Romeo and Juliet
discussion
Why does anyone like this?
I like it because I'm supposed to, but I don't like it any more than I have to. You know who doesn't enjoy Shakespeare? Billy Bob Thornton. He called Will's works a bunch of soap operas, and I reckon he's mostly right. Plus, it's comforting that the man who so skillfully played a mentally impaired murderer in Sling Blade is on our side, mmm-hmm.
See, that's what I'm saying. I feel like half the people that like it feel that way because it's a 'classic' and they should. And you're right. That bit about Billy Bob Thornton is real comforting.
What does Billy Bob Thornton have to do with this?
I'm going to ignore the irrelevant and try to respond with my perceptions of the answer to the core question. 1.) William Shakespeare was the most successful and influential playwright of his era and for many generations after. 2.) His writings had a profound influence on the works of other authors for at least the last two centuries. 3.) His plots often captured the essentials of people's lives and their pivotal life experiences. 4.) They're some of the finest plays ever written. Oh, and just for the record, I'm not a big personal fan of his works -- but I immensely respect his perceptions, skills as a master wordsmith and The Bard's ability to relate them to audiences. That he was able to also become a substantial financial success is also indicative of the quality of his work.
Are you kidding me? Shakespeare is awesome. R&J can be seen as a romantic sappy story(I'm not big on romance) so I see through the eyes of people who are stuck between two biggoted factions, follow their hearts instead of the rules and the tragic consequence of the path they chose. You can also simplify and just call them stupid overly emotional teenagers who deal with the adolescent obsessive love that is usually one's first love. Prozac anyone?
I think Valerie (and Larry) pretty much said what I was thinking. WS captured life's journey like no one else of his time was able to.
Let's face it, who (as a teenager) has never felt like they would die without that certain someone? That's how teens operate/feel. To the EXTREME.
To me, Romeo and Juliet is just the ultimate love story.
And, yes, I am a self-proclaimed sap. :)
Emily please tell us what makes you so mad with the book? Is it the characters? The laguage? Are you being forced to read this at school? (That always pissed me off). Please be specific I'm curious. Anyone who likes a book just because they should are messed up fakes so don't let their opinions ruin an otherwise good book, song, movie etc.
Paradigms have nothing to do with it. Shakespeare wasn't being scientific, he was writing plays that would draw in crowds. He was trying to make a buck, just like any other professional writer. He was just damn good at it. :-)
Jennifer wrote: "I think Valerie (and Larry) pretty much said what I was thinking. WS captured life's journey like no one else of his time was able to.
Let's face it, who (as a teenager) has never felt like..."
Jennifer, I would die for girls so many times as a youth I should have been a cat. :-) Nothing wrong with being a "sap." Far better than lacking emotion.
The success of Shakespeare was indeed that he was a soap opera writer. He wrote for the masses AND to eat. In modern times, we made him out as a classical author but he wrote for people and entertainment. Hence, his great and wonderful success. Do not mistake his intention, then you will see why the populace loves his writing.
Don't worry, Larry, I'm proud of my "saptitude" :) lol
I respect the importance of R&J without enjoying it. Don't know about Emily, but we had to read it in high school. At one point a girl in my class complained she didn't care for it, and many other students sounded relieved--Ah, I'm not the only one (as if pretending to like Shakespeare before)! You'd think the theme gives it more appeal to teenagers than that, but oh well, they're a fickle bunch.I think part of the problem for our class was psychological: it's tougher to enjoy a book when it's assigned homework (from a somewhat disliked teacher), not something to read in our free time at our own pace. I still didn't like the story enough to give it another go, though.
To me, R&J sets a precedent for every love story written after it--because Shakespeare created this love story that is still so wildly popular to this day, and it's influenced many works that I won't even try to compile into a list. I'm not saying that great love stories weren't written before, during, or after; however, this particular Shakespearean play is one of the most poignant in the history of written romance. I feel that most people feel obligated to like it because it's Shakespeare, but it really is a good story.I also really recommend watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwnFE_... if you're looking for some humor in R&J. I think Sassy Gay Friend is hilarious, gives a comedic perspective to great literary works, and everyone must watch this at least once.
To be honest, Don't read the book. In fact, I may be stepping on some toes here but the truth of the matter is that before you ever read a Shakespeare play, Watch it. See a movie, go to the play, experience real Shakespeare drama. Shakespeare never meant to be taught in High School English for eternity. His plays were meant to be seen, heard, and experienced. Romeo and Juliet should be seen not read.
totally agree with Jonathan - I optionally took a shakespeare class in college, as well as studied multiple plays of his in high school - if you just read them you don't get it, but read them aloud with friends, each taking a different role, go and see it (I know lots of people do shakespeare festivals each year) - you might find it more enjoyable
I love Shakespeare, so I might be biased toward his works in general, but here is why I love Romeo and Juliet. First of all I read it when I was very young and that holds a kind of nostalgia in that it was a time when I looked at the romance, envious of what they had. Coming to the present day, I still respect and enjoy this book. The writing is beautiful, and the story is unforgettable. Look at how many stories of loves that could not be have been told. True the story here is nothing short of ordinary today. Two teenagers who think they are in love and do some dumb stuff because of it. But it is so much more than that. It's about believing in something so fully that you would rather die than live without it. I think that that is some part of true love.
Call me a romantic, but I love a good romance. I am a sucker for a love story. Even one that could be considered silly.
Valerie wrote: "Emily please tell us what makes you so mad with the book? Is it the characters? The laguage? Are you being forced to read this at school? (That always pissed me off). Please be specific I'm curio..."Yes, we had to read it last year, but generally that never affects any love I have for a good story.
There are so many things that drive me crazy. For one, I feel it's incredibly unrealistic. And I mean, I'm not under the delusion that all writing is, but really? The timespan? Call me crazy, but three days is not "love," at least not the kind worth dying for. I think it's melodramatic (which I get it, Shakespeare specialized in, but still) and still being a teenager, a little insulting.
Even if it was love, I still struggle with the idea of killing yourself because you think someone else is dead, or they actually have died. I know they were living in a pressured, prejudiced world, and I know Juliet was potentially betrothed (or definitely betrothed, I can't remember for sure) to someone she did not love, but I just can't understand that. Love IS worth dying for, but I think that unfortunately, "love" seems to be considered exclusive to romance, when it stretches far beyond that. To me, this play really supports this constriction, and that's hard for me to handle.
That being said, I do appreciate the importance of Shakespeare. He wrote well, and was certainly not without humor, but honestly, I just can't take this story.
So there, those are my frustrations in a very summed up fashion! Hope they make sense!
I like the forbidden love story. I do prefer a happy ending, but Shakespeare could write a good tragedy.
First thing: Shakespeare isn't for everybody, so I understand why one would be disinclined to love him. However, his plays are plays, not books. They should be on the stage, to echo another poster here.
When I teach Shakespeare, I make sure that I focus on the thing that make him amazing: his wordplay. Both with the poetics and with - I'll put it bluntly - sex jokes. Shakespeare's audience was made up mostly of lower class people who wanted to be entertained. Therefore, there are a lot of dick jokes in Shakespeare's stuff. A surprising amount. On the other hand, he was able to convey such complex matters of the heart with only a few lines, stuffed into iambic pentameter. Read his sonnets if you don't believe me. He's a master of the English language. His contributions of words themselves are still used today. Dozens and dozens of words were coined by him and they continue to this day. Plus, the puns! Oh the puns!
When I teach Shakespeare, I make sure that I focus on the thing that make him amazing: his wordplay. Both with the poetics and with - I'll put it bluntly - sex jokes. Shakespeare's audience was made up mostly of lower class people who wanted to be entertained. Therefore, there are a lot of dick jokes in Shakespeare's stuff. A surprising amount. On the other hand, he was able to convey such complex matters of the heart with only a few lines, stuffed into iambic pentameter. Read his sonnets if you don't believe me. He's a master of the English language. His contributions of words themselves are still used today. Dozens and dozens of words were coined by him and they continue to this day. Plus, the puns! Oh the puns!
Because its the greatest love story ever told!!!!
In my junior year of high school our English class consisted of an entire year of Shakespeare. Oh heavenly God I said...I'm in heaven and thank you. I had read his entire works by the time I was 14. Needless to say I got an A through out the year, thank goodness it was easy-peasy because that was my last class of the day and I always had to retouch the make-up before the end of class. The teacher will always remember me for those silly girly things and was forever teasing me. He also took us to see as many of the movies as he could. He believed as I do that visual aides helps teenagers to relate. Which helped me when it came time to give my two daughters a nudge towards understanding Austin and the Bronte's. They each had an assignment in their English class and were dragging their feet. I popped in the movies and they emerged crying their eyes out and said, *Oh wow, that was soooo good*. What Larry, Valerie and the others said! Shakespeare as well as Austin, Bronte and a host of others MUST have had a huge impact on today's society as well for filmakers to make so many movies over and over again based on their stories. The stories are the everyday struggles of life, whether you were upper class or lower. Everyone could relate to them and no one good write about life better that old William. Which I might add has the same birthday as I do :)
Different Hannah than from above. Had to clarify because it seems as if we both have similar opinions. Personally I love R&J and Shakespeare in general, but as someone else said, Shakespeare was meant to be scene, not read. You were meant to go to a play house and be crammed in with all of London. Personally I love it (and The Bard in general) and his diction. All of his sexual humor is brilliant. Since R&J was one of his earlier works it's easier to understand (in my opinion), unlike, say, Lear, where the complexity is completely insane. Yes, you do have a love story and it's easy to be like, "Julie, you're 13. You met him 48 hours ago, give it some time." But there are these amazing monologues like Queen Mab, and the dialogue between Romeo and Benvolio is just genius.
Oh how I wish I could have been a groundling in that theatre. Give me a time machine and I'd see Chaucer first and then The Bard. :)
Because it's the classic young love story added to the classic ,stupid hatred of two families (substitute races,tribes,nationalities,etc.)and the usual resulting tragedy. This sometimes wakes up the participants. But, mostly they just say "Tsk, Tsk" and go back to being idiots.LarryM
It is my least favorite famous Shakespeare play, but I do like Romeo and Juliet for several reasons:1. Mercutio
2. Tybalt (Shakespeare always writes good villains)
3. Because of lines like this: "Not I, believe me: you have dancing shoes with nimble soles: I have a soul of lead so stakes me to the ground I cannot move."
4. And this "Men's eyes were made to look, and let them gaze; I will not budge for no man's pleasure, I."
5. There are lessons to be learned from the play and they have nothing to do with true love and how you can't stop it.
6. Shakespeare was young when he wrote it (about 22).
7. Iambic pentameter -- you can't deny that it required obsessive passion to pull off.
8. It is universally and immediately recognized by people of all ages.
9. Who couldn't love a play that Andy Griffith used in one of his standup routines?
10. We are still discussing it 400 years later.
Hannah wrote: "Different Hannah than from above. Had to clarify because it seems as if we both have similar opinions. Personally I love R&J and Shakespeare in general, but as someone else said, Shakespeare was me..."
Don't forget Marlowe! You'd want to see him too
Don't forget Marlowe! You'd want to see him too
Emily, I can appreciate the issues that you have with the story. Unless you are the type of person who falls desperately in love in a matter of moments (and some people are), it's hard to relate to. Even the people who do that usually don't run off and get married the next day and commit suicide for it right after that.That said, the time and circumstances are different than what we expect for the title characters in Romeo and Juliet. Juliet is thirteen and has lived a very sheltered life - she has no experience of love or even crushes at all (they state this early in the play, before she meets Romeo). She's probably not met too many men of an age she could develop such affections for outside of her family. She is easily swept up in the romance and passion of it all. She is also trapped in a feuding family, a forced marriage to a man she doesn't know, much less love, and a threat of disowning at the hint of rebellion. That is a very scary situation for such a girl who, in the time and place, wouldn't have been able to support herself or have anyone to fall back on if she did end up getting disowned or ended up in a miserable or abusive marriage. Marriage to someone she did love (or believe she loved) could easily seem a preferable alternative.
The play heavily suggests that Romeo, on the other hand, falls in and out of desperate love regularly (he's at the party to meet another girl whom he considers the love of his life, after all). And at the time, a boy from a well-to-do family may very well see marriage as the logical extension of love. Dating didn't really exist, after all. In theory, he probably should have gotten his parents' approval, but he was old enough to marry and there was that feud, so, again, it's not too hard to see why he would make the choice he did.
The deaths are, ultimately, a big series of misunderstandings intersecting with the series of bad situations that Romeo and Juliet have found themselves in at that point. Each sees the other as their way out of the chaos, what makes it worth it (i.e. it's only bearable to be exiled from the only home he's ever known because the woman he loves will be by his side). Obviously, neither made a well-considered choice there, objectively speaking. Particularly since we, the audience know that everything will be ok if they only wait for a minute, but such is the stuff of tragedy. It wouldn't be half so tragic if there wasn't the element of "but everything was almost happily ever after" to it.
For all we know, if they had lived, they would have realized that they couldn't stand each other.
The story is much older than this play, though. Shakespeare only pulled from sources. Almost none of his plots are original (only one that I know of, actually). This one has a heaping spoonful of the myth of "Pyramus and Thisbe", which he also retold in A Midsummer Night's Dream. That tale is just about as ridiculous from the point of view of the relationship itself (they only get to see each other through a wall - never really meet in person).
Why is the Twilight series so popular? This is that timeless story of young love but with so many added layers of complexity that real life does often add to the mix that ultimately love has a tragic ending. The language is beautiful and the story is evocative of so many human emotions. I think that is what is so rewarding about Shakespeare (although it is not easy reading) - the portrayal of people grappling with so many of lives emotions.
I like it because, contrary to the glut of RomComs, life isn't always end bright and cheery. Sometimes love is dangerous, and in the end it's doomed. It's fun to root for the struggling couple, be angry at the forces they strive to keep them apart, and in the end weep at their inevitable failure of making it work.
Since you didn't clue us into why
Just like most of his plays, R&J is not his story but taken from another. The genius of Shakespeare is his dialogue and his choice of words. A lot of people don't like the story because of how easy it would have been for the two lovers to be together, but that is the point of the story. It is stated in the prologue that they are doomed. If only the priest got the message to Romeo, if only Tybalt listened to his uncle, the if onlys go on forever. The story could easily be changed and I like that there are consequences to everyone's actions. In earlier R&J stories they hang the apothecary and the Nurse is banished for their parts. One of the best lines ever, "I am Fortune's fool."
The greatness is in the emotions of it. Elise quoted a great line: "I am Fortune's fool." It's pretty easy to feel that. Here's another famous quote from this play:
Romeo:
But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
That is pretty easy to get with. Feel every word of that with your whole heart. Does it fill you with emotion and meaning? That's what this is all about.
Don't get hung up on the intellectual part of it. There's no way to capture the beauty of that line in intellectual terms. If we tried, we'd get something like, it’s as though she radiates light, turns night into day, yadda yadda yadda, etc. It’s just not very meaningful intellectually.
But emotionally, if you take a minute to feel them, Shakespeares’s words here are tremendously meaningful, uplifting, glorious, and inspiring. That's what it's all about.
I blog about this at http://vikrubenfeld.com.
I guess I was very lucky in that at the time I was reading Romeo and Juliet in school, the movie with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey was in the theaters. (yes, I am that old). In addition, I was raised in Minneapolis with the Guthrie theater practically in the back yard. As several have pointed out - these are plays and are meant to be seen. I had an English teacher ruin Steinbeck for me by having us read for every single literary device in every single sentence. See if you can find a DVD of Franco Zefferelli's Romeo and Juliet and you will see why some of us love Shakespeare.
I really dislike this story. It is a horrible love story and I thought both Romeo and Juliet was stupid. Shakespeare's writing wasn't even that great in this play compared to his other plays. ech.
V.E. wrote: "I really dislike this story. It is a horrible love story and I thought both Romeo and Juliet was stupid. Shakespeare's writing wasn't even that great in this play compared to his other plays. ech."
I think it's logically fallacious to dislike a "text" because characters within behaved in a stupid manner.
I think it's logically fallacious to dislike a "text" because characters within behaved in a stupid manner.
I'm a total romantic, but honestly, one of my favorite things about reading this book was being able to laugh at the ridiculousness. Maybe it wasn't the reaction the Bard was hoping for, but it was still an awesome book. If I had tried to take the book too seriously I wouldn't have even been able to finish it. I also loved the language (though I didn't always understand all of it).
"I really dislike this story. It is a horrible love story and I thought both Romeo and Juliet was stupid. Shakespeare's writing wasn't even that great in this play compared to his other plays. ech. "Please expand on this idea, why were they foolish?
I would like to know how the people of the time reacted to this story. People rarely married for love, only the poor did that. Anyone with status and/or money married for status and money. Affairs were common but so was the strong morality. I wonder if it was like a cheesy romance novel for the time.
Valerie wrote: "I would like to know how the people of the time reacted to this story. People rarely married for love, only the poor did that. Anyone with status and/or money married for status and money. Affairs..."
This is a modern and incorrect perception of historical times. People did indeed marry for love before the 20th century. Affairs were common just as they are now, if only because of human nature.
The play was well-received in Shakespeare's time as with most of his output. It was extremely popular during his lifetime and is one of his most performed play. It is a re-writing of a tragic romance, a form that people were very familiar with. It was not considered a "guilty pleasure" as the modern trashy romance is considered. The tragic romance was an important form of text stretching back from the classical era to now.
This is a modern and incorrect perception of historical times. People did indeed marry for love before the 20th century. Affairs were common just as they are now, if only because of human nature.
The play was well-received in Shakespeare's time as with most of his output. It was extremely popular during his lifetime and is one of his most performed play. It is a re-writing of a tragic romance, a form that people were very familiar with. It was not considered a "guilty pleasure" as the modern trashy romance is considered. The tragic romance was an important form of text stretching back from the classical era to now.
Valerie wrote: "I would like to know how the people of the time reacted to this story. People rarely married for love, only the poor did that."I've always been really curious about that myself. I'm sure that there are many with status who would've been opposed to something like this, especially if it meant that Shakespeare was sort of comparing Romeo and Juliet to the lower classes. Who knows. Just need a time machine to go back and have a look. lol.
I, myself, am not a very big fan of this play. I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but of all of his plays, this is probably my least favorite. It's a romance (which isn't something I particularly enjoy anyhow), but it's a really bad romance with plenty of over-dramatic, sappy lines. Shakespeare has written so many better things than this. To be fair, the ending is sad. Of course, most audiences then would've found it even more depressing and shocking (if they hadn't been shocked already enough) seeing as suicide was marked as an unforgivable sin, and you would've been burned in hell for it.
Well it was a tragic romance, as I say, so the audience was already familiar with the form, which often included suicide. Also, Shakespeare's audience was predominantly Anglican, not Catholic, so their views on sins were a little bit more relaxed.
Just because the characters commit suicide doesn't mean people find the end depressing. In fact, the sheer tragedy of the romance itself is spiritually uplifting. Which is to say that it is greater to love something to the point of agony than not to love. This is a tired and old trope of literature from before Shakespeare.
Just because the characters commit suicide doesn't mean people find the end depressing. In fact, the sheer tragedy of the romance itself is spiritually uplifting. Which is to say that it is greater to love something to the point of agony than not to love. This is a tired and old trope of literature from before Shakespeare.
Honestly I couldn't make myself read the whole play although I will note that the poetry between Romeo and Juliet is very beautiful and most touching and my favorite character of all is Mercutio. He was the life of the play although many will disagree with my option.
It's not the best Shakespeare ever wrote. Never mind why he wrote or that his plots were (with one exception, either Midsummer Night's Dream or The Tempest, I can never remember which one) taken from other stories. Never mind the time frame. Ben Jonson complained about that back around the same time Shakespeare was still alive, though this may have something to do with the fact that Ben Jonson thought he was the superior playwright, and he might have been had Marlowe still died young and Shakespeare never existed. You can even look past the love story, because there are a few problems with it.R&J is good as Introductory Shakespeare. The writing gets better, with fantastic plays like Hamlet and King Lear still on the horizon. This is Shakespeare just as he's starting to get good. He's still got a couple small problems to work through, like a very odd "comic relief" scene that occurs between a couple musicians and the Nurse's servant just after the Capulet's learn Juliet is "dead". High schoolers relate to it because it's a lot like their lives, or what they think love is.
But, a more mature reader can look at this so many different ways. Mercutio's Queen Mab speech doesn't add anything to the narrative aside from a glimpse into a potentially crazy guy's psyche. With Friar Lawrence, we can question Shakespeare's feelings on the Catholic Church. His contemporaries would have made the Friar a corrupt villain. Shakespeare makes him benevolent, but incompetant (how much better would things have gone had he not decided to try and play peacemaker?).
What do you get out of the play? Poetry, some of it beautiful, but also the play is a product of its time, where noble characters spoke in verse (commoners spoke in prose). And something about the verse Shakespeare wrote stood the test of time. It happens sometimes. The cloests to a modern day example I can think of for what was intended as dumb, disposable entertainment that somehow became more is The Looney Toons (and others), cartoon shorts never meant to stand the test of time, and yet still did.
Shakespeare has perfectly captured young love here. It starts suddenly, is passionate, and not a little bit stupid. Had the pair lived, it is entirely possible Romeo would have seen some other girl catch his eye within a few months given how quickly he forgets Roselyn. A lot of folks think it's a love story for the ages, but I don't read it that way.
Anyway, since it was a play, the best way to experience it is to watch it. Shakespeare's plays aren't done the way modern plays are, and the closest to seeing the real thing may be the play scenes in "Shakespeare in Love".
Matthew wrote: "V.E. wrote: "I really dislike this story. It is a horrible love story and I thought both Romeo and Juliet was stupid. Shakespeare's writing wasn't even that great in this play compared to his other..."I don't see anything fallacious about disliking a story based on my opinions of the characters and their actions. Maybe my comment was a tad vehement but you will note that I said I disliked the story. Also, as for the quality of the text itself, I just prefer Shakespeare's writing in some of his other plays to this one.
Wayne wrote: ""I really dislike this story. It is a horrible love story and I thought both Romeo and Juliet was stupid. Shakespeare's writing wasn't even that great in this play compared to his other plays. ech...."Because they didn't seem to have any real basis for their love. I could understand them thinking they'd fallen in love "at first sight" but not really up to the point of killing themselves. Also, Romeo seemed very fickle. He was just pining and being dramatic over Rosalind and then completely forgot about her when he saw Juliet. He seemed more in love with the idea of love than actually being in love with anyone.
"Because they didn't seem to have any real basis for their love. I could understand them thinking they'd fallen in love "at first sight" but not really up to the point of killing themselves. Also, Romeo seemed very fickle. He was just pining and being dramatic over Rosalind and then completely forgot about her when he saw Juliet. He seemed more in love with the idea of love than actually being in love with anyone.Not to defend his actions, or whatever behaviors of that pass scrutiny in a past societies suspension of disbelief, but what does rationality have to do with R&J behavior.
To think that everyone thinks rationally because you think rationally is in itself irrational. You don't have agree with the thought process of the person to understand that such thinking is possible. Romeo was probably Juliet's first lay, which, because of romantic stories of time and endorphin production, had a strong bonding effect on her.
Romeo may be a butterfly, but when he fell for someone his addicted personality would have him bonded with that person until someone more lovelier came along.
I'm sure if I tried I could think of even more reasons why someone after such a brief, hot, passionate, love affair would act in a way that in this day and age is deemed reserved for the most deranged of couples.
Romeo and Juliet ARE both idiots - that's half the point of the play. Stupid teenagers making huge, and ultimately fatal gestures, mostly because each set of parents had their heads stuck too far up their respective nether regions to pay attention to their own children.This is all encapsulated quite well by the Prince's final speech.
Rather timeless story, no?
I think it's totally fair to dislike one of the canonical classics of literature. I for one do not like The Grapes of Wrath. However, I can defend my position with more than, "the characters acted stupid" or "I didn't believe in the story" as if to imply that realism is in any way important to good storytelling. With Shakespeare, I think it's integral to defend one's self because Shakespeare is so absolutely codified into our culture. No matter how one dislikes the form (iambic pentamater), the plays are extremely important to our cultural psyche. Therefore, it is important that detractors be able to defend their position. People can hold differing opinions; they must be able to articulate them.
Shakespeare was a genius and his influence on literature, society and culture is unarguable.With that said it is much better to "see" a play written by Shakespeare than to read it. You cannot infer tone and inflection while reading. The story comes to life in a way you cannot imagine on the pages.
To quote the immortal bard: "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players."
Emily wrote: "Alright, so if you didn't detect the tone of the title, I really can't stand this book. All it does is make me raging mad, and it's one of my least favorite reads ever. But I'm not here to rant (..."
One of my friends wants to stage it as a comedy...ya know: horn dog teen boy pulls the wool over naive girl child and death ensues.
Even as an avid reader and total literary lover, I didn't truly learn to appreciate Shakespeare until I was in college. My class was taken to see Macbeth performed by a troupe that was currently in town and I was completely swept up in the play from start to finish. I think the problem with having Shakespeare as a required read in high school is the fact that it's just a reading of the text. As many other commentators have already stated, Shakespeare plays need to be seen to be truly understood and experienced. An actors take on a certain character can change your entire perception on that particular character. Its all in the acting, the live verbal banter and the heightened emotion of watching the story unfold that you can begin to truly enjoy Shakespeare.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Rebellion (other topics)
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
The Rebellion (other topics)
Dead Storage (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Self-promotion for Authors (other topics)The Rebellion (other topics)
Wuthering Heights (other topics)
The Rebellion (other topics)
Dead Storage (other topics)
More...
But I'm not here to rant (that might be a lie), this question is really for the people that like this. So, um, if you didn't already get it...
Why do you like it?