I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honor to Shakespeare, that in his writing, whatsoever he penned, he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, “Would he had blotted a thousand,” which they thought a malevolent speech.
Asimov goes on to say "...there are indeed places where Will might have been--shh!--improved on."
Fair? Well, despite the fact that I call myself the Bardolator, I think it's perfectly fair. Just because Shakespeare was arguably the greatest writer in our language doesn't mean he was a perfect writer. I'd argue that the main flaw in Shakespeare's writing was that he had a tendency to ramble. The fact that most modern productions cut significant chunks out of Shakespeare's plays and no one who hasn't read them notices means that surely some of that stuff was just filler. Of course, Shakespeare's plays are better seen uncut, but still, it's something to think about.
I will post something about 3 Henry VI tomorrow, by the way. If I don't... feel free to spam me with obnoxious comments about weather balloons. Promise? Done.
Posts
1 comment:
ooo I tend to disagree about how the plays are better uncut. as much as I loved branagh's hamlet the first time I saw it... they didn't invent the "take a shot every time kenny pulls something extremely self-indulgent" game for nothing. (wait, maybe I invented that...)
some of those histories need help. And, arguably, since the folio was compiled by his buddies after he died, Shakespeare himself probably put on much different plays - maybe shorter ones? Groundlings wouldn't stand for too long I don't think. (although actually a lot of the "filler" is actually re-capping for his rather inattentive audience members.)
-g
Post a Comment