Unfortunately, I do not read enough - of Shakespeare or anything else. I have, however, read some of the plays for pleasure, though like most people I first read them at school. This past summer I reread Macbeth. I had enjoyed it at school, but I wanted to get more out of it, so I picked it up a started reading it. I finished it in the cafeteria of the hospital while my SO was having surgery on his wrist. I got lots of funny looks from people, though I don’t really know why? Is it that odd to carry “The complete works of Shakepeare” into a hospital?
In my own time, I have also reread the Tempest and Hamlet, and I read Two Gentlemen of Verona and A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, but the last two, I’d have to reread to understand them. I do plan on reading them all, or at least most, but the font in that book is SO hard to get past!
I enjoy reading Shakespeare. Shakespeare, for some reason, is something I like to read while outdoors - in a garden, or under a tree, or on my porch. I am in search of the Perfect Collected Shakespeare - one that has the full text of all the plays (sonnets and other works optional), with the text all the way across the page - not in three tiny-font columns that force the typesetter to abbreviate characters’ names and omit stage directions - and with commentary in essay form preceding or following the plays, and/or in a second column on the same page as the play (but still allowing room for proper text).
You weren’t staring at his wrist muttering “out, out damned spot”, were you?
And I’ll agree with several other posters that reading Shakespeare is fun, but not nearly as fun as watching is. He included only minimal stage directions and blocking, which leaves plenty of room for interpretation, and sometimes it takes seeing it performed before you realize “That has to have been exactly what he intended.”.
Count me in. I have a nice annotated Riverside Shakespeare I used for a class once and a much nicer leatherbound, gold-leafed Complete Annotated Shakespeare with some very nice illustrations. And a ton of individual plays lying around.
As much as I admire Shakespeare’s mastery of words in his sonnets, I get a little tired of reading one after another that all boil down to “You’re not getting any younger or prettier, you know, so how about a shag?” A few sonnets at a time go a long way with me.
The advantage of reading his plays is that you can catch all the jokes and other wordplay at your leisure. That being said, I think it’s a mistake to start students out reading Shakespeare, especially as so many schools never get to the stage of seeing the staged work (either live or on screen).
I love reading Shakespeare. I read Lear or Hamlet semiannually, and I often read a bunch of the bard before I sit down to write myself: he seems to get me flowing.
It was in high school when I first read Shakespeare, and I didn’t get it; I felt dumb. We tackled, you guessed it, Romeo and Juliet. I don’t really remember much about the actual reading of the play, but it left me believing that Shakespeare was hard.
Later on I took a class in college where I had to read quite a few Shakespeare plays. The first few were drugery, but then one night right, in the middle of Othello, I realized that I had read an entire scene in the same way that I read regular prose. It had made sense. That was when I began to enjoy reading Shakespeare.
I live near American Players Theater which specializes in Shakespeare, so I have seen, probably, fifteen performances of Bill’s plays. I love live performance, but I don’t think that I can agree with the “the plays were meant to be seen” philosophy. I mean, sure they were, but you can’t possibly pick up even a tenth of what’s being said, or alluded to, or hinted at, or toyed with in word play, or any of the rest, without reading it.
If you read it out loud you get a different understanding than if you read silently. If you read the same scene twice, you’ll see something you totally missed the last time through. If you read it in a class with a good teacher, one who promotes discussion, you’ll be shocked at how much more there is to even a minor Shakespeare play.
I’m with mailman – Shakespeare is definitely better when read aloud. Or, at least, if you come across a passage you don’t quite get, read it aloud and you probably will.
I used ot have my summer school kids (ages 8-13) do 20 minute versions of Shakespeare. We mostly did the plots, but we snuck in some of the language. I’ve run into some of them, years, after, and they told me that Shakespeare never scared them because they knew he was fun from when they were young.
I also read Shakespeare for pleasure. I’ve read everything except Rape of Lucrece, and that includes Two Noble Kinsmen. As others have said, it’s a lot better when you read it aloud.
My favorite lesser-known works are Troilus and Cressida and Coriolanus. Volumnia is an awesome character.
I laughed aloud in the cinema. But I was the only one, so it was me giving a sudden bark, heads swiveling at me, and me quickly shutting up with a red face. :o
The little boy feeding mice to a cat identifies himself as John Webster. Webster was a Jacobean dramatist who specialized in bloody tragedies like The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi, so the idea of him as a twisted boy performing cruelties on innocent animals is perfectly apposite.
I often find it most effective to read a play shortly before I watch a performance. If I have a rough idea of what’s going on in each scene while I watch, it’s a lot easier to catch the nuances of the dialogue. I watch all the performances at my hometown’s Shakespeare Festival each summer, and any others than I can get to provided the price is reasonable. For next spring I’m taking a course on the comedies that involves reading eight plays. That will probably be sufficient Shakespeare for me, so I doubt I’ll read any additional ones for fun.
I was curious when I asked my original question, was all. I’ve always enjoyed Shakespeare – particularly the performances. As I’ve read more of him (and started reading aloud to myself at the time, which seems to help), I’ve enjoyed him more.
What prompted my original question was the sense I get from some of the people I know that Shakespeare is somehow dated and/or not worth the effort of experiencing. Case in point: I was at a friend of a friend’s house and found the collected works of WS laying on the floor. As I flipped through the pages, others began to notice what I’d found. I was mildly ridiculed, as it seems the best use for the book that this household had found was to prop up the leg of a broken couch.
Glad to see that attitude is not as widespread as I’d feared.
And you spot really obsessive English majors in mixed company because they think it would have been a better joke if it had been made about Barnabe Barnes instead
Not here, at least. That’s why this place is such a wonderful refuge; post a Shakespeare thread and a few dozen folks immediately jump in to share the love.
Of course, there are so many people here, and it’s such a diverse community, that you could probably post a thread about knocking down hot-air balloons with hairless wolverines launched from catapults and expect at least a few people to respond with advice and humorous anecdotes based on personal experience.
