Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 9:12 am on Dec. 9, 2008 So a discussion in the Books & Reading forum (hi, medjai) caused me to think about a question that tends to bother me when studying Shakespeare, the question of why so many English classes only focus on the tragedies and completely ignore the comedies and the histories? Well. Not completely ignore, as they generally get at least a mention in passing, or the teacher will rent A Midsummer Night's Dream or Much Ado About Nothing to play and introduce the unit, but at the same time, so much more attention is given to the tragedies than to the comedies or histories that I can't help but feel that many people are missing out on some absolutely wonderful stories and insights that come from those plays. Posing the question here because the Books & Reading forum tends to get bogged down with the camel dung that is Twilight, but why do you suppose it is that Shakespeare's tragedies are seen as far more important than the comedies or histories? Or, for that matter, his sonnets? -- Posted by yellowsapphire at 9:18 am on Dec. 9, 2008 Possibly because they're more exciting (if you want a boring Shakespeare, try reading 'A Winter's Tale'!), more happens in the tragedy plays and it can be used to get children into studying it. It's far easier to get kids/teens interested in death, witches, burning and evil than weird fairies and such like. That said, 'Much Ado About Nothing' is my favourite Shakespeare play. It's perhaps the only one I have bought without the necessity to. -- Posted by barnabas at 9:18 am on Dec. 9, 2008 Well, to start off, his sonnets offend a lot of people, and seem far to risque for high school. Also, I think people percieve his tragedies as more straightforward than his comedies? That may sound strange, but bear with me, my brain is frazzled with paper writing. In high school we read 2 tragedies and a history. We read R&J, Henry the V (I think?) and then Hamlet. In college I read a lot of the others (to this day i have not finished reading all of his works ). But i think that high schools pick those plays because it is easy to talk about hamlet being depressed, ophelia drowning etc. Those emotions seem more straight forward than the taming of the shrew, or much ado about nothing, where shakespeare says one thing, and means another? did that make any sense? -- Posted by 2kewl4u2know at 9:28 am on Dec. 9, 2008 I think it has to do with the fact that it is easier to see the faults of mankind in Shakespeare's tragedies than his comedies.  You have to remember, school is not only there just to teach us how to read, write, and do arithmetic.  School is also there to teach us how to integrate into society and make it a better place.  That means focusing on mankind's downfalls through the works of these great writer's and learning through them. Although I do agree, I wish they would do more than tragedies a majority of the time, and focus more on the ancients.  Unfortunately, if they were to get into the really amazing work of Martial, Catullus, or Horace, it probably would be to risque for what is acceptable within a high school. But yeah, as I said in my first paragraph, we read tragedies in high school to look at mankind's faults (and strengths too).  That's why we read literature like Romeo and Juliet, Things Fall Apart, The Crucible, and Anthony and Cleopatra, and more. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 9:35 am on Dec. 9, 2008 Quote: from yellowsapphire at 12:18 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Possibly because they're more exciting (if you want a boring Shakespeare, try reading 'A Winter's Tale'!), more happens in the tragedy plays and it can be used to get children into studying it. It's far easier to get kids/teens interested in death, witches, burning and evil than weird fairies and such like. That said, 'Much Ado About Nothing' is my favourite Shakespeare play. It's perhaps the only one I have bought without the necessity to. Mm, I don't know. An overwhelming amount of stuff happens in, say, Twelfth Night (the one comedy I remember formally studying in all of my years of high school and college, and it was mostly "studied" as a sort of read-through "Welcome to Shakespeare, kids!" in the seventh grade) compared to, say, Macbeth where Macbeth kills the king, visits some witches, and gets killed himself. I dunno. It might just be a matter of preference on my part, but I do wish that there would be more focus on the comedies and histories. -- Posted by fenrir at 11:01 am on Dec. 9, 2008 Ran, Throne of Blood, The Wicked Sleep Well, etc.  I've grown more partial to Japanese interpretations of his writings rather than my Native tongue. -- Posted by medjai at 3:21 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 It's because Tragedy is more epic than comedy, and teachers probablydont teach the comedies because most students, even AP or IB have trouble following the tragedies, which are easier and far more linear than the comedies so if you graded kids on Shakespeare's comedies and forced them to analyze it and write essays on it, it would brood hatred for Shakespeare. Also I think it's because tragedies are more natural to READ than the comedies, and most schools don't have the funding to take their students to shakespeare's plays to watch the comedies. And finally, as far as longevity of literature, stories of the epic hero, and stories of tragedy, are pretty much at the top. I can name far more anciently written tragedies than I can ancient comedies. His tragedies are one of the main reasons he's studied 500 years later. -- Posted by fenrir at 3:59 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 I'd much rather have children learn Kierkegaard [Christian Existentialism] or Kant [Pure Reason] in reaction to David Hume [Opposition of Exhaustive Causality] as opposed to Much Ado About Nothing, Macbeth, Hamlet, etc. as mandatory reading in High School. -- Posted by medjai at 4:28 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Why? I think that Hamlet by itself is better than all of those philosophy works combined, -- Posted by fenrir at 6:42 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 6:28 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Why? I think that Hamlet by itself is better than all of those philosophy works combined, Hardly.  Don Quixote had more socio-political influences coupled with relative perception of reality, and Hamlet never had any windmills.  I'd rather have read and watched "Much Ado About Nothing" more than a handful of times than simply in college. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:03 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 6:21 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 It's because Tragedy is more epic than comedy, and teachers probablydont teach the comedies because most students, even AP or IB have trouble following the tragedies, which are easier and far more linear than the comedies so if you graded kids on Shakespeare's comedies and forced them to analyze it and write essays on it, it would brood hatred for Shakespeare. Also I think it's because tragedies are more natural to READ than the comedies, and most schools don't have the funding to take their students to shakespeare's plays to watch the comedies. And finally, as far as longevity of literature, stories of the epic hero, and stories of tragedy, are pretty much at the top. I can name far more anciently written tragedies than I can ancient comedies. His tragedies are one of the main reasons he's studied 500 years later. Why do they have that longevity, though? I mean, it's fairly clear that more people know Oedipus Rex than Lysistrata (which is a shame, as the former was just annoying and the latter was uproariously awesome), but why? I don't think there are necessarily deeper truths in tragedy than in comedy; quite the opposite, I think you can find deeper truths asking yourself if, even without the aide of fairies, we are truly as ridiculous in love as Titania and Nick Bottom; if we would jump to conclusions about our lovers when things didn't feel right, as Claudio did about Hero; if we would find ourselves falling in love with someone of the gender we don't prefer if he or she was in disguise, as Olivia fell in with Violet? Of course, regarding the reading point, plays are never meant to be read by the audience. They're meant to be performed; hence the reason so many students have such a hard time working their way through any Shakespeare work when reading it but rather enjoy performing it or seeing it performed. I know that the plays I studied went by much more smoothly when we read and acted out scenes than when we were required to finish reading Act III for homework. -- Posted by Fauna at 7:20 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 I don't think Shakespeare's tragedies ARE seen as more important than his histories or comedies, 'Taming of the Shrew' the most popular play performed currently by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and in England, his comedies are the genre mainly studied by school students. But, a tragedy is generally treated with more weight than a comedy because of the different themes the two choose to tackle. Shakespeare's comedies are brilliantly written, entertaining and sometimes manage to stumble their way into being hilarious even to a modern audience - but, they're not as philosophically reflective, and not as incisive into the human condition as his tragedies. Hamlet is the most sublime character ever to be written, Shakespeare couldn't have created such a character in his comedies. And Macbeth is an infinitely more complex play than Twelfth Night. -- Posted by fenrir at 9:52 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Medjai, essays were fun to write only if the subject matter wasn't too drab and boring.  As for the tragedies being more linear, the premises were far too limited in scope and application beyond the protagonist and antagonist.  Revenge is a far easier plot to write than overlapping affairs held by mere gossip, yet lacks in ANY application otherwise.  What are we to tell children following Hamlet's example?  You know that at the end of most Shakespeare's comedies, there was also a hint of tragedy even for the hero of the narrative.  However, can any explain to me what was the point of the puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream?  I am not afraid to admit that I fell asleep from boredom after the first paragraph. -- Posted by omnifariam at 11:45 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 Shakespeare has always baffled me. Why the complicated metaphorical style? Even his contemporaries found it a little too pretentious, especially when they were meant for lighthearted plays. To date, no one could really agree on the interpretations of their various characters and plots. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 4:27 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from Fauna at 10:20 pm on Dec. 9, 2008 I don't think Shakespeare's tragedies ARE seen as more important than his histories or comedies, 'Taming of the Shrew' the most popular play performed currently by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and in England, his comedies are the genre mainly studied by school students. But, a tragedy is generally treated with more weight than a comedy because of the different themes the two choose to tackle. Shakespeare's comedies are brilliantly written, entertaining and sometimes manage to stumble their way into being hilarious even to a modern audience - but, they're not as philosophically reflective, and not as incisive into the human condition as his tragedies. Hamlet is the most sublime character ever to be written, Shakespeare couldn't have created such a character in his comedies.   And Macbeth is an infinitely more complex play than Twelfth Night. While that may be the case in the UK, over here in the US, it's a rare high school or college class that gives as much attention to the comedies and histories as to the tragedies. And I'll disagree with you on the complexity issue, as well. -- Posted by allsmiles at 4:54 am on Dec. 10, 2008 We don't seem to have that problem in Britain. Maybe it's due to cultural heritage, but schools seem to be pretty much given free reign over Shakespeare's works. We could choose what we wanted to study from his entire works - I opted for Othello and Twelfth Night, one of each. This was state education, too, so no premium for the small classes. :P But yea, a hell of a lot of British resource is invested in Shakespeare. Admittedly, a couple of his tragedies get a lot more "airtime" than the rest of his works, but I genuinely think that's because we can relate to them more in this modern age. Tickets for Hamlet by the RSC (over a month's worth of performances) sold out in 3 hours, so... yea, not sure what I'm getting at here. But there just doesn't seem to be an imbalance. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 5:03 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 7:54 am on Dec. 10, 2008 We don't seem to have that problem in Britain. Maybe it's due to cultural heritage, but schools seem to be pretty much given free reign over Shakespeare's works. We could choose what we wanted to study from his entire works - I opted for Othello and Twelfth Night, one of each. This was state education, too, so no premium for the small classes. :P But yea, a hell of a lot of British resource is invested in Shakespeare. Admittedly, a couple of his tragedies get a lot more "airtime" than the rest of his works, but I genuinely think that's because we can relate to them more in this modern age. Tickets for Hamlet by the RSC (over a month's worth of performances) sold out in 3 hours, so... yea, not sure what I'm getting at here. But there just doesn't seem to be an imbalance. Well, also consider that the recent production of Hamlet starred the Tenth Doctor and Captain Jean Luc Picard. Hamlet makes me twitch in about the same way that Great Expectations makes me twitch, but I'd buy tickets to see it with those guys starring. -- Posted by medjai at 5:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:27 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 8:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author. Which doesn't change the fact that most of the tickets purchased for the current RSC run of Hamlet are likely related to the casting of David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Or that I felt, many times while studying the play, a nearly irrepressable urge to slap Hamlet silly. -- Posted by medjai at 7:33 am on Dec. 10, 2008 I've never had the urge to slap Hamlet. Why do you feel he needs to be slapped? -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:35 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 10:33 am on Dec. 10, 2008 I've never had the urge to slap Hamlet. Why do you feel he needs to be slapped? I don't know, something about him rubbed me the wrong way. Kind of the same with Harry Potter. I have nothing against either Hamlet the play or the Harry Potter series, but their main characters kind of really made me want to shake them and say "STFU" many times throughout. I'd have to read the play again to give you a better answer than that, which I really don't want to do. Maybe I'll watch it--after all, it was never meant to be read. -- Posted by allsmiles at 9:26 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:27 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 8:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author. Which doesn't change the fact that most of the tickets purchased for the current RSC run of Hamlet are likely related to the casting of David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Or that I felt, many times while studying the play, a nearly irrepressable urge to slap Hamlet silly. I wouldn't go so far as to say most of them. RSC productions usually sell out. Though yea, I'd be inclined to purchase tickets to see Tennant and Stewart over any other current RSC production, that's not to say that I would go to the theatre purely to see them. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 9:43 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 12:26 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:27 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 8:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author.    Which doesn't change the fact that most of the tickets purchased for the current RSC run of Hamlet are likely related to the casting of David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Or that I felt, many times while studying the play, a nearly irrepressable urge to slap Hamlet silly. I wouldn't go so far as to say most of them. RSC productions usually sell out. Though yea, I'd be inclined to purchase tickets to see Tennant and Stewart over any other current RSC production, that's not to say that I would go to the theatre purely to see them. You wouldn't; that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who would. I don't think that the selling out is solely because of them, but I do think that it's as much a mistake to say that it's solely because Hamlet is such a great play. -- Posted by yellowsapphire at 10:06 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 5:43 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 12:26 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:27 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 8:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author.     Which doesn't change the fact that most of the tickets purchased for the current RSC run of Hamlet are likely related to the casting of David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Or that I felt, many times while studying the play, a nearly irrepressable urge to slap Hamlet silly. I wouldn't go so far as to say most of them. RSC productions usually sell out. Though yea, I'd be inclined to purchase tickets to see Tennant and Stewart over any other current RSC production, that's not to say that I would go to the theatre purely to see them.   You wouldn't; that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who would.   I don't think that the selling out is solely because of them, but I do think that it's as much a mistake to say that it's solely because Hamlet is such a great play. No, you're right, it's not because Hamlet is a great play that it is selling out. Mainly, I would suggest it's because of David Tennant. My evidence is this: he had a back injury that stopped him from performing on Monday night. Many people walked out/demanded a refund because of this. It's just a shame I couldn't go - I love Patrick Stewart, I've grown up watching him (coincidentially he's the Chancellor of my University)...and David Tennant is quite a hottie, but I'm not that shallow....honest   -- Posted by allsmiles at 10:26 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from yellowsapphire at 6:06 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 5:43 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 12:26 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:27 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 8:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author.   Which doesn't change the fact that most of the tickets purchased for the current RSC run of Hamlet are likely related to the casting of David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Or that I felt, many times while studying the play, a nearly irrepressable urge to slap Hamlet silly.    I wouldn't go so far as to say most of them. RSC productions usually sell out. Though yea, I'd be inclined to purchase tickets to see Tennant and Stewart over any other current RSC production, that's not to say that I would go to the theatre purely to see them. You wouldn't; that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who would. I don't think that the selling out is solely because of them, but I do think that it's as much a mistake to say that it's solely because Hamlet is such a great play. No, you're right, it's not because Hamlet is a great play that it is selling out. Mainly, I would suggest it's because of David Tennant. My evidence is this: he had a back injury that stopped him from performing on Monday night. Many people walked out/demanded a refund because of this. It's just a shame I couldn't go - I love Patrick Stewart, I've grown up watching him (coincidentially he's the Chancellor of my University)...and David Tennant is quite a hottie, but I'm not that shallow....honest Hmm... Well the BBC reports the opposite. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7772880.stm -- Posted by yellowsapphire at 10:36 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 6:26 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from yellowsapphire at 6:06 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 5:43 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 12:26 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 3:27 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 8:23 am on Dec. 10, 2008 To oversimplify Hamlet is a great injustice to its author, it is a tale of revenge but that is just the machine. It allows the protagonist implied unlimited character, as it must be assumed he was that he is past his prime and subjected to the great changes that obviously come through an individual after a man of such ability and power is forced into a corner of a perverse reality and tragic circumstance, and yet induces on himself an active mindset to defeat the pen that bore him. Hamlet is precisely interesting because it's protagonist realizes he is in a play, calls his playwright out on it, and attempts to take control by creating a play within a play to both succeed in his own will and surpass his author.         Which doesn't change the fact that most of the tickets purchased for the current RSC run of Hamlet are likely related to the casting of David Tennant and Patrick Stewart. Or that I felt, many times while studying the play, a nearly irrepressable urge to slap Hamlet silly.     I wouldn't go so far as to say most of them. RSC productions usually sell out. Though yea, I'd be inclined to purchase tickets to see Tennant and Stewart over any other current RSC production, that's not to say that I would go to the theatre purely to see them.      You wouldn't; that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who would.      I don't think that the selling out is solely because of them, but I do think that it's as much a mistake to say that it's solely because Hamlet is such a great play.    No, you're right, it's not because Hamlet is a great play that it is selling out. Mainly, I would suggest it's because of David Tennant. My evidence is this: he had a back injury that stopped him from performing on Monday night. Many people walked out/demanded a refund because of this.    It's just a shame I couldn't go - I love Patrick Stewart, I've grown up watching him (coincidentially he's the Chancellor of my University)...and David Tennant is quite a hottie, but I'm not that shallow....honest   Hmm... Well the BBC reports the opposite. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7772880.stm I know - he's been given a standing ovation and all that. I'm talking about initially. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 10:59 am on Dec. 10, 2008 Quote: from allsmiles at 1:26 pm on Dec. 10, 2008 Hmm... Well the BBC reports the opposite. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7772880.stm I wonder how many people that audience was, though--how many others walked out when they found out about the lack of Tennant. You can't deny that Tennant and Stewart are huge contributing factors to the draw of this show. Hell, I'm not a fan of Hamlet at all and I was considering going into serious debt to see those two onstage. -- Posted by fenrir at 5:28 am on Dec. 15, 2008 Quote: from medjai at 9:33 am on Dec. 10, 2008 I've never had the urge to slap Hamlet. Why do you feel he needs to be slapped? 1. Unimaginative means of death and revenge 2. Never seems to find himself quiet without conversing with the recently deceased 3. Obviously deranged?  He must be snapped back into reality, be a man, and defeat his father's killer and mother's new lover. To comment on an earlier topic, Jared, I never considered this story to be over the nature of justice, but the validity of one's right to revenge over those who've wronged us or our families. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 5:45 am on Dec. 23, 2008 I was always under the impression that 'Julius Caesar' and 'Richard III' were widely studied.... -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:41 am on Dec. 23, 2008 Quote: from ElephantStone at 8:45 am on Dec. 23, 2008 I was always under the impression that 'Julius Caesar' and 'Richard III' were widely studied.... Not nearly as widely as Romeo & Juliet or Hamlet. Or even Macbeth, for that matter. Pages: 1 2  Next