7 reasons to hate Shakespeare

Well, Veeky Forums?

>1) He's been done to death.
There is so much other great theater out there. Sure, it's not free to produce. Sure, it's not as familiar. But we're going on 500 years of ubiquitous Shakespeare. I don't think papal indulgences, Aztec virgin sacrifices or burning witches at the stake lasted as long. Remember, every time you produce Shakespeare it means you're preventing your audience from appreciating a different writer. Recall the master's own words, “I wasted time, and now doth time waste me.”

>2) Someone else has already thought of it–and probably did it better.
Richard III in Nazi Germany. Hamlet (or Macbeth) in the Nixon White House. Othello as an Uncle Tom yes-man killing other dark-skinned people for the white man and constantly berated by a black-power Iago who spouts Malcolm X and Eldridge Cleaver. Conceptualizing, updating and generally fucking with Shakespeare is fine. But whether your idea takes place in outer space, the old West or a rectory, it's probably already been done. So why bother? Commit the oldest sins the newest kind of ways.

>3) He's wordy.
Shakespeare never heard–or at least never heeded–the adage that less is more. His plays are filled with unnecessary characters, scenes, jokes and rambling speeches. Case in point: the ridiculously convoluted monologue in Henry V,in which a doddering archbishop rambles about the ancient history and geography of France, is some 60 lines long–nearly twice as long as Hamlet's “to be or not to be” monologue. Shakespeare makes David Foster Wallace read like Confucius; if he'd written the begats the Bible would be a 10-volume set. It takes a long time to read him, but even longer to sit through.

>4) You don't have the meat.
The greatest Shakespeare plays I've seen locally have either featured fantastic ensemble performances (Mark Rucker's Taming of the Shrewat SCR) or towering individual performances (Ron Campbell in Shakespeare Orange County's Richard III, and the Laguna Playhouse's Othello). For the most part, however, inept actors who neither understand nor are able to deliver the words plague most local productions. Unless you have a cast, from top to bottom, that is skilled enough to speak the speech, don't waste my fucking time. “It is not enough to speak,” Shakespeare wrote, “but to speak true.”

>5) He really isn't that good.
It's not just that everyone knows how his plays will end (Romeo kills himself, Hamlet gets stabbed, Othello chokes the white broad). It's also that he stole most of his plots, created so many unnecessary characters, and, if you take away the dick jokes and not-so-veiled homoerotica, really wasn't that funny. And even those who proclaim him an architect of the English language don't realize that a lot of the phrases he's credited with creating–all that glitters is not gold, it's Greek to me–were hackneyed in his day. “Oh, what fools these mortals be.”

>6) Period sucks.
The worst Shakespeare is the faithful, the traditional, the kind that tries, desperately, to produce it just as Shakespeare wrote it. This is deadly Shakespeare, the worst kind of bardolatry. It is, invariably, the product of people who love him too much. As Charles Marowitz once wrote, “The people who revere him always do the worst work. Shakespeare should grab you by the throat.”

>7) Defining versions are readily available.
Yep, there's a lot of unwatchable crap on VHS or DVD. Roman Polanski's Macbeth, Mel Gibson as Hamlet, and the execrable Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo De Crappio certainly can be missed. But Olivier's filmed version of Richard III, his triumphant King Lear in a 1984 made-for-TV filming, and Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 Romeo and Juliet, which is about the horniest teenage fuck film ever made, kick ass. Some will argue that Shakespeare needs to be experienced live. That may be true, but so does the electric chair. “We have seen the best of our time: machinations, hollowness, treachery and all ruinous disorders follow us disquietly to our graves.”

Feels good not living in the anglosphere.

>The worst Shakespeare is the faithful, the traditional, the kind that tries, desperately, to produce it just as Shakespeare wrote it.
Yeah because the best production ever made of Romeo and Juliet was the version with Leo DeCaprio, right?

this, plus the whole Egyptian pyramid connection in the sonnets. Bacon was a genius

That's a great one.
It's the one we were shown in class back in the day. The professor said we'd like it more.

Good bait, potentially great pasta. Nice job OP

>500 years of historians, various thinkers, intellectuals, and critiques testing him across time and all approving
VERSUS
>the opinion of [probably] a fat American who thinks their early 21st century liberal philosophy will remain unchallenged for human history

Im going with the first. Shakespeare will be here in 100 years. Modern Liberalism with a capital L will not.

>if he'd written the begats the Bible would be a 10-volume set. It takes a long time to read him, but even longer to sit through
Also the best argument against all this is that Shakespeare is still remembered now since hundreds of years and, assuming humanity lives that long, will be remembered for hundreds of years, and his influence permeate and will continue to permeate Western culture, whereas this guy will probably be forgotten 50 to 75 years after his death, his greatest accomplishments being masturbating to tranny hentai cuckold porn, smoking weed, telling off that racist that one time, and writing BuzzFeed articles.

Well, that reminds me why I keep quitting this playground from hell. See you in a few months when my will to enjoy life falters again, Veeky Forums.