Why are William Shakespeare's works so intensely popular and respected?
Misunderstand me correctly (as my father used to say), they are obviously well written and so on. But normally when an artist is both extremely popular and respected, his works will move me. But these plays don't, particularly. They are good, but I just fail to see how they are that good.
Of course who wrote them is a different matter entirely. I don't see the controversy as being as important as the works themselves. (In The Disappearance Of The Universe it is claimed from above that Elizabeth I forbade Edward De Vere to put his names on these plays, since plays, and particularly comedies, were considered very crude entertainment in those days, and it would sully aristocracy to have an aristocrat publish such stuff.)
14 comments:
I guess The Disappearance of the Universe must be a pile of crap then.
There are a number of theories about the origin of the works. One theory says the real author is Francis Bacon.
I believe the author is a man named William Shakespeare. However, he didn't come up with the verses entirely by himself. There was a certain oral tradition (they are plays, after all) through which material was passed on to him. He basically wrote down what he had heard.
Therefore he is the true author of the works. But the 'geniusness' of the text is due to the collective sequential effort of many performers before him.
None of the "theories" about Shakespeare really being someone else is given credit by any sane educated person. Buncha crackpots. They were quaint for a while, kind of like the Vinland map, but none bear any weight upon scrutiny.
I do, marginally, agree that sometimes Shakespeare is given more credit than he deserves. He's kind of the "one celebrity" of English drama so every schoolkid can remember him. But I also think his works are phenomenal -- as great as any literature by any author living or dead. If the plays aren't moving you, Eolake, maybe it's the level of language that is difficult for you. I know you've written here that you aren't yet comfortable with your facility with English, and it is pretty clear that Shakespeare's English is both difficult for even a fluent speaker because of its distance in time and its floridity, and rather deliberately verbally allusive and complex.
The complexity is a benefit, to me. When a character manages to speak about two things at once because of a hidden metaphor, it becomes all the more meaningful. Perhaps there's just a language barrier for you?
In addition, of course, we must always remember that Shakespeare's works were designed to be seen live. Without that portion of the experience, something's bound to be missing.
I personally prefer Moliere ever so slightly over Shakespeare. I think you can make a case for Shakespeare being the greater literary artist, thanks to the Sonnets; but I would also make a case for Moliere being a superior playwright, by a hair.
What in particular don't you like about the plays by Shakespeare. Just that they "don't move you"? Can you define how? Or what's missing? What plays and other forms of historical drama DO move you? You seem sensitive and articulate enough, Eolake; I'm surprised you haven't found depth and capacity to move in Shakespeare's works.
"Perhaps there's just a language barrier for you?"
It's possible.
Also, I admit in many areas I am not good with complexity. It confuses me.
"What in particular don't you like about the plays by Shakespeare. Just that they "don't move you"?"
Pretty much. I just don't see the wonder.
"What plays and other forms of historical drama DO move you?"
Well, here we may have another clue. I really don't have much interest in history, or in plays.
I think part of it is just because he's one of the few English writers from that era whose works have survived. I might be wrong about that, but it seems like I vaguely remember hearing something like that in some class or something.
I liked Macbeth alright, but most of his other stuff I can't get much into. But to be fair, I haven't read a whole lot of it to begin with, so there ya go.
We all entered 5th form with a kind of dread fear, we knew we had to study lit, and we new we had to do a Shakespear. My sister thought she was lucky as she got Merchant. I got R&J, and dreading the stereotypical image of this work, was ready for a bad year.
It was a fun read, and then when you are shown the layers of language, the tricks, puns and lewd innuendo of the whole piece it becomes quite lively. It even had godsquad bashing, in the form of Fr Lawrence.
Reading Shakey is not as much fun. Live, or even in film it can be quite engaging. However, a bad production (especially forced readings in high school) can be a veritable nail in the coffin.
So grab a few DVD's, Baz Lahrmans R+J, the 1990's Richard III and give it a try. Larry as Henry V was great, but it is a starchy King and country piece, but that was what was needed back then.
I've tried Romeo And Juliet, and Richard Ai Ai Ai, but neither did much for me.
But like I have said, drama rarely does.
Go SEE the drama. Reading it requires that you actually EFFECTIVELY can imagine the experience of enjoying it on stage, which in turn would require both an effective imaginatory capability for that given image, and the ability to enjoy it on stage in the first place.
Shakey-shakey is EASY. And he's certainly not the only fellow who survived from that era. We must have ten or twenty thousand works of literature from the Elizabethan period. It's not that distant from us, in fact. We consider the language spoken then, to be a variant of "Modern English," and therefore no special language training should be necessary for any living fluent speaker of English. "Middle" and "Old" English died out centuries before Shakespeare's time. So, any difficulty in understanding him is simply one of complexity or of new vocabulary, not new structures or expressions.
The best of his light works would be better to start with. "A Midsummer Night's Dream" is hilarious if performed well. The other love-comedies, too, are replete with sexual jokes and with layers upon layers. There's no "deep hard stuff" that you have to DIG DIG DIG for. Remember, this was the mass-market popular entertainment of the day. You don't have to "know what's going on" to "get it." Just enjoy the show! The plot starts when the curtain rises! They might all die, or they might all get married or live happily ever after. There's no other entry requirement, than that you want to be entertained, and I think he does really well at that, on every level.
But I'd still prefer (by a hair) Moliere. :)
"And he's certainly not the only fellow who survived from that era. We must have ten or twenty thousand works of literature from the Elizabethan period."
I frickin' knew that teacher didn't know what she was talking about.
"Well, here we may have another clue. I really don't have much interest in history, or in plays."
Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.
CLANG!
Another puzzled character falls into the plays. Et tu, Brute?
And where is Pascal, on this ideally-designed thread? I need someone inspiring to trash. Yoo-hoo?
A "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt" issued in London last year gave the sound rational basis for doubting that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote the works attributed to him. The declaration has since been signed by some 1100 persons, including hundreds who hold graduate degrees in English and other fields, and a number of theatrical luminaries, including one of the UK's premiere Shakespearean actors, Sir Derek Jacobi. As the declaration notes, Shakspere never claimed to have written the works, there survives not one scrap of writing in his own hand, and his well-documented biography (over 70 documents from his lifetime) is that of a money-lender, graindealer, theatrical shareholder, and sometime actor. There are no documents from his lifetime that in any way document his supposed profession as a writer. In contrast, we have plentiful literary documentation for every other prominent (and many obscure) writer of the time. This is a unique and bizarre documentary anomaly, an inexplicable gap. Sir Hugh Trevor-Roper Lord Dacre, Chair of History at Oxford University, expressed his skepticism in a private letter regarding the authorship, saying it was "absurd" that his literary life should be so little documented. On the other hand, we do have documents attesting to the fact that there were a group of courtier poet/playwrights who were "allowing their works to be published without their own names to it," with Edward de Vere prominent among them. Calling doubters "crackpots" is plainly unjustified. Those who wish to learn more may go to http://www.doubtaboutwill.org or to http://www.shakespearefellowship.org.
By the way, Eolake, I think Domai is beautiful.
cybername: Feste
Thank you very much.
Please tell me, how did you come upon this old post? Google? Or how?
Post a Comment