Does Shakespeare matter?

[Pavlos]

Using this image of Kenneth Branagh looking rather scared as inspiration, does Shakespeare matter to you? Do you think it should be taught in schools? Is he just pointlessly outdated, kept alive by a bunch of luvvies in large shirts?

 

 

Famous because he's famous? You don't even have to say "Shakespeare's works" anymore, simply "Shakespeare" will do...

[Samuel Dravis]

There may be some people who like Shakespeare only because he's popular, but he certainly isn't popular without reason. As you know, I recently read Othello and I liked it a lot. The language may be archaic (I don't have the smallest vocabulary and I often had to read the footnotes), but Shakespeare's stories are genuinely good and his characters are believable human beings.

 

I know that when I was younger I disliked Shakespeare. I tend to think that was mostly because I was just reading it out of a book and not imagining the scenes as they were meant to be enjoyed: on a stage. Now I try to imagine the character's voices with emotion and that helps a great deal.

 

I think that it should be taught in schools, but only if the teaching of it involves acting it out in some way. One of my professors made students read sections "with feeling". For me, that made the play King Lear much more understandable, not to mention enjoyable. The way I see it, if you're only going to include half of the play - the purely verbal part - then why even bother?

[Astor]

Secondary Schools in England seem to be limited to teaching one play. That's all we got - a book with the play in it, and no visual aids. Shakespeare is at times difficult for even adults to understand - there's no way thirteen year old with just a playbook can possibly understand it properly.

 

That's probably the reason why many school children dislike Shakespeare - there's not really any learning beyond reading the book and then explaining what it is about - nothing about the character's feelings or motivation (or maybe it was just the school I went to).

 

If teaching of The Bard's works is to continue, there needs to be some improvement in the way it is done.

[SW01]

I always enjoyed reading Shakespeare in school, from thirteen on. Part of that was attributable to the teacher we had - utterly brilliant - and part was to do with the play itself, which was Julius Caesar. Like Samuel Dravis, we had to read parts aloud, too, at that early stage. It is undeniably a great aid to comprehension of what is, admittedly, a very complex subject.

 

Later on, when we had to look at Romeo and Juliet (the other class got MacBeth), and then, at the last, Coriolanus (my favourite so far), we were encouraged to read through and consider stage direction and dramatic method ourselves, though the teachers did give us hints now and then!

 

After that, I took to reading Shakespeare for leasure for a short time, and made it through MacBeth and part of Othello, and the tales remain engaging, the characters remain interesting.

 

Does it matter to me? Absolutely. His works have survived comfortably for the best part of five hundred years, still read and performed regularly today - an incredible achievement. Certainly, we have plays and poems from far further back, but none, I believe, have managed to maintain such interest as Shakespeare, and certainly they do not usually have the same 'mass-appeal' as his work does.

 

Should it be taught in schools? I think if an English Literature course is to be in any way credible, this cornerstone of English culture, language and drama must be taught, not in any watered-down way, but in its original form. You cannot possibly abridge a play text so packed with dramatic devices without losing a great deal of its meaning. I do not have an attitude of "I had to suffer it, so do you", it is more that I want others to have the introduction to it that I had, to be taught in order to be able to appreciate it, because I question to what extent it is possible to pick up a Shakespeare play and read it through without some, even basic, instruction.

[EnderWiggin]

There may be some people who like Shakespeare only because he's popular, but he certainly isn't popular without reason. As you know, I recently read Othello and I liked it a lot. The language may be archaic (I don't have the smallest vocabulary and I often had to read the footnotes), but Shakespeare's stories are genuinely good and his characters are believable human beings.

 

I know that when I was younger I disliked Shakespeare. I tend to think that was mostly because I was just reading it out of a book and not imagining the scenes as they were meant to be enjoyed: on a stage. Now I try to imagine the character's voices with emotion and that helps a great deal.

 

I think that it should be taught in schools, but only if the teaching of it involves acting it out in some way. One of my professors made students read sections "with feeling". For me, that made the play King Lear much more understandable, not to mention enjoyable. The way I see it, if you're only going to include half of the play - the purely verbal part - then why even bother?

 

 

I agree with you. Othello was very enjoyable, and I think that it should continue to be taught. And you're right, Sam - the emotion is key to understanding the story.

 

_EW_

[jonathan7]

At the time in Highschool I hated Shakespeare, however, with hindsight, I think it defiantly should be taught, and that Shakespeare was a genius.

[Adavardes]

I think he matters in that he was the first writer to tie realism and human nature in with human emotion, in a way so brilliantly believable that he set himself apart from his peers almost immediately. His writing reflects not only a sharp wit and a keen sense of humour, but also a vivid understanding of multiple facets regarding the human condition. He should still be taught because few will ever be as eloquent and talented as he was, and it is best to learn from those who exhibited greatness before you if you wish to be great yourself.

[Yar-El]

Using this image of Kenneth Branagh looking rather scared as inspiration, does Shakespeare matter to you? Do you think it should be taught in schools? Is he just pointlessly outdated, kept alive by a bunch of luvvies in large shirts?

 

.............

 

Famous because he's famous? You don't even have to say "Shakespeare's works" anymore, simply "Shakespeare" will do...

Shakespeare teaches people to think abstractly. You are forced read a statement, pause, and then come to a conclusion. The Ovid and Dante's Inferno are also along the same lines. You learn something new from each read.

[Jae Onasi]

Definitely he should be taught--his works have had a huge impact on our language and there are so many sayings we use today that reference his plays or poetry in some way. I think it helps to read it out loud, see it acted out, or at least hear a great voice actor read it. I think his works would be more approachable if they included some of his comedies for the high school crowd along with his tragedies. There's just something about how Michael Keaton delivers the lines in Much Ado about Nothing that really made his character totally whacked out and made that film a lot of fun. The bath scene at the beginning of the film was worth the price of admission all by itself, not to mention Denzel Washington, Emma Thompson, and Kenneth Branagh putting in terrific performances.

[Q]

@Adavardes: I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I got my first taste of Shakespeare when I saw a performance of Macbeth at my sister's college at the age of 12. It had everything that makes a great story: intrigue, murder, guilt and revenge, with lots of violence and some witchcraft thrown in for good measure. It is still my favorite. Shakespeare's themes are still very relevant and will remain so as long as there is a human race.

 

And Kenneth Branagh? Pffffffft.

 

[CommanderQ]

I do believe that Shakespeare is quite important, and probably should be continued to be taught in schools and colleges. His plays have had such an amazing impact on entertainment and literature...though sometimes his plays can be hard to understand if you are not used to the sayings and speak of his day and age...footnotes are important:D

[Pavlos]

But what makes Shakespeare worthy of being taught beyond, say, Milton, or even Middleton*? Because he is... constantly other great poets and playwrights are pushed aside for him.

 

*Who, incidentally wrote my favourite scene in renaissance literature:

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

DeFlores

Push, you forget your selfe, a woman dipt in blood, and talk of modesty.

 

Beatrice

O misery of sin! would I had been bound

Perpetually unto my living hate

In that Piracquo , then to hear these words.

Think but upon the distance that Creation

Set 'twixt thy blood and mine, and keep thee there.

 

DeFlores

Look but into your conscience, read me there,

'Tis a true Book, you'l find me there your equall:

Push, flye not to your birth, but settle you

In what the act has made you, y'are no more now,

You must forget your parentage to me,

Y'are the deeds creature, by that name

You lost your first condition, and I challenge you,

As peace and innocency has turn'd you out,

And made you one with me.

 

Beatrice

With thee, foul villain?

 

DeFlores

Yes, my fair murdress; Do you urge me?

Though thou writ'st maid, thou whore in thy affection,

'Twas chang'd from thy first love, and that's a kind

Of whoredome in thy heart, and he's chang'd now,

To bring thy second on thy Alsemero ,

Whom (by all sweets that ever darkness tasted,

If I enjoy thee not) thou ne're enjoyst,

I'le blast the hopes and joyes of marriage,

I'le confess all, my life I rate at nothing.

 

Beatrice

DeFlores!

 

DeFlores

I shall rest from all lovers plagues then,

I live in pain now: that shooting eye

Will burn my heart to cinders.

 

Beatrice

O sir, hear me.

 

DeFlores

She that in life and love refuses me,

In death and shame my partner she shall be.

 

Beatrice

Stay, hear me once for all, I make thee master

Of all the wealth I have in gold and jewels,

Let me go poor unto my bed with honor,

And I am rich in all things.

 

DeFlores

Let this silence thee,

The wealth of all Valentia shall not buy my pleasure from me,

Can you weep Fate from its determin'd purpose?

So soon may weep me.

 

Beatrice

Vengeance begins;

Murder I see is followed by more sins.

Was my creation in the womb so curst,

It must ingender with a Viper first?

 

DeFlores

Come, rise, and shrowd your blushes in my bosome,

Silence is one of pleasures best receipts:

Thy peace is wrought for ever in this yeelding.

'Lasse how the Turtle pants! Thoul't love anon,

What thou so fear'st, and faintst to venture on. Exeunt

 

And Kenneth Branagh? Pffffffft.

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

[jonathan7]

Look what I found; http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/

[Endorenna]

Yea, Shakespeare's important, if for no other reason than the impact it's had on our culture. I personally dislike most of his stuff, despite the fact that my teacher has us read it the right way (aka not droning ), but I can see why other people like it.

 

Another thing Shakespear does is teach people about archaic language. I swear I learned at least a hundred words between all of those plays we read last year.

[Yar-El]

Definitely he should be taught--his works have had a huge impact on our language and there are so many sayings we use today that reference his plays or poetry in some way. I think it helps to read it out loud, see it acted out, or at least hear a great voice actor read it. I think his works would be more approachable if they included some of his comedies for the high school crowd along with his tragedies. There's just something about how Michael Keaton delivers the lines in Much Ado about Nothing that really made his character totally whacked out and made that film a lot of fun. The bath scene at the beginning of the film was worth the price of admission all by itself, not to mention Denzel Washington, Emma Thompson, and Kenneth Branagh putting in terrific performances.

 

Patrick Stewart started his career acting in Shakespeare plays.

 

Patrick Stewart as Oberon -

Shakespeare influenced Star Trek in so many ways. Without his impact on society and literature, I don't think alot of shows would have been successful. He is the master of tragedy, fatalism, and irony.

[Astrotoy7]

Any great work, be it a film, painting or play, will resonate through the ages if it manages to capture something essential of the wiles of being human.

 

Shakespearian language can indeed be mind numbing when you first come across it, but it's simply a matter of exposure, like with any language.

 

I personally am a huge fan of Shakespearian adapatations that have nothing to do with with the 'doth thou' language or settings of the original... two of the greatest being these: The themes are the vital essence, and these two films by Akira Kurosawa do that better than anything Olivier or Branagh has [iMO of course]

 

Kumonosu jô [Throne of Blood] 1957. (an adaptation Macbeth)

Ms Yamada's portrayal of Lady Asaji Washizu is the most chilling 'Lady Macbeth' Ive ever seen.

 

Ran. 1985 (an adaptation of King Lear)

 

If you havent seen either of these films...by all means DO!

 

mtfbwya

[Adavardes]

He is the master of tragedy, fatalism, and dramatic irony.

 

Fixed. And that contribution to literature has been a monumental element in many, if not most, of the plot structures for plays, movies, and novels that followed.

[CommanderQ]

[iMO of course]

 

Kumonosu jô [Throne of Blood] 1957. (an adaptation Macbeth)

Ms Yamada's portrayal of Lady Asaji Washizu is the most chilling 'Lady Macbeth' Ive ever seen.

 

Ran. 1985 (an adaptation of King Lear)

 

If you havent seen either of these films...by all means DO!

 

mtfbwya

 

 

Fine choice indeed, Astro! Those films are a few of the greatest out there:D Not to mention their Shakespearen roots:D Agreed, WATCH THESE FILMS!!

[Darth_Yuthura]

Shakespeare has had his moment and his writings should have faded into the mists of history. Since his work has been immortalized as it is, it doesn't deserve to be read if it's not worth reading. I can't imagine the majority of the populace would want to read what he had to say because the English language is dynamic and the writings he has done lose their value as fewer can understand it.

 

I think he's gotten more than he deserved and if no one wants to read his writings, they should rightly be forgotten.

[Samuel Dravis]

Shakespeare has had his moment and his writings should have faded into the mists of history. Since his work has been immortalized as it is, it doesn't deserve to be read if it's not worth reading. I can't imagine the majority of the populace would want to read what he had to say because the English language is dynamic and the writings he has done lose their value as fewer can understand it.

 

I think he's gotten more than he deserved and if no one wants to read his writings, they should rightly be forgotten.

We're hardly doing Shakespeare a favor by reading his works. If the works are good - and their popularity is indicative that they are - then we're doing ourselves a favor by reading them, because we get to enjoy something beautiful.

 

Since his work has been immortalized as it is, it doesn't deserve to be read if it's not worth reading.

I don't understand this. His work is enjoyed, in fact it becomes wildly popular (immortalized) over centuries because it is so enjoyable, and now we're just evaluating whether it's good or not?

 

I can't imagine the majority of the populace would want to read what he had to say because the English language is dynamic and the writings he has done lose their value as fewer can understand it.

Well, I've enjoyed translations of Beowulf or Chaucer just fine. Merely because the language changes so greatly to necessitate translation doesn't mean the original is worthless or even that it loses value over time; rather, those academic types love to read cryptic stuff and translate it (and I'm very glad they do; Beowulf was awesome). Has the Epic of Gilgamesh lost value over time? No one speaks the language it was written in today, but it is still very popular-- arguably more popular than ever. The Bible? Who speaks that kind of Greek now anyway?

 

My experience with Shakespeare is that I just need a good copy with lots of footnotes that detail words with different meanings than I am used to. What can I say, I just like reading the original. However, I don't think there would be any real problem with altering the wording of the plays in very minor ways to make the meaning clearer. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

[Adavardes]

I think he's gotten more than he deserved and if no one wants to read his writings, they should rightly be forgotten.

 

In a society that considers rap a valid form of music, I'm not too concerned about what people want to read.

[Darth_Yuthura]

People misunderstand. The English language is dynamic... constantly changing. As the language changes, past writings lose their quality because no one speaks the language from that point in history. They may have been much better in their prime, but as it is taught in schools; it is disruptive.

 

It would be like teaching cartography by having people do mapping via obsolete techniques, which are hardly of any value in a practical sense for today's demands. Why don't we have doctors start using leaches at some point to see how the physicians of the past did their job? Maybe it would be worth it to teach history without including some modern discoveries that significantly influenced today's world? These make just as much sense as trying to force students to essentially learn an obsolete form of English that has no place in the world today.

 

It might be nice to do so, but aside from that... maybe his plays should be modernized? That way, it could account for the discrepancies that came as the language changed over the centuries.

[Q]

Hm, sounds like colorizing black & white movies to me. Abominable to me, but I understand why some would want to do that.

 

You change the language, you lose the rhythm of the prose.

 

I'll admit that being raised on the King James Bible gave me an early advantage when it came to reading Shakespeare.

[SkittlesnCream]

Shakespeare's plays frequently are modernized. Sometimes the results are great; other times they're painful. But it is a valid idea that can be done, and has.

 

Yes, the English language is dynamic. Still, it all stems from the same source. All right, med students shouldn't use leeches -- but should they ignore the existence of Hippocrates? I think there's a happy medium between living in the past and ignoring it completely.

 

Besides, as has been pointed out already, Shakespeare's plays (and all others, for that matter) were written to be performed. A lot of modern plays make very little sense on paper. Don't believe me? Try reading Perfect Crime by Warren Manzi and see how much you get out of it.

 

Sure, I've seen terrible productions of Shakespeare. I've also seen great ones. It's not just the use of words that has changed over the centuries; the styles of writing and acting have evolved tremendously as well. Still, the wonderful thing about theater is that every production of any given play is going to be different, and a savvy director will take his/her audience into account and try to make the play accessible to them.

 

Anyway, I guess my feelings on the matter boil down to the following points:

 

A.) Classical literature is often taught badly. Whether the teachers hate the material themselves, fail to communicate their enthusiasm, or simply aren't that good at teaching (saying, "Here, read this and tell me what happened" does not qualify), the end result is that students don't get it.

B.) Plays are not literature. Okay, I guess they sort of are, but they're certainly not comparable to novels, short stories, or poetry. There's a reason most directors begin the rehearsal period with a "read-through"; simply having the cast sit around and read the script is a tremendous help in understanding it. Archaic language aside, scripts are not reader-friendly. They're like blue-prints for a play--I wouldn't want to buy a house after just seeing the blue-prints; I'd want to take a tour.

C.) You can usually just read the Cliff Notes, if you hate Shakespeare that much. Most teachers will tell you this is not enough to pass the test, but nearly all of them are lying.

[mur'phon]

I actually argee with DY to some extent, why make it mandatory to read a language that aren't used in practical situations, unless you work within those limited fields were it is usefull, in which case it should be part of that education.

 

Yes, the English language is dynamic. Still, it all stems from the same source. All right, med students shouldn't use leeches -- but should they ignore the existence of Hippocrates? I think there's a happy medium between living in the past and ignoring it completely.

 

Yet Hippocrates is usefull to know in a practicall situation doctors are likely to find themselves in (his oath commes to mind). However, knowing Shakespare seems to be mandatory to all students, most of which are unlikely to have to use what they learn.

 

As for how he should be kept alive, preserve his works, but let the market decide if people should read him or not.