showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (09/24/85)
> > But we still read the plays of Shakespeare, despite the fact that most of his > puns, sexual innuendoes, and slapstick humor are lost on us unless we study his > writing. (Of course, a lot of this does come across in stage productions by > directors who know the work well and can give visual cues as to what the > increasingly difficult language means.) But we don't READ Shak. because he's > the same spinner of rollicking hilarious yarns TO US that he was to his less > educated contemporaries. That was exactly the point I made when I said that > the classics may have been great fun when they were contemporary, but that as > their language and their references become increasingly obscure to us, we read > them with more difficulty and for different reasons. > > Judith Abrahms > {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!proper!judith Actually, most people who read Shakespeare in the 20th Century do it for one of two reasons: 1.) They have been taught (usually by English professors) that Shakespeare is, by definition, the greatest writer ever. [If you don't believe that this view is held, a friend of mine quoted a textbook which said Johnson was "the greatest Elizabethan playwright (Shakespeare always excluded)." Another acquaintance of mine is seriously of the opinion that every single work of prose today is directly descended from Shakespeare's writings.] 2.) They want to show that they are "cultured"--even though they don't really enjoy it they feel they ought to, because everyone thinks it's so good. --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die -- udenva!showard "I'm a fucking genius! Like Shakespeare, or Beethoven, or van Gogh!" --John Lennon
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/27/85)
In article <863@udenva.UUCP> showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) writes: > Actually, most people who read Shakespeare in the 20th Century do it for one >of two reasons: > 1.) They have been taught (usually by English professors) that Shakespeare >is, by definition, the greatest writer ever. ... > 2.) They want to show that they are "cultured"--even though they don't >really enjoy it they feel they ought to, ... My introduction to Shakespeare occurred as a child in the 1950s through several productions on TV. I remember in particular Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, and a production of The Tempest. I found the stories fascinating at the time, although some of the dialogue was too strange to my young ear and of course a lot of the word play escaped me. The bottom line is that my siblings and I sat through entire productions of Shakespeare's plays without having our attentions lag. 1. No "English professor" told this 9-year-old boy that W. S. is the greatest writer of all time. I grew up in a working-class family and we watched Shakespeare because we WANTED to: i.e., we related to the story lines in some way. 2. 9-year-old boys do NOT worry about appearing cultured. Unless, of course, they're yuppie puppies. 3. I find it hard to believe that other people haven't developed a taste for W. S. in exactly this manner. Many thousands of children across the country watched the same productions I did. Moral: generalizations are always dangerous, and reverse snobbery ain't all that different from plain old snobbery. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
showard@udenva.UUCP (showard) (10/08/85)
> > Actually, most people who read Shakespeare in the 20th Century do it for one > >of two reasons: > > 1.) They have been taught (usually by English professors) that Shakespeare > >is, by definition, the greatest writer ever. ... > > 2.) They want to show that they are "cultured"--even though they don't > >really enjoy it they feel they ought to, ... > > My introduction to Shakespeare occurred as a child in the 1950s > through several productions on TV. I remember in particular Midsummer > Night's Dream, Hamlet, Macbeth, King Lear, and a production of The > Tempest. I found the stories fascinating at the time, although some of > the dialogue was too strange to my young ear and of course a lot of > the word play escaped me. The bottom line is that my siblings and I > sat through entire productions of Shakespeare's plays without having > our attentions lag. > > 1. No "English professor" told this 9-year-old boy that W. S. is > the greatest writer of all time. I grew up in a working-class > family and we watched Shakespeare because we WANTED to: i.e., > we related to the story lines in some way. > > 2. 9-year-old boys do NOT worry about appearing cultured. Unless, > of course, they're yuppie puppies. > > 3. I find it hard to believe that other people haven't developed > a taste for W. S. in exactly this manner. Many thousands of > children across the country watched the same productions I > did. > > Moral: generalizations are always dangerous, and reverse snobbery > ain't all that different from plain old snobbery. > > -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly First of all, I said "most." Second of all, you watched the plays performed but your article didn't say whether you currently READ Shakespeare or not. I never denied that Shakespeare was a good playwright, I was simply talking about people who go around reading his plays and analyzing them as GREAT LITERATURE when they are in fact entertainment meant to be performed. I happen to feel "Taming of the Shrew" and "Midsummer Night's Dream" are the two best plays he ever wrote, and two of the funniest plays in pre-modern history. --Mr. Blore, the DJ who would not die -- udenva!showard -- "They pelted us with rocks and garbage