---

by Cat
I simply find the plot of some of his plays simplistic, thats my opinion. porbably because i have been spoilt by thriller novels etc.

---

The plot is only one facet of any work of fiction; in a thriller it is more important than in other genres. The plot would be the incorrect thing to look for in Shakespeare because, as has already been pointed out, he stole most of them anyway.

And you don't need to suffix everything you say with 'that's my opinion'. In a discussion of this nature the only thing one can express is opinion.

---

The format is simplistic because it writen as a play. Books or film offer much more versatility for story telling.

Plays are bound, for example by set. you cant easily have 2 dozen different sets for a 2 hr play, it's just not realistic. expecially not in the day these works were written.

Budget is another factor. while film is affected by budget, and a play will be also, a book can take place anywhere, any time at no cost to the writer, reader or publisher.

---

Well, this has already been addressed by other people, and I was going to point you towards the prologue of Henry V that White Hart cited. It was acknowledged that imagination should play a part in going to a play - the Renassiance term passed to us is 'audience' from the latin audiens, listening. If you've been to The Globe you'll have noticed that wherever you're seated some of the action will be obscured by some post or other. Renaissance plays are poetry. Ben Jonson prized his words - his poetry - above the plays they appeared in. To say that:

---

by PictureOfFlowersI'm still not sure if it would have worked better with updated dialogue though.

---

misses one of the reasons Shakespeare is considered as great as he is, and that is his beautiful language.

---

by Emma
On the technical level I appreciate Shakespeare because he wrote everything in iambic pentamiter (darn I can't spell!) and I've NEVER been able to do that!

---

Well, all plays of the time were written in verse. I think we've lost a great deal of our sensitivity to poetic rhythm. A lot of the technical brilliance is in knowing when and how to break the rhythm rather than being able to write in it, which was taken for granted; less gifted poets of Shakespeare's time write far more regular verse.

---

by PictureOfFlowers
Now how cool does that sound? It just flows so well. It could almost be a Manic Street Preachers lyric!

---

There's no higher praise, I'm sure
What did you win?

Shakespeare just aint my cuppa. The plays bore me, probably because I don't get them. I had to analyse Macbeth at school, and it was the most tedious part of the course.

The one thing I have to say about this (at the present time ) is that I don't think peopel can 'get' Shakespeare by just reading the folios (although it's a good idea to brush up before watching a play). THe plays have to be watched for the nuances that performers bring to them. I think it was in Twelth Night, for example, in the local version that I saw, that Malvolio jerked his head around as Sir Toby Belch gave an involuntary snort of indignation, only to comclude that it was his imagination. A very funny moment, for me, but it doesn't appear on the stage directions, and that's what makes any play fun to stage, that opportunity to add something, or stress aspects.

The films are not so good, inspite of the scope for larger backdrops, because the actors can't engage with the audience, especially for the comic relief bits, which they might as well leave out, frankly.

---

by Demona
misses one of the reasons Shakespeare is considered as great as he is, and that is his beautiful language.

---

Didn't miss the point, it's just that at first I thought the dialogue really stood out and seemed really awkward and out of place. On second viewing I got used to it though.

---

by Demona
There's no higher praise, I'm sure
What did you win?

---

Absolutely not! I'm sure old Will would have given anything to be as cool as Richey Edwards!

Oh and I won a little glow-in-the-dark plastic alien thing! It's well cool!

OK, confirmed Shakespeare fan here. So much of his work is so utterly moving, that I can't help but to get torn up by it.

A lot of damage is done to Shakespeare by the emphasis that our schools place on him. I was lucky in that we barely touched him in my school, so I came to him by myself and without the forced atmosphere and authoritarian reverence that must come from most people's school experience. Consequently I cannot translate every term, nor understand the nuances of the Iambic Pentameter format. But what I can do is tune in to the emotions being described, which, for me, is the beauty of Shakespeare.

As for theatre in general, the advantage over the cinema that it has is that it isn't so visual. No, you can't do huge car chases and have huge explosions in a theatre, not like you can in film - but that's one of the things I love about it. Theatre is forced to concentrate on the plot and on the dialogue. Plus, you are forced to use your own imagination instead of just being a receptacle for someone else's. The advantage over literature (and also over film) is the personal connection with the actors - to see them perform, and to see what they (and the director) bring to the production (especially if you have read the text before hand, or have seen previous versions).

That isn't to say that theatre is superior. For me, there is a place for literature, film and theatre - they all provide a different form of entertainment for me. Now, Opera, that's a completely different kettle of fish...

Anyway, I love Shakespeare (although most of his comedies are rewrites of the same joke), and would be hard pressed to name a playwright I admired more. However, I do wish he wasn't presented as being 'objectively' the best. It is my opinion that he is, but each to their own. I also, as mentioned above, wish that schools didn't OD on him. Cover one play, and give it no more time than any other that you study. That would make more sense to me.

Oh, and on Kieran’s note about The Merchant of Venice – this is clearly an anti-semitic play. However, I would agree that banning it from study is the wrong approach – brushing these things under the carpet can only lead to mistakes being repeated. Study it in context, and allow the subject to cover the historical and cultural implications. Personally, I saw an absolutely fantastic version of the play where the director changed the setting to 1930’s Italy (Douche suddenly takes on another meaning in that context) – and thus reversed the roles of heroes and villains, and even blurred it to some extent. Absolutely fantastic, and one of my favourite theatre memories.

---

by Jayjay
Oh, and on Kieran’s note about The Merchant of Venice – this is clearly an anti-semitic play. However, I would agree that banning it from study is the wrong approach – brushing these things under the carpet can only lead to mistakes being repeated. Study it in context, and allow the subject to cover the historical and cultural implications. Personally, I saw an absolutely fantastic version of the play where the director changed the setting to 1930’s Italy (Douche suddenly takes on another meaning in that context) – and thus reversed the roles of heroes and villains, and even blurred it to some extent. Absolutely fantastic, and one of my favourite theatre memories.

---

That sounds really interesting! In some ways the problematic plays are much more immediately interesting. One of my favourites is 'The Taming of the Shrew', which is rarely performed these days, but which is interesting precisely because of the rather stark glimpse of relationships between the sexes it gives us, and because of how you resolve that to make the play tolerable to a modern audience.

Sadly, studying Shakespeare as poetry without ever seeing a performance can easily ruin it, which is what so often happens. Then again, I'm not conviced about the academic study of literature anyway - I did a degree in English Lit, and I could hardly pick up book for years after that, let alone enjoy reading

---

by Jayjay
Anyway, I love Shakespeare and would be hard pressed to name a playwright I admired more.

---

Whereas I'd be hard pressed to name any other playwright full stop !!!

Personally I've always had trouble recieving/getting/understanding the emotion associated with the spoken word. I've always found the emotions I perceive as "second hand" for want of a better term, this isn't a criticism, it's perhaps something akin to jealousy crossed with curiosity on my part, but I did enjoy the one with Denzel Washington in it (Much ado about nothing?) And the Leonardo DiCaprio Romeo and Juliet one was very stylish too and I think the setting worked very well.

---

by Sydney
The thing that bugs me about Shakespear is the way snobbish people claim that it is a higher artform that modern plays, novels and television.

---

I'm not sure who is pushing Shakespeare as a higher art form. It is certainly pushed as higher quality than the majority of todays popular entertainment, but then, I'd agree with that, and I suspect the creators of most plays, novels and TV would too. (The Buffy fans among us will of course know that Joss Whedon is a huge Shakespeare fan, and regularly has the cast round to his house for readings.)

---

What people seem to forget is that Shakespeares plays were at the time considered a very lowly form of entertainment entirely for the 'lower' classes.

---

And? I fail to see what relevance this has as to the quality of his work.

---

It really annoys me when we get it rammed down our throats that he is so great.

---

Well I can't say that's ever happened to me. I did study 'Macbeth' for GCSE English Lit, but that's about it, and I'm very glad I did because the experience pretty much got me interested in the subject and I ended up with an A*.

To actually address the question - I'm not familiar enough with all his work to comment. What I have read/seen has been pretty fantastic though.

I think his work is a bit hard going, though I must admit his sonnets I like

He's certainly not the best writer of all time, nor the worst, so I guess some people do overrate him a bit

You may hate Shakespear, you may find his plays dull and boring, but you can't say he is a bad palywright and he lacks your respect. To this makes you seem ignorant, not decisive.

---

by JayJay
A lot of damage is done to Shakespeare by the emphasis that our schools place on him.

---

I totally disagree. Do you think many people would pick up a Shakespear if given the choice? Everyone must be introduced to it and since he is SSSOOOOO influencial, he should be studied. Plus he plays are good plays for exams, the quotes are easy to remember and his stroylines are simple to follow. Given a choice between easy Shakespear or a T.S Elliot play, I'd take Shakespear.

Oh and 'The Merchant of Venice' is NOT an anti-semitic play, trust me!

Kieran, as I said, Shakespeare should be covered by the sylabus, but not to the degree that people feel drowned by it, as my people I know claim they were. As for who would pick up a Shakespeare play if it wasn't rammed down their throat - well I did. If any piece of art is that good, why does it need to be forced on people?

Again, most people I know who dislike his works usual put it down to their experience at school. That can't be a good thing.

I'm also reminded of the scene in Dead Poets Society, where Williams takes the mick out of over-stuffy renditions of Shakespeare, and suggests some less fawning alternatives. A little irreverance can sometimes help to see the true beauty. Fawning worship, on the otherhand, can distract.

Oh, and Merchant of Venice IS an anti-semitic play. The characters we are encouraged to sympathise with are clearly anti-semitic. The protagonists character is a racist stereotype. Yet a slight twist, without changing dialogue, or major stage directions can turn the story on its head. Taken literally it is offensive. Whether Shakespeare ever meant for us to see it in another light is merely conjecture.

*Oh, and Merchant of Venice IS an anti-semitic play. The characters we are encouraged to sympathise with are clearly anti-semitic. The protagonists character is a racist stereotype. Yet a slight twist, without changing dialogue, or major stage directions can turn the story on its head. Taken literally it is offensive. Whether Shakespeare ever meant for us to see it in another light is merely conjecture*

A Daniel come to judgement!

Some will pick up Shakespear given the choice, but making pupils learn it brings it to a wider audience who might not take a gander. At my school, we mostly do a Shakespear every two years, which is great and I know few who dislike it on prinsciple. This year, those who read 'Merchants of Venice' and 'Emma' may not have liked them, but did understand they were well written.

---

by JajJay
Oh, and Merchant of Venice IS an anti-semitic play. The characters we are encouraged to sympathise with are clearly anti-semitic. The protagonists character is a racist stereotype. Yet a slight twist, without changing dialogue, or major stage directions can turn the story on its head. Taken literally it is offensive.

---

No, I guarentee it is not At a brief glance it can be seen to be Anti-semitic, but if you read it properly, you find it is not. Yes the main characters are 'racists', much like every other Elizebthan person. BUT Shakespear uses this, to show the wrongs of such 'limited' opinions. Shakespear constantly emphasises, in Shylock's speeches, how he was "called me dog before thou hast cause". He emphasises that Shylock is wrongly attacked, for no other reason than religion. Come on, Shylock even gets one of the most famous speeches of all time "If you prick us, do we not bleed...". Shakespear couldn't emphasis enough how cruelly Shylock is treated. Yes in the end he 'loses', but he wasn't exactly a saint. Of Course Shakespear couldn't have the Jew succeed in the end, because the play was a comedy, not a tradegy.

Also, Jessica was a Jew, a Jew a Christian fell in love with. She is called "gentle Jew", a pun by Shakespear, against anti-semitism. With reference to gentile, a non-Jew. Meaning a gentle Jew was a contradiction, yet she was still called that. And in the court case, Bassanio, who was used by Shylock as a pawn, holds no remorse. Offering, until the end, to settle the bond, without murder, showing he was no racists. Only Gratiano, the Salads and Lancelot Gobb (who are all there for comedy value, because IT IS A COMEDY) take pot shots at Shylock. Bassanio, Antonio and Lorenza, the focal protagonists, do not insult Shylock, until after he demands Antonio's life, well into Act IV. Remember, Shakespear's audience were racists, so he needed the comedy pot shots at a Jew, but also used the play to emphasis the wrongs of rascism.

Also, small point, it's called 'MerchantS of Venice', plural. I re-state, the play IS NOT RACISTS!

I don't recall *having* to study Shakespeare until A-Level. I did do Twelfth Night for GCSE but there we had a choice of what to study and I was happy to choose Shakespeare. I'm not sure that making everyone in the year study it would have done anything but further antagonise the disruptive elements in the class. Compulsory Shakespeare from age 12 might introduce his works to future A-Level maths students but is much more likely to turn away the people who are going to leave school at 16, who might well enjoy the plays as entertainment in later life otherwise.

---

by KieranFrost
Also, small point, it's called 'MerchantS of Venice', plural. I re-state, the play IS NOT RACISTS!

---

It's not a play I know well enough to comment, although my understanding was that it *is* an anti-Semitic play, just as The Taming of the Shrew is a very misogynistic play in parts (and there are a lot of people who try to find a way out of that as well. In my opinion it's an attempt to endow Shakespeare with 20th-century values that would never have existed in his frame of reference. Which is not to say that he might not have had sympathy for individual Jews, but he was a man of his time.) However, I do know that the play is called THE Merchant of Venice

Quite. The Merchant of Venice (I'll admit to lazily dropping 'The', but it has never been a plural - seeing as it refers to a singular Shylock) is anti-semitic. Whether this is because Shakespeare was pandering to the mores of his time, or reflecting his own views is mere conjecture. Being the big admirer of ol' Bill that I am, I want to believe he was a wonderful and cuddly man, with subtle ideas way-ahead of his time. This could be true. Or just wild fantasy. Either way it is conjecture.

While Shylock has that wonderful piece about pricking and bleeding, there are other lines from our 'heroes' on his evilness. If a tale has its heroes spouting anti-semitic feelings, is not the tale anti-semitic? That the story can be lent upon to give it another hue is surely a sign of the complexity and beauty of his tales, but does not change the content at heart.

I can tell a racist joke as an example of the stupidity of racism. It doesn't stop the joke being racist anymore than it makes me racist.

---

by Jayjay
If a tale has its heroes spouting anti-semitic feelings, is not the tale anti-semitic?

---

Um, nope. Shakespeare was not unaccustomed to undermining his heroes.

I won't comment on the specific play - I remember very little of it from years ago.

Again, intent doesn't change content. Whether Shakespeare meant to 'undermine his heroes' is conjecture. It may be true, but doesn't change the content.

If I write a song that parodies love songs, with lots of words about loves, then it is still a love song. A love song with complex levels, but still a love song.

I haven't read/seen the play for a while, but I always understood that the title referred to Antonio

---

by Jango
I haven't read/seen the play for a while, but I always understood that the title referred to Antonio

---

Actually, that was a bit of a no-brainer on my part.

Oh, actually - no, it was a deliberate mistake to see who was paying attention, and you've won a free pint at the next meet! 'Cos, me being perfect an all, I never make mistakes / get things wrong...

(Grud darned know-it-alls...)

I liked the bit in "Blackadder Back and Forth" where Blackadder punches Shakespeare and says its for generations of secondary school children

/me lowers the intellectual tone