Philotic Web

So... I'm reading Romeo and Juliet for a class, and I came to a realization.

For a long time I'd thought that Shakespeare was pretty overrated. I mean, really, in the end his plays were vulgar entertainment. They're full of innuendo and ridiculous comedy. Reading through the speeches in Romeo and Juliet I could easily imagine playing the characters very tongue-in-cheek, hamming it up and sarcastically making the huge confessions of emotion that Shakespeare penned for his characters. I'm sure it would have elicited a huge laugh. However, my view has been changed by starting to read Romeo and Juliet again. Shakespeare manages to get all of the vulgar entertainment value that I think of, but he does it with amazing art. I think it's amazing that nearly every other line can be construed as some sort of innuendo, but it's still clever dialogue, impeccably written and amazingly metered. The meter is pervasive to tell the truth. While reading along, I'll be surprised in places where Shakespeare breaks his meter just slightly, making you have to warp the words to fit the pentameter, and it turns out that I've been subconsciously following the meter all along. And it sounds so good too! I mean, I didn't live at the time, but I get the feeling that Shakespeare's iambs didn't sound contrived during his time either. I'll bet that his language just flowed along like any other language, and the meter just totally subliminal, like I've found.
I also think that Shakespeare's incredibly clever in his writing. An example would be the scene of Romeo and Juliet's meeting, where the two speak a sonnet (beginning with Romeo's "If I profane..."). The two engage in a beautiful and clever battle of wits, which is both entertaining and sweet, rhyming each other's words and maintaining meter at the same time. I mean... if that isn't genius, I don't know what is.

Really? Shakespeare was actually good? That's an amazing realization. I'll alert the media.

I'll admit it, I actually had a kind of similar experience. Until recently I had never really gotten what all of the fuss was about, honestly. I had read a few of the comedies in high school and enjoyed the films I've seen, but honestly I've felt like he was an incredibly over-hyped author that generations of people keep on reading because that's just what you're supposed to do. I remember having multiple arguments with Pwebbers about it, back in the day. I felt like the whole process of falling in love with an author is a incredibly personal, individually unique thing... and when certain writers are shoved down peoples' throats as "true" literature it just kills that whole experience.

And then I decided that I must be missing something. So I forced myself to take a Shakespeare class last semester, just to over myself. And the funny thing is that I actually fell in love with it. Even the tragedies, which I never thought I would say.

So anyway, just to say, I empathize.

Wait 'til you get to the histories and a few of the comedies.

Who was that directed at?

Because I don't know whether this should be considered a guilty pleasure, but I absolutely LOVE Richard II. Not just the story, the man himself. I know I shouldn't, right? I mean, the whole story is constructed in order to build a stage for this guy to reek havoc on. It just doesn't seem like a character I would be able to get behind... especially because he's not even incredibly deep or three-dimensional about it. He's not dark and tormented and Byronic or anything... he's just a plain old scoundrel. But my goodness, I adore him. It's kind of ridiculous.

Fetus, mostly. But you work, too. I'm more of a Henry, IV fan, myself.

See... I feel like I missed the mark there. I just don't enjoy Hal. He is way too calculating to be a character I can get behind. I can understand why other people would like him, he's just not for me. I find myself rooting for the wrong camp on that one... I'll even admit to crying while reading the last scene, for all the wrong reasons. Also I find the fact that Falstaff is about ten times a better character than Hal is to be completely distracting.

*shrugs* My favorite Shakespearean play has always been Much Ado, in part because of Kenneth Branagh's 1993 adaptation.

Anyone who loves Shakespeare should really get themselves a copy of Slings and Arrows because it is absolutely beautiful [edit: and hilarious, fun, and brilliant] and made me fall in love with Shakespeare all over again.

I think Kenneth Branagh may have cinched my love of Hamlet. That fourth soliloquy is just amazing.

I too love Branagh's Much Ado. I like his Hamlet too but I'm not often capable of sitting still long enough to watch the whole thing.

I've not read enough of Billy Shakes to really weigh in on his stylistics, but I think a problem with the way it's presented to us, much too often, is that the plays are simply read. For people with enough of a visual imagination to make those words come to life in their head, it's so much of a barrier, but I doubt anyone whose seen any of his plays performed, especially live, would argue that sitting down to read it is the better experience.

Not that I'm suggesting that every English department in every high school and college should be putting on a Shakespeare production every week, but I think it'd be a much better use of time for high school drama clubs or departments to put on at least one of his plays a year, instead of the quickly tiring yearly musical that draws in more parents than students, and while comfortably entertaining, don't quite rank as high on the "Plays You Must See Before You Die" list.

Complete Works of William Shakespeare, Abridged is a must buy on DVD. Even better, see it live at a local theater. It is a hilarious modification that squeezes all (37?) plays into an hour and a half. If you've read all the plays, you'll get a kick out of the parody, wordplay, and sheer wit of how it was put together.