I understand its significance, historical, but why is it still relevant? The dialogue is so clumsy and overstuffed it can't even be followed. Who actually enjoys it?
sharei think it is still relevant in teaching theatre, drama or acting... As it is quite broad and has stood the test of time... Also, it travels surprisingly well across cultures...
In terms of a general audience Shakespeare is really appreciated in the performance... I think most people first get exposed to it in class as written word and therefore it feels clumsy and difficult, whereas if they saw it first as a play or even filmmed, it is very accessible...
I really like Shakespeare's Hamlet... It's a psychological thriller and highly entertaining...
The dialogue is so clumsy and overstuffed it can't even be followed. Who actually enjoys it?
When my megalomania reaches it's boiling point and I finally take over the entire world and make it subjugate to me, I will, in an act of pure and loving benevolence, ban the mandatory reading of Shakespeare from all public schools. I will however allow it to be taught by any teacher to any student who is into self abuse and mental mutilation.
The stories suck, or are in any case no better than a Hallmark movie plot-wise, so I don't see the need to read something that must be *interpreted* to be understood.
Every language on Earth (English included -Shakespeare's natural tongue) is vast enough to portray a thought with such precise clarity that it makes no sense for anything to be written that is open to different interpretations by the reader.
So sayeth me....
It's still relevant because Shakespeare's subject was the timeless and universal human condition.
share^^^This.
Those plays are still performed and attended, and still relevant because they are as much about the human condition as any modern movie or TV show involving human characters and situations.
Those situations are timeless.
The language may be a bit of a psychological barrier to some people and audiences, there's no denying that factor, but If you can get the gist you realize that the story unfolding is just as interesting and relevant as any story in the modern English.
"Those plays are still performed and attended...."
They're attended by dolts who also drink Merlot (toilet water diluted with grape juice) and listen to Kenny G. They have no idea what they're watching but in order to appear at least a bit sophisticated, show up and not only sit through it voluntarily, but usually pay to do so...
"If you can get the gist you realize that the story unfolding is just as interesting and relevant as any story in the modern English."
That's one way to look at it, but my opinion is the stories for the most part just plain suck. Romeo and Juliette was tolerable. Overall, this is a literal version of the Emperor's new clothes; everyone is afraid to point out the obvious for being called an unsophisticated buffoon.
I had to read that garbage in high school and for two college degrees. Every one of my teachers or professors had a different take. Being an engineer, I expect an answer to be precise, not an interpretation.
"Being an engineer, I expect an answer to be precise, not an interpretation."
Literature is about opening the mind to possibilities; it's about the wondrous land of the imagination. There's 40,000 kinds of Christianity. Islam is the same way. The Quran, The Bible, Moby Dick, The Canterbury Tales, Wuthering Heights, Frankenstein and countless other works of literature are like a good painting: one person sees one thing, another sees something else. Engineering may be about precision but literature is about something else: possibilities -- an infinite amount of possibilities. That's what makes discussing the likes of "Frankenstein" so nourishing and enjoyable.
I can't stand the war story ones, such as the "Henry" plays. But I do like others. And you make generalizations about who goes to see this stuff, based on no "precise" data -- have you taken a survey or gotten to know EVERY SINGLE PERSON who claims to enjoy Shakespeare?
Because being an engineer who likes things to be "precise," sweeping generalizations and complete and utter assumptions -- which you just made -- should be a complete and total no-no for you.
What kind of standard of engineering work have you done while being a person who makes guesses based on biased ignorance? I shudder to imagine.
Because if you don't do that in your work you shouldn't do it in life, either. Most sciences educated people I know actually carry that critical thinking and careful analysis through to everything in life, rather than wild assumptions formed out of derision.
Prelude, Shakespeare's plays are grouped into three categories: comedy, tragedy, and history. The kind that don't appeal to you are his histories. Just FYI. I find the histories to be the least appealing of his work, but much of the language of Richard II is stunning: "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!"? Today we would yell, "Let's go fuckumup, guys!"
share"have you taken a survey or gotten to know EVERY SINGLE PERSON who claims to enjoy Shakespeare?"
I got to 0.000057 percent of the world's population, then quit. Too daunting a task. But 94.56224 percent of those polled agreed with me (far less than I thought but then that's why I did the survey). I did however avoid surveying anyone from Great Britain in order to avoid any bias (plus the food sucks).
"Most sciences educated people I know actually carry that critical thinking and careful analysis through to everything in life, rather than wild assumptions formed out of derision."
I surveyed 0.000057 of the world's population, so I made no wild assumptions. I will concede derision though. If Shakespeare was living today, he'd be working for Lifetime Network or writing episodes of The Orville...
"The dialogue is so clumsy and overstuffed it can't even be followed. Who actually enjoys it?"
That is your opinion..... opinion, meaning your thoughts.
My opinion differs. I find much of Shakespeare's dialogue beautiful.
Who actually enjoys it??????
I count as one..
He's certainly isn't beach reading. But, if you're willing to put in the work, and work is what reading The Bard is, I think you'll find the experience deeply rewarding. I read an annotated copy of "Macbeth" recently (and annotated Shakespeare is definitely the way to go; it certainly clears up a lot of the confusion one feels trying to decipher all the archaic language) and had, to my surprise, a very pleasant experience. Of course, as a poster above observed, watching Shakespeare performed, not reading him, is the preferable way to go.
shareThere's definitely some great lines, there's no speculation behind those eyes thoust glare with!
shareWhat an amazingly stupid question.
shareI like you, BigJack.
Shakespeare remains in production because people pay money to see his plays. That should be a priori. The plays' dialogue is not prose. The dialogue is blank-verse iambic pentameter. To translate for the OP, the dialogue is poetry, hence, music, which modern American English not only lacks, it abhors. Most of the folios (scripts) are never put on stage in their full length, because they are too long, and the audience would tire and wet their pants. I don't think Macbeth or Hamlet have ever had an unedited presentation. Different directors will make different editing decisions; so, you may have seen Hamlet before, but you haven't seen THIS Hamlet before. Directors can and do make other changes. One production of Macbeth placed the story in an Eskimo village. Other artists reshape The Bard's amazing stories more significantly; thus does Romeo and Juliet become West Side Story, The Tempest becomes Forbidden Planet, The Taming of the Shrew becomes She's All That, and Othello is set in an urban high school and becomes O.
Shakespeare's plays and language keep us provided with great actresses and actors. Shakespearian training is like an Olympic development camp for thespians. Al Pacino is a Shakespearian-trained actor. So are Anthony Hopkins and Dame Diana Rigg. This is an important reason why so many Brits do so well in the acting profession.
Bill Shakespeare, an actor, wrote to make money, not to be remembered. He wrote to put asses in seats, and make a buck thereby. He succeeded. He succeeded, and exceeded. He may not be to your taste. He may not be to your comprehension; but this topic is like asking why people still look at La Giocanda, which you know as the Mona Lisa.
This is a much more thorough and refined response to the original question. However, I would argue American English can be poetic, it's just a different kind of poetry. Raymond Chandler at his finest is a good example.
shareThank you. You are absolutely correct that we Yanks can speak and write in what I call the High Tongue. Chandler is an excellent example that we can. I was referring to vernacular American English, which seems to me to become more crude, imprecise and just plain sloppy with each passing day.
shareAh, yes, I see your point. I think the degradation of the language comes from a collective laziness.
shareI agree, but I would say that it's sloth combined with a total misapprehension of the importance of logic in verbal communication. Grammar is a rudimentary system of logic. Lacking subject/verb harmony, logic dies. "Free gift"? "
shareYes. And we live in an age where language is considered "fluid," which means, ultimately, nothing spoken or written has any solid, intrinsic meaning.
share