illuminatiprimus, you seem to be a very honest young man who is giving Shakespeare a reasonable amount of time. But not all of that time is focused on completing the plays you begin. Don’t write a play off until you have read it from beginning to end and given it some thought…
…and then lived your lifetime and read and studied it again and seen parallels in your own life…and borrowed its poisons and perfumes…
Shakespeare has been a sort of eucharist that I’ve shared with others over the years. I’m thinking now of a high school principal who told me of having to kill someone in battle face to face. And when it was done, all he could think of was, “Out! Out! damn-ed spot!” Still perfect.
And if you choose not to look further at Shakespeare, you will find what speaks to you and carry it with you, I have no doubt. You are right that it really is okay to trust you instincts on what’s right for you.
I realized a long time ago that I have an advantage over native folks, when it comes to watching Shakespeare: I get it translated! I think this is one of the reasons he keeps being rewritten: West Side Story or Kiss me, Kate are much easier to understand that the originals, due to English changing so much over time. The other reason being, of course, that his copyright is expired and nobody will sue over someone making Yet Another Goode Olde Shakescopy
The stories themselves are good. Often the characters are completely dumb, but the thing is, if Romeo and Juliet had had the sense God gave to a burned-out bulb, there would be no story, and the only thing dumber than a teenager in love is another teenager in love.
Reading an anotated version of a play is a pain in the eyes. It’s impossible to immerse yourself in the story when it means more work than trying to read an issue of Journal of Advanced Physics with a dictionary, a stacks of physics books and a middle-school-level understanding of physics.
For Illuminatiprimus and anyone else who’s willing to keep giving this subject an honest go, Jester’s comment reminds me of another resource that might prove helpful: The “Barton Tapes,” which is the informal name for Playing Shakespeare, a British television series in which John Barton, legendary dramaturg and director, leads an all-star group of classically trained actors in the fine art of understanding and interpreting Shakespeare’s language. You get to see Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Judi Dench, Ben Kingsley, David Suchet, Sinead Cusack, and a variety of other recognizable faces (“hey, it’s the guy who played an Imperial officer in Return of the Jedi!”) starting with the raw verse, picking it apart, teasing out the meaning and nuance, and then putting it back together into a coherent performance. Enormously illuminating and very entertaining, and almost certainly available at your local library* (it is, for obvious reasons, a perennial must-watch for acting students).
*ETA: On VHS. Sadly, I don’t think it’s ever been released on DVD.
Of course, if that’s the only way ypou can read Shakespeare, that’s fine, but …
I’ve seen a few versions of Shakespeare that have been translated into current English, and they all seem to miss a whole lot of both the poetry and the bad puns.* So, if you read Shakespeare in Spanish, you’re missing something, just as I’m missing somethng when I read Cervantes in English.
Bad puns, like that in Hamlet:
There are at least two bad puns in there, which Ophelia pretends not to understand, but (of course) does.
I belong to a small Shakespeare troupe. We’re all pretty practiced hands, but even we don’t understand every line until we start to perform them. I’ve heard “What am I even SAYING?” dozens of times, sometimes from my own mouth.
We’ve been doing comedies lately: A Comedy of Errors last year, and The Taming of the Shrew this one. I think they are good places to start: some of his famous wordplay is here, but it’s a little muted in the interests of good comedy. A good troupe will bring the meaning out through more than words: intonation and gesture are at least equally important, and we can find the dick joke in anything.
[possibly personal opinion, ymmv]
Romeo and Juliet, by the way, is not a romance. It’s not about the misunderstood love of a couple of adolescents. It’s about how they decided their sudden crush was worth causing a war in their city. Decent and innocent people died and an old feud flamed up enough to set a city ablaze, all because a fourteen year old got horny. Angsty teenagers existed then, too.
[/possibly personal opinion, ymmv]
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus]
I’ve had it. I’ve tried and I’ve tried and I’ve tried, but I just don’t get Shakespeare. I’ve studied him to A level at school, seen a couple of his plays live and watched loads of film adaptations, and I can only conclude that he blows chunks.
Covet thy fears not, fair Illuminus, for I that I have not we begat one’s greatest pleasure have you to so? Speaketh not! For if thy speaketh when I say not speakeith it means that you and I now can speaketh, for You mY have spokethh firtistest! (Quote from Willie the Shake) (There WILL be a quiz)
Some of the most boring shit I’ve ever had to read. The guy’s dead and gone, what’s so great about him ? Unless the “Real” author was Bacon.
I like bacon. In the morning, with eggs.
Errrrr…Jake, I’m pretty sure a number of people in this thread have already made some pretty legitimate cases for “what’s so great about him.” You don’t like him? Peachy. But there are plenty of reasons that he’s still around even though he’s dead.
Yeah, I know. Well I didn’t know he was a zombie!
He’s written some beautiful things but in such a round-about way to my manner of reading and thinking that I just prefer to read more modern books.
Besides, I HAD to read Shakespeare in college. In a hurry.
Maybe I’ll try again now when I have the time…
Jake
High school and college English Literature classes have a knack for draining all the fun out of great literature. The classics are a lot better when you are reading them on your own. I hated Moby Dick in high school. Years later, I bought a copy on a whim, read it cover-to-cover, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Others in this thread have already suggested Titus Andronicus and Looking for Richard. I would suggest Prospero’s Books. It’s The Tempest, with cool special FX, John Gielgud as Prospero, and a lot of naked people (both genders) running around in the background.
Shakepeare’s plays are written in the form of poetry, and so are naturally less natural-sounding to the ear. It’s to be expected that the dialogue between the characters in “Shakespeare In Love” should be more understandable, because it would have been. In a very real sense, if someone says of Shakepeare’s plays “Did they really talk like that?” the answer is “no, they didn’t.” People did not speak in poetry as a matter of course. Shakespeare was making art with words, not looking for realistic dialogue.
If you read prose written in Shakepeare’s time, it’s much easier to understand.
In my experience, the problem is not with the text, but with the actors. Well-acted Shakespeare is simply amazing. Poorly-acted Shakespeare is painful. Good actors can make the dialogue flow so naturally that you don’t get hung up on how it’s different from modern language. Watching good Shakespeare in the theater gives me chills.
Not if the translator is good. I can read Pterry in Spanish and enjoy him as much as in English, something which sadly I can’t say about most authors. But Pratchett’s translators are superb.
There’s something you need to remember here. Our first exposure to Shakespeare is in school. And everything we ever hear about him was his brilliance and incredible importance to Western culture and the resonance of his works and the great influence and the inimitable blah blah blah. In other words, before you see one word he’s written, you’re EXPECTING the experience to be no fun whatsoever! And then the archaic language, which no one has prepared you for, hits you like a wrecking ball, and then you have to learn all this junk about iambic pentameter and verse versus prose and courtly etiquette and theological imagery…even if you really want to learn, it’s like running the Daytona 500 with three flat tires and a malfunctioning alternator.
My suggestion? Approach his works the way they’re supposed to be approached. As a spectator. Watch a play and see how the flowery language and dramatic shifts happen onstage. Get into a discussion. Pick up the Cliffs Notes (you weren’t the first and you won’t be the last) to get some idea of what these guys are talking about. Or even go the Dave Barry route and poke some good-natured fun at the whole thing.
I had a similar outlook to you(only it was Henry V inflicted on our unwilling minds) when by pure accident in the old 2 TV channel days(Transmissions finish at eleven thirty )I was watching a late night subtitled,B&W Russian version of Hamlet.
I know that that sounds incredibly pretentious and arty farty but having come back from the pub it was either watch that or the wallpaper.
And I was literally gobsmacked at how atmospheric and gripping it was.
I suspect that the alcohol played its part and the subtitles made it more understandable but whatever the reason it led me on to actually enjoy other Shakespeares plays.
To this day I still dont enjoy all of them(I dont really like his comedies much) and as another poster said even if he is our national treasure we’re not all obliged to like his stuff.
I’ll be the first to admit that when I read Shakespeare, my eyes kind of gloss over and skip to the bottom of the dialogue. He’s not something you read. He’s something you study.
Actors and directors initally spend much of their time trying to figure out what the heck is going on in a Shakespeare play. They block the scenes, position themselves on stage, and recite their lines. After repeated trials, they start to understand the context. Eventually, they find the identities of their characters and make them grow. They realize how much influence Shakespeare has on performing art today. Come opening night, they hope they can do well enough to make their audience understand what’s happening under all the flowery speech. Duels, costumes, nude scenes, set pieces, etc help a little bit in that they’re something less demanding to comprehend.
When you work inside the scenes, you develop a more sublime understanding. But just reading the plays, snooze time.
I support you in your opinion of Shakespeare, illuminati. You’ve given it a fair try, and it’s not for you. I have also given Shakespeare a fair try, and he’s not for me, either. I don’t like live plays at all, and while I let my husband drag me to Shakespeare in the Park every year, I could cheerfully live without any Shakespeare in my life at all. Feel free to ignore all suggestions for what you can do to increase your appreciation of Shakespeare here; I’m planning to do that. There are about a billion other books for me to read; I’m not wasting any more of my time on books I don’t truly enjoy.
I consider Mel Gibson generally to be a right-wing numbskull. However, I once saw a film of him discussing Hamlet in a classroom (I forget whether it was junior or senior high) and I thought he did a good job of conveying the passion of Shakespeare’s language.
I’ve performed R & J twice, and I must say that I don’t quite agree with this interpretation. The feud was already flaring up before Romeo and Juliet met. Friar Lawrence thought that their love would unite the two feuding families. The adults in both families were ready to make peace and bury the hatchet.
I agree that it’s not exactly a romance–though I think this aspect of the story shouldn’t be ignored–it’s more of a tragedy. It’s an object lesson on the dangers of allowing yourself to be ruled by your passions.
