Okay, so most of the time I'll respond to comments by commenting on the same post myself. However, in this case there's something I want to post, because my answer will sort of explain what mindset I'm approaching the plays with.
Grace wrote this a while ago as a comment to one of my Titus posts:
Titus is really one of those plays you have to see. or do. much like all of shakespeare. Definitely continue reading - just always keep in mind it's not a piece of literature, it's a work of living moving art. (... "art" being a loose term, in the case of Titus.)
Well, what's a play? Is a play literature? Obviously Shakespeare meant for his works to be performed on stage, and not to be read. Having said that, his works were published as words on a page within his lifetime, and if I can sit alone and read it, for me that's literature. What other definition of literature is there, other than a story which one reads?
According to Wikipedia (which as we all know is an incredibly reliable source...), Richard Monette once said that plays on the shelf are literature, whereas plays on the stage are theatre. I don't know what was the context in which he said that, but if he means what I think he means, that plays are both literature AND theatre (though not at the same time), then I entirely agree. I guess I just don't see how they can't be both.
I'm all for this sort of kumbaya come-together approach because while a good deal of my early exposure to Shakespeare was as literature (in the form of a book group which morphed into a Shakespeare group). Also, I come from a clan of English professors, so I sort of have that mindset built into me. However, I've always loved the theatre as well, and have acted in five of Shakespeare's plays. So the bottom line is, I love reading Shakespeare, I love watching Shakespeare, and I love acting in Shakespeare, and on a certain level I don't want to say that any one of those things is more valid than another, though I'd say that my enjoyment of a play slightly increases if I get to see it and greatly increases if I get to act in it (which is why you'll never hear me speak a bad word about Comedy of Errors, whatever its faults).
A play can be great theatre without being great literature, and it can be great literature without being great theatre. Shakespeare's plays happen to be both. But for the purposes of this blog, I'm going to mostly be forced to talk about Shakespeare as literature, since unfortunately all of Shakespeare's plays aren't running simultaneously in my corner of the universe. The little play inside my head which runs whenever I read a script will have to suffice. Though I might use this blog to praise/brutally-tear-to-pieces various Shakespeare film adaptations I see.
To make a long story short... I was too tired to read 2 Henry VI today so I decided to ramble philosophically instead. :-)
Posts
4 comments:
Very intriguing post! I am enjoying the glimpses into the "little plays inside your head." :-)
Yet another reason to read as well as perform and watch Shakespeare:
"Reading Shakespeare Has Dramatic Effect [nice pun!] on Human Brain"
brilliant.
We wouldn't study this stuff in English class if it didn't have valid merit as literature. It's just that Billy never said "Here, read this!", as far as I know, he said "HEY! LISTEN!"... which is a little different.
It's a GOOD thing to read it all. I mean, in order to speak it out loud, you do, after all, have to read it first. And I know you're aware that it was all written to happen on a stage- and being into theatre, as you are, you're quite apt at keeping that in mind.
My point was that especially Titus works a lot better when someone has already done all the work for you.
I'd say the opposite about Love's Labors Lost - it's a really fun read when you can sit and muse about the word play, but out loud a lot of the fancy upper class dialogue (especially because it's 400 years old) tends to go over your head. Well, my head at least. (And if it goes over the actor's heads, which it tends to do especially in schools, NOBODY gets it. And THAT'S why nobody likes that play.)
-grace
p.s.
found this recently: thought you'd enjoy some more resources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/johntusainterview/hall_transcript.shtml
so if I read shakespeare I'll get smarter? cool...
yeah, it seems like we pretty much agree, Grace. I've never read Love's Labour's Lost, so that should be interesting. (I like wordplay, so it'll be fun)
And that Peter Hall guy? never heard of him before, but he seems quite awesome.
So maybe there should be some rule that says you can't bash (or enthusiastically praise either, for that matter) a Shakespeare play until you've read and seen it (maybe even more than once). Unfortunately, that would mean that there are very few plays of his that I can reasonably give my opinion on. (No, it's not what you think, there just aren't many plays I've read AND seen.)
Post a Comment