Shakespear's plays are confusing.

A few seasons ago in New York, I had a rush of Shakespeare to see: "Hamlet", two different productions of "MacBeth" (incl. the one man version with Alan Cumming), "Twelfth Night" (in repertoire with "Richard III" with the magnificent Mark Rylance), "As You Like It" and a modern (but still in old English) "Romeo and Juliet". I do agree it helps to know a bit of them before going to see them, but after a while, the lingo begins to kick into your brain and by Act II, you're thoroughly into it. I couldn't see many of them that closely together, but historically, they are fascinating!

"Great theater makes you smile. Outstanding theater may make you weep."

I'm not saying that they probably didn't understand it. I'm saying they probably were confused.

...don't say that again, please. Don't use that word in vain. It bothers me.

Not likely. His tragedies have fairly simple plots. His comedies are pretty much the same, except that there is comic confusion, but it's no different than in a good comedy today.

Some of the histories are episodic, with various setpieces that don't naturally flow. But they're not hard to follow even today.


---
Read Staroamers Fate http://is.gd/WdmgqC & Syrons Fate http://is.gd/L2Vzrg

So you are saying that even if you haven't read the play first you can follow it, you must be some sort of a genious then.

...don't say that again, please. Don't use that word in vain. It bothers me.