stirring martial theme…
PS: Just a plug here for the best love scene of all time, NOT written by S, but spoken rather by a man with un grand nez…
Oh, that DRY and his dry wit!
I have memorized the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V and Hamlet’s soliloquy just because I like the sound of the words. That, along with my ability, at my age, to still do both a split and a straddle, means I can impress a whole range of people at cocktail parties.
I have to concur with other posters that a familiarity with the works of Shakespeare is indispensable in a proper education. His psychological insight, his inventiveness with language, and the sheer pleasure his plays give make Shakespeare the greatest playwright in English.
While Shakespeare’s Elizabethan language is difficult for the Britney Spears-generation to understand at first, a good teacher can make the language come alive. Shakespeare’s plays weren’t meant to be read in a dry monotone, they were meant to be performed, so to teach Shakespeare properly, the instructor has to be a bit of an actor as well. The plays may be 400 years old, but the subject matter–love, hate, romance, and revenge-- is just as relevant today as ever.
I think trashing “Titus Andronicus” is extreme. Yes, it features rape, mutilation, and cannibalism, not to mention that all the major characters die at the end, but, after all, Shakespeare was just starting out and his first play was in the popular Senecan revenge genre, a sure crowd pleaser ever since Thomas Kyd’s “The Spanish Tragedy” in 1576. You can also see that the the characters of Titus and Aaron the Moor as early sketches of the immortal roles of King Lear and Iago. I thought Julie Taymor’s film adaptation completley rocked, and I’ve got it on DVD.
I also think that “Hamlet” is Shakespeare’s second-best play after “King Lear.” The reason I prefer Lear to Hamlet is that in Lear we see the king’s transformation from a fatuous old man who “hath but slenderly known himself” to a chastened, humble man, stripped of artificial stature, who has learned to discern real love and friendship from mere courtiers’ flattery. Lear learns the power and flattery he received were part of his office as king and did not pertain to his stature as a man. He has to strip himself bare to discover who he really is. The subplot of Gloucester and his sons parallels this change from deception to knowledge; both fathers learn too late who really loved them. Hamlet, on the other hand, learns nothing and undergoes no transformation, except from living to dead. He is a cruel, arrogant pup who plays cat and mouse with Claudius to avenge his father’s death and gain the throne. It’s a rousing story, but it lacks the depth and subtext of Lear.
I’ve read all the plays and the only ones I haven’t seen are Measure for Measure, A Winter’s Tale, and Pericles. It’s great living in metro DC with three theaters that specialize in Shakespeare.