"You shouldn't read Shakespeare", they say

"You shouldn't read Shakespeare", they say.

"You need to see it performed, not read", they said.

How true is this? Is Shakespeare an unenjoyable experience if read from a book? If so, what's the point in purchasing them as classics?

Is that the guy who played Richard on Lost?

Why wouldn't you just read him AND see the play afterward?

Watching it rather than reading it is better, but you can enjoy reading Shakespeare, obviously.

Depends on your imagination I suppose. I'm not a native English speaker myself, and found that having it acted - even purely dramatization/voice acting - helps quite a lot. I read it at the same time as I listen to it.

It's half-true. You have to read Shakespeare and you have to see his work performed.

It's fine as books. Shakespeare's glory can be found in his writing -- that's the point.

However, good acting can really make the plays. Obviously it highlights certain bits you might have missed, it provides an extra emotional dimension, and most importantly it gives the plays vitality. It's easy to read a speech and be disconnected from the conflict -- a good actor does not allow disconnect.

However, bear in mind that when you watch a play you are only watching a specific actor/group's interpretation of the play.

So you think I should still read the books, particularly as somebody who wants to write?

If you can't watch the plays, certainly. If you can, then it by no means hurts.

Shakespeare's definitely one of the people I'd advise anyone read.

It's true for all plays, never read a play when you can watch it.

I tried getting into WS by reading Romeo and Juliet. Forgive me for saying it, but it was the most boring, cliche, Stephanie myer-tier plot I'd read in ages. Do I really have to see actors do it to get what I'm missing here or am I just too dumb to understand old stuff or what?

The Romantics thought Shakespeare was better read than watched and I agree.
There is too much wordplay, metaphor, puns, etc. that would be missed in a full speed production.
Some even thought king Lear *couldn't* be properly acted because he was too complex.

It's only cliche because everyone coppied R&J.

As far as I understand it, it's generally accepted that Shakespeare is mocking youth and how it feels, while also looking upon that sort of melodrama in fond memory of that extreme feeling you have when you're 13. It's also worth noting that Shakespeare took a lot of his plots from traditional stories, and, like many great literary works, the plot isn't the thing to focus on. Other features are much more important. In other words,
>reading for the plot

>Forgive me for saying it, but it was the most boring, cliche, Stephanie myer-tier plot I'd read in ages.
Which bits? I'm honestly trying to work out what you're talking about.

This is a good point tho for seeing a decent performance: if you have a shitty imagination and are a big fan of Twilight, you will probably end up imagining Twilight,

Oh yea? How are you gonna perform A sonnet, huh?

OP BTFO

So we agree it is cliche then. Good to know I'm not alone here.

What am I supposed to focus on then? Honestly, reading that obtuse Ye Olde badum badum badum baDUM dialogue isn't very pleasant for its own sake. There are so many books and plays that tell an interesting story AND have beautiful, inventive language. Why settle for less?

The characters are shallow as fuck. It takes them like three seconds to fall completely in love with each other despite neither having a distinct personality. "I would rather DIE then go on without you!!!" Ridiculous immature slashfiction writer's understanding of romance.

No, theatre is wasted on actors. I haven't watched an adaptation of a play I'd read and not come out disappointed.

The comedies are mostly based on slapstick and verbal puns, so yes. Loves Labours Lost is grade A garbo on the page but is fine on the stage.

Story isn't what you read for. Bluntly, themes are. You probably associate this with "good story", but in truth story is important only in how it presents the themes.
>Honestly, reading that obtuse Ye Olde badum badum badum baDUM dialogue isn't very pleasant for its own sake.
Pleb.

>The characters are shallow as fuck...writer's understanding of romance.
Well done user, you nearly got there.

You need to see it to get the proper feel of it

But read it to fully understand the play

My theatre friends and I noticed there is often a disparity between the production and the play, either in one way or the other.

Many new productions are far better than the script, but, like you, I don't think I've ever seen a Shakespeare production that wasn't worse than the play.

As a general rule, I'd say Shakespeare is to be enjoyed from the page.

Yes. It's so beautiful.

Basically what said, but as an extra point I always had the idea that reading Shakespeare is more investigative whereas watching is more for entertainment value, but then they are simply two mediums and both can be criticised.

I still find it enjoyable to read Shakespeare in the same way I find it enjoyable to read poetry: it gives you more opportunity to dwell on the language and the themes without the constant forward motion.

If I just wanted the themes I'd go to sparknotes.

>"I would rather DIE then go on without you!!!"
You get that they literally went around killing each other over stupid shit all the time though? Like the dying for love thing is not ridiculous at all, especially when you consider that they kill each other over being at a party or on the wrong street or a funny look and so on.

>It takes them like three seconds to fall completely in love with each other despite neither having a distinct personality.
Hello Le Mature Love Without Falling Man. That's just how some people are.

It's false. You must read Shakespeare and construct the ideal performance in your mind's eye. Just like you mustn't listen to classical music, but instead look at it.

Read it, then watch it (I personally don't like doing that immediately after reading, though). Shakes is deep enough that experiencing one of his works only once will give you relatively little.
Movie adaptations can be good as well, I loved Titus Andronicus and Polanski's Macbeth.

All of the above. Its something you want to have a bit of a relationship with in many forms over a period of time. I'm sorry if that sounds pretentious but its not something where you can just tick a box and say "done" and get much out of it.

>Romeo and Juliet wasn't itself ripped from earlier stories dating back to ancient Greece, particularly two versions (with identical names for the eponymous characters) from the mid-15th century

I've always found it a lot more enjoyable to watch Shakespeare plays/movies after reading them - reason being the actors speak quickly with words/terms a modern english speaker would NEVER be familiar with. Reading it allows you to take your time and read annotations/definitions and fully comprehend the play when you see it performed.

I think for non-native english speakers seeing it played out provides some useful context

How are you people not extremely embarrassed to say shit like this?

This.

For tragedies, my ideal is to see it performed, then read it. This allows me to better envision the action and characterization based on the whole plot arc. Takes me back to the emotions felt during the performance. Blind reading of WS is hard for me to envision from only the poetic dialogue. Comedies can just be seen because they're meant to be silly.

But then again, I have access to stellar performances on a regular basis, and bad Shakespeare is worse than none at all

>You need to see it performed, not read

This was a meme started by psuedointellectuals under the premise that (YOU) are literally too retarded to understand what iambic pentameter is and therefore your pleb brain will be so confused by reading something written in verse that you need someone to read it to you.

If you can read any play, you can read Shakespeare (and by Shakespeare I mean whichever person actually wrote the specific play you are reading that published under that name that time..

I'm not the hugest fan of Romeo and Juliet either. I'd recommend Hamlet or Othello or King Lear or Macbeth or if you want to go lighter Twelfth Night or A Midsummer Night's Dream. I'd basically recommend any of the very well-known ones other than R&J.

Nah man nah. You're confusing your autism with patrician-ness again. Reading a play is like reading a movie script rather than seeing the movie. These things are supposed to be performed. Now it's not quite as bad as the movie example because it can be quite difficult to see a play for a number of reasons, but if you were to for example go "Yeah, I really love Shakespeare. Anthony and Cleopatra is really interesting" and the other person goes "Oh which production of Anthony and Cleopatra did you go see?" and you reply "Oh, I've not seen it, just read the script" that would be a little weird, but acceptable. If they were to then go "You know Anthony and Cleopatra is on at the Local Theatre, you should go see it." not going to see it, or implying seeing it is for plebs who can't read, is really fucking weird and plebby.

Why would you take a work explicitly written to be performed and conclude that reading the script is superior to seeing it performed?

>he doesn't read the play before he goes to see it
Top pleb

Closet plays.

*mid-16th century

Just realized my mistake, kinda suprised no autismo caught it and sperged out already

>see it performed

Vast majority of modern performances are degenerate trash. They crossplay characters, throw black actors into them just to be socially aware, change the tone of plays, change the timelines and occasionally outright change the words. On top of it all they have absolutely terrible fight choreography. Shakespeare had top swordsmasters in his troupe. They were involved in duels, knew their weapons, and Richard Talton even achieved the rank of Master of Defence. Basically he was top of the top in London. The fights that they had were magnificent spectacles, nowdays they have trouble understanding the death of Mertuctio, often cutting his death speech in half or completely, because 'it's more realistic that way'. Morons, absolute morons. Even a basic modern anatomy knowledge should tell them that you can get a fatal wound and be perfectly capable of reciting whole opening monologue from Comedy of Errors.

They usually botch the hamlet-laertes duel as well. There is a specific move they did to switch swords.

>My theatre friends and I noticed there is often a disparity between the production and the play, either in one way or the other.

wow you and your luvvie mates are sooo clever

>They crossplay characters, throw black actors into them just to be socially aware
I saw one where the women were played by women and Othello was an actual black man. DEGENERATE TRASH.

Shakespeare's actors crossplayed though. Women weren't allowed on the stage back then.