Is William Skakespeare over-rated?

Question

But literature enthusiasts slam me for saying that, allow me to explain my view...

- This is 2007, he wrote his works over 500 years ago, and I feel like i'm the only person who finds his texts predictable and grim. Admittedly, its the principle that counts, but the presentation of his ideas isn't entertainment. Maybe back when it was written, but not anymore! So why is it on the exam board????

- Going back to the curriculum, teachers/tutors consistently defend his work, even when students point ideas that are fairly plausable that suggest he never thought something through. One such example in King Lear - characters just deciding to leave the play? Anomolously? Shakespeare for all we know could have thought "oh who cares, can't think of any reason to keep him, so the fool can dissapear" yet people defend this is suggest 'their was a reason'..

-... which makes me wonder, how can these people believe he does no wrong?? No-bodys perfect, and he certainly wasn't.

Anyways.....

Answer 1

I agree with you, Willy is over-rated. I do like him, but many people place far too much emphasis on his works, which, read improperly, have little or no life to them.

Just because something is old doesn't mean that it's bad, but as he's been read and analysed for that long, it seems that very little original and interesting insight is left for the average student.

I've not actually read King Lear, but that sounds like a major folly on Willy's part. All authors have failures in their work, though some faults are more egregious than others.

Any teacher (or student) that cannot see both sides of an author obviously does not know enough. Mind, I'm not saying that you are such a student, but I suspect that your teacher is one of that lot. Willy has many redeeming qualities when read properly, as in out loud with multiple interested players (I highly suggest that you see a production of his work at Stratford if you ever get the opportunity) and when not picked to death or under-analysed by a less-than-brilliant instructor. But I am sure that you already recognise this.

In conclusion, I agree with you that when taught poorly or read improperly, Willy sucks, and that he can be severely over-rated. You wouldn't like a semester full of nothing but Poe, would you? But his works can and do have their place in a well-constructed curriculum.

post scriptum:

Lily, your confusion may arise from the fact that literature is always referred to in the present tense.

Sweetie, I tend to agree with you. Literature, especially when taught poorly, has no practical applications. It must be enjoyed for its own sake.

Answer 2

I would suggest that a lot of his work is predictable due to the fact that in the 500 or so years since his work, just about every conceivable plot has been done to death - that's not to mention the amount of modern works either inspired by or "updated" from his work. I don't think he's perfect, however the fact that his work is still so popular certainly affords a great deal of cultural significance. Don't forget also that looking at something from a modern perspective with modern standards means that we cannot view his work as they were originally intended - I'm pretty sure that the average elizabethan person wouldn't understand the significance of modern classics. If Shakespeare's work simply doesn't appeal to you in itself, fair enough, yet surely you can understand the importance of the work in the influence it has had since.

Answer 3

I can't imagine Shakespeare thinking he was perfect. The reason for the disappearance of the Fool in King Lear is sometimes explained by the fact that he is no longer an agent of the action. And sometimes by the fact that is was probably the same actor who played the roles of Cordelia and the Fool. You have to be aware of the fact that Shakespeare never bothered about having his plays published: they were written for actors, not for critics and not for you either. So, if you are not sensitive to the language of his plays, well, too bad for you. I am not going to convince you in a few lines.
But if you ask the question, maybe you would like to be convinced? In this case, I strongly advise you not to read the plays but to see them. See Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V: wonderful stuff. Or Lawrence Olivier's Hamlet.
But maybe you'll never like Shakespeare. It does not really matter, except for you.

Edit: If you ever get to see the Tempest, do go! (looks like I AM really trying to convince you! Can't help it...).
You don't have to like all the great authors. Tolstoy did not like Shakespeare at all, if it's any consolation...

Answer 4

Okay, I can see your point. Most people today would rather watch movies with hot girls and even hotter cars. But, if you take a look back over the past couple years some of the top selling movies were adaptations of Shakespeare's work.

http://imdb.com/name/nm0000636/

10 Things I hate about you which was a very popular movie in 1999 is an adaptation of Shakespeare's "The Taming of the Shrew"

I see your point, but at the same time I must say No because Shakespeare's writings are still used by Hollywood to bring in big bucks.

Answer 5

It is a joke and you are completely in style. The last for lines of King Lear. The weight of this sad time we must obey; Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say. The oldest hath borne most: we that are young. Shall never see so much, nor live so long. OK, so it is a cultural conspiracy, worldwide for that matter. Nobody will back down, this is a matter of face, not logic. Shakespeare may be a barbarian in your eyes, but opinion will say you are if you can not do this.

Answer 6

Just to put my ten cent in...

Shakespeare was primarily a playwright (and an actor). He wrote words to be performed by actors on stage. It is a bizarre historical quirk that most people now encounter him for the first time sitting at a desk reading his words on the page. I don't think it's fair to judge him as a writer without seeing his works as they were meant to be seen.

Underneath all the (stunningly beautiful) archaic language are wonderfully realised characters. The depth of humanity of people like Prince Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Bottom, Harry Hotspur, Richard III allows us insights into some of the fundamentals of the experience of life.

And though you may not use language like 'hither' and 'thou' every day, but how about "the mind's eye', 'hot-blooded' or 'break the ice'? We've "Willy" to thank for them.


Oh- and Rachael- English is NOT the most spoken language in the world! Unless you discount Mandarin and Spanish, which I don't really think is fair.....

Answer 7

I think that the reason we find some of his work so predictable is that he was such a prolific writer, there are practically no new stories, just variations on a theme. Shakie himself was heavily ingluenced by some of the Greeks and by the Bible and went on to influence others. (mainly the Eastenders script team) I think what really lets him down is the comedies. They just aren't funny! And the fools!!! I think that in Willies time they must have accompanied the dialogue with very rude gestures in order to get a laugh!

Answer 8

I think the works of Shakespeare have a lot to offer but they must be dealt with, with intelligence and maturity. For example Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet may have been updated but in so doing tended to lose some of the meaning. For example, instead of swords they had guns and as the sword was a phallic symbol, a gun cannot represent the same thing. Shakespeare needs to be performed for it to make sense and it must be taught by people that understand it. It is a play so forcing poor students to read through it and discuss its structure and his imagery will just make them hate it. Have them perform or at least watch it and the whole thing goes to a new level. In answer to your question. I think there are many other playwrights who are as good if not better than Shakespeare but he has the distinction of being the first to stay in the memory. In 500 years time will we still be studying him or will be holding Alan Aykbourn in the same reverence.

Answer 9

A lot of his plays are taken from previous plot lines. They needed to be accessible and easy going. It is his intricate use of language that should be admired. i find him vastly relevant in modern day if you look enough there are timeless links in all his plays and I have laughed, cried and been angry at his writing all emotions evoked by his writing. Look at the character of Iago in Othello for example that made me angry and yet at awe at the intelligence was such a believable character, I find some of his texts are predictable and some are not. Taming of the shrew for example I never expected katarina to conform. There are points in his work that aren't perfect but in context to when he was writing and the work that was written look at it all together he is good and i think he deserves the credit that he has been given.

Answer 10

you employ this as your foundation for disagreeing that individuals are stable judges!!! do not make me snort!!! It became individuals who gave Paris Hilton a record contract, Kevin ineffective wanker Federline, Jessica Simpson. Can any of those play an device fairly nicely or write their own cloth? No. the only ingredient they are able to do nicely is lip sync. i'm not a Robbie Williams fan, yet a minimum of Robbie Williams can sing stay and does not prefer a recording studio crammed with digital kit to verify that his voice to hold a track and then flow on point and mime to his own documents.