Someone doesn’t like Shakespeare.
I have tried, so help me God, to fight through the sheer opacity of Shakespeare’s language to establish what in Heaven’s name is going on in his damned plays. I think basic plot awareness matters. It brings an entry-level appreciation from which, apparently, bliss follows. But my hopes of keeping up have always been dashed within a scene or two by simple confusion, curdling via frustration, shame and boredom to cold anger by the blessed final curtain.
Ouch! However, Giles’ inability to keep up is nothing to do with Shakespeare. While the observation that the bard was a jobbing writer may have some merit:
He filched most of his stories from the ancients and English history. That took care of content. As for form, he was a dedicated follower of fashion. Everything from the five-act structure of King Lear to the soporific dum-de-dum-de-dum of its monologues was borrowed. With so many of a writer’s decisions made for him, it would have been bizarre indeed if he hadn’t turned a florid phrase or two.
…turning a florid phrase or two requires talent. The ability to play with language and to turn it on its head is not something that happens by chance, nor is it something that a jobbing writer will churn out on a regular basis. Shakespeare loved the pun – a cheap form of wit – but his puns were witty and his use of language clever. Giles might have a point if his critique was half as clever as that of a jobbing writer. Unfortunately, it isn’t. It is nothing more than a whiny whinge.
I leave it to Mark of Smithfield who comments on Giles’ histrionic piece to underline the point:
Wow… someone sounds bitter and angry. Who knew that being too thick to understand Shakespeare could cause such frustration?
Thank goodness for “I’m a Celebrity” and the like – something you can understand.
Well, quite.
Update: Tweaked in response to Patrick’s comment.
I don’t understand Shakespeare. Do you think I’m thick?
Incidentally, it’s Mark of Smithfield.
I also notice that none of the Shakespeare fans amongst the commenters has exactly been rushing to interpret the bard’s words as quoted at the top.
So it is, I missed the comma.
So why don’t you understand Shakespeare? As Giles points out, the plots are pretty straightforward and the language isn’t that difficult to follow. Quaint to modern ears, yes, but still simple enough to follow.
My criticism of Giles is not whether he is thick, it is that he is indulging in a histrionic whinge, and so makes himself appear thick.
Don’t like Shakespeare? Don’t read his works and don’t go to his plays. Simple, really.
On the point about followability, well if you find it easy to follow then you’re lucky. In fact, if you do genuinely understand him then I think you are a genius.
Like Whittell, I have torn my hair out trying to make sense out of Shakespeare and for me it was nice to hear someone expressing the same frustration.
Some of the references are contemporaneous, so will be lost to modern ears – political jokes, mostly. However, generally, I’ve never had any difficulty following what’s going on and enjoy the plays. I prefer to watch rather than read as that is how they were intended to be appreciated anyway. As someone who enjoys verse, I also appreciate his poetry. If I could write half as well, I would be content.
Giles Whittell wrote a histrionic piece that simply made him look petulant. As one commenter suggested, he really should have taken his brother’s advice and not written it.
So, no, I don’t think people who don’t follow Shakespeare are thick. I do think that people who write ill-conceived pieces blaming him for their lack of understanding deserve the inevitable flack. 😉