Gasp!!!!

And I've always said that life is too short for anything written by Henry James. But I LOVE Shakespeare.

This is a stolen quote from someone else but it does fit my view rather well:
I have been very lucky in my dealings with Shakespeare. Though I went to a very traditional school it had a rather radical Eng. Lit. syllabus and I never had to study Shakespeare, but came across him acting in The Dream. I can accept that it is possible to find Shakespeare boring if you just have to sit and read the plays, but not if you get to say his lines out loud, on a stage, in front of other people. Not if you have the slightest thespian instinct, anyway.
If you want to try and like him better then read some of these:
"Characters of Shakespeare's Plays" by William Hazlitt
first published in 1817. Quote:
Hazlitt's views on the incomparable greatness of Shakespeare amount to this: no one else can rival the threefold combination of beautiful poetry, complex characters and the breadth of his canvas.
Hazlitt is very readable . Give him a try before you condemn our greatest poet, playwright , wordsmith as boring.

I never said boring, I said overrated. There's a chasm of a difference...

I am pinching this quote too, but it says what I want:

Quote:

---

Of course he did not say everything about the human race. But I should argue that he has no rival for emotional and intellectual breadth, for wit and humour as well as rhetoric and poetic eloquence, for human understanding and imaginative power, and for the capacity to engage with the minds and hearts of his audiences. Which is another way of saying that he is, in the fullest sense of the word, the greatest of entertainers. And surely the fact that his plays survive translation into other languages and cultures so brilliantly is a testimony to his supremacy.

---

I am asking if there is any other writer who has been so much read, acted, studied and adored non-stop since the 16th C? There must be a reason why plays, films, stories have been made and been so successful , using his plots, ideas etc? Why do you say he is over rated? Surely one cannot rate such genius and uniqueness highly enough? I am puzzled.

Overrated? Read this!

Quote:

---

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare "It's Greek to me", you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise - why, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I were dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut, tut! for goodness' sake! what the dickens! but me no buts - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare. (Bernard Levin. From The Story of English. Robert McCrum, William Cran and Robert MacNeil. Viking: 1986).

---

I have to chime in, just to say: I actually liked Shakespeare but, as it worked out, only as part of a class/ group. I loved the different way people took this thing or that line ~ the discussion made it all worth a second look (a look that, on my own, sometimes sounded like a flowery way of saying nothing decipherable to me - sometimes, anyway). Would I pick up 'The Merchant of Venice' and read it recreationally, for leisure, on my own? Probably not. BUT, I am real glad to know that it's out there to be read by those who will be like me. Glad they got to but just probably won't read it again.

As for Tolkien? That guy I never got in any setting on any day. That's understandable for me, though. Fantasy and stuff never was much up my alley so I never got far enough into such a book to get to the depth of meaning that was probably there. Keep in mind, I'm the one who thinks that (in my house, anyway) "Harry Potter" is a waste of paper . Once again, though, I'm buoyed to know he lives in many other houses and is read happily and often.

I'll be quiet now .

Let me quote J. Achenbach:

Quote:

---

The Bard has become a touchstone for Anglophiles everywhere. To insult him or to ignore him would be to eschew British culture and civility. He was not just a great poet, he was England incarnate.

The playwright's notoriety then fed on itself. Shakespeare became an industry. For the common man attention to Shakespeare proved one's high-mindednes; for the actor a new interpretation of an old Shakespearean role established one's skill and originality; for the scholar the ability to cite Shakespeare was indespensable for intellectual discourse. Thus you find otherwise sane people scrutinizing the tedious extremes of the canon, such as Titus Andronicus, Henry VI, Part 3 and Cybeline.

We [Achenbach et. al.] offer these answers fully knowing that hard-core Shakespearens will froth at the mouth and gurgle in bilious protest, citing the depth, breadth, and imponderable brilliance of everything Shakespeare has touched, his humanity humour and honesty... but in the very ferocity of their attack they prove how far gone is the Shakespeare cult.

---

continued:

Quote:

---

Visit any library and you will see shelves-nay, whole wings- that creak with books dissecing and masticating every word that dude quilled, our favourite being Henry Ellacombe's 1896 volume, Plant Lore and Garden-Craft of Shakespeare.

---

And in my opinion, he was no better a poet than Virgil or Homer, no more unique than Tolkien or Rushdie, and as since ren proved my point, let me quote her: is there

Quote:

---

any other writer who has been so much read, acted, studied and adored non-stop since the 16th C?

---

NO! Because his publicity was pushed to the extreme, unwarranted and unchecked, and was blown way out of proportion.

And you're all MISUNDERSTANDING everything I say. Read *carefully* what I write and what I wrote before responding with such fiery overtones. I never said that Shakespeare wasn't good. I never said he wasn't one of the best. I did say I could never get through half a chapter of any of his plays without falling asleep. I did say that I had given him a chance (and not because I had to read him for school, on the contrary, I never had to read him for school, every time I was reading Shakespeare was out of free choice), and he let me down.

To sum up my opinion:
He might be good, but he's not that good.

And this is my opinion. No matter what you say, you will never be able to convince me otherwise. Respect it and debate it with me, but tolerate it, because I tolerate yours'. Let me stick to "Lord of the Rings" and you can have "Romeo and Juliet". It's a matter of taste, and therefore, not quantifiable nor qualitative. And let us end the day as friends...

Maybe we should move this to the debating thread?

Love LOTR, love lots of Shakespeare too. I agree that he is better acted than read, and I have to say that most of the comedies do NOT stand up to modern ideas of humour.

When it comes to an industry of Englishness being built on his works - let me think on that. I've just spent some time in tourist country, and am fed up to the back teeth with industries built on beauty right now.

The Alchemist - By Paulo Coelho

If anyone needs some kind of push, inspiration, motivation to follow their dreams and goals in life this book is a must read and I have to say once I finished reading the book I had to buy is collection.

Regards

You know, I think Leo does have a point about Shakespeare - the British Empire does have something to do with his reputation. I suspect that if he were from a conquered, rather than a conquering, nation, he would still be revered and studied at home, and known, by the kind of people who know these things, abroad, but would not be a household name. Something like Tagore, or Goethe.

I rather enjoy reading Shakespear. Just reading it. I AM a thespian, and reading scripts is nothing new to me, nor is seeing the play in my mind's eye while I do so, but I really enjoy reading Shakespear. And not only that, I sometimes like it better than WATCHING Shakespear. My Juliet might not be great, but I've seen some pretty wretched Juliets. I'd rather hear mine. I think perhaps he might be overrated, though. Having taken a number of theater history classes in college, I'd have to say that I don't think he's the best playwrite ever, and most people seem to think that is the case. He isn't the greatest at what he did, he was just quite good. I think I like Tennessee Williams better.

I think Shakespeare's plays should be first seen as plays before you read them. Before I did theatre in college I didn't appreciate reading plays. Once I had helped put on some plays, reading them became much easier to see in my mind.

His sonnets though I can only stand for short times when I'm in love.

I read a lot of novels in my youth: London, Twain, Sabatini, Forester, Dumas, Verne; see the adventure thread? Then plays and existentialists in college, and in my twenties Tolkien, philosophy, science fiction, physics and metaphysics. One year in my twenties while living in Duluth I think I read all of Dickens novels; incredible writing!!!

The books I'm most happy I've read are the Tao Te Ching as translated by Gia-Fu Feng, all the works of Thomas Paine, The Federalist Papers, Don Quixote (though I prefer "Man of LaMancha"), most of Thurber's works, Origin of Species, The Conference of the Birds, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, The Autobiography of Ben Franklin and The Arabian Nights.

Supposedly important books I started but couldn't finish: anything by Henry Miller, The Mayor of Castorbridge, War & Peace, Vanity Fair, anything by Joyce, The World is Flat (his view of the world is so limited it's like he thinks putting gas in a car's tank makes the wheels turn).

Books I want to read: Elements of Style (I've used as reference but would like to read through), The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, recent biographies of Franklin, Jefferson and Madison; Three Nights In August and a book I've had for several years that I've been saving for a quiet point in life called The Map That Changed The World.

I remember enjoying mysteries when I was young. Agatha Christie, Father Brown, the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew but they're probably not should reads.

Ah, yes, Henry Miller. Yet another "should" but just can't. Right up there with Sam Beckett.

Quote:

---

Shakespeare is very overrated, and would never have gotten the publicity he had when he wrote his plays and sonnets had he not been English. The "Legend of Shakespeare" was spread around the world by one thing - British Imperialism. I'm going to get so blasted by our Shakespeare fans out there, but you have to admit, he has so much hype it's hard to wonder why he got it all in the first place.

---

If Shakespeare is overrated, I don't think it has much to do with the British Empire (beyond the fact that the empire spread the English language).

From about c. 1760 onwards Shakespeare became enormously popular in Germany (and in countries open to German influnce). The pre-Romantic Sturm und Drang (Engl. Storm and Stress) movement of c. 1768-1783 was wildly enthusiastic about him.

The publication of an outstanding verse translation of his complete works was produced by Tieck, Schlegel and Baudissin in 1825-33, which quickly superseded an earlier translation dating from 1818-29.

During the last few decades of the 19th century Germany rivaled Britain as a centre of Shakespeare scholarship, and to cap it all some German Shakespeare scholars claimed him as one one of their own: they couldn't plausibly count him as a German (though they would have loved to do so), but some did harp on about his being a 'Germanic' genius.

Obviously, none of this had anything to do with the British Empire.

Having said all this, I 'd readily accept that there's a rather silly Shakespeare cult, and that it's of long standing. I have an amusing piece of Shakespearen kitsch. It's an engraving dated 1st February 1795 and it shows the bard surrounded by muses and playing a harp (!) on the banks of the 'Warwickshire Avon'. It has this caption:

'Here, Nature, list'ning stood, whilst Shakespear play'd

And wonder'd at the work Herself had wrought'.

Wow!