/lit/ - Literature

watch it performed. maybe olivier's hamlet or pacino's merchant of venice.

>>3667517
>watch it performed.
This for sure. Watching the version of Othello with Laurence Fishburne and Kenneth Branagh (easily found online) was really the first time I enjoyed Shakespeare - and I really enjoyed it! [This was in 10th grade.]

Also, after a while it be comes easier. You can trust me on that, OP. Until then, you may consider reading SparkNotes summaries or something as you go. And definitely get annotated editions of his plays, be they Folgers, Barnes & Noble, or whatever. [Some of the volumes with his complete works sport good notes for obscure words.]

Act it out.

You're a bottom-feeding plebeian

Richard III is better read than watched. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar can be read or watched and enjoyed.

>>3667616
This.
Shakespeare is delightful. I've thoroughly enjoyed his plays since I started reading them when I was 12. (played Puck in the school play, was excellent)

Particularly enjoyed Hamlet and Lear, I felt the eponymous characters were quite sympathetic (for me).

It's normal I would say, to not necessarily enjoy the over-arching plot, but at the least some part is excellent (example: couldn't care less for the plot of Othello, but absolutely loved Iago's character)

tl;dr you're a pleb and you need to keep reading it til you like it

>>3667646
>. (played Puck in the school play, was excellent)

what kind of person would say this

>that pic
every time

shakespeare is fucking wordcandy, what are you on about m8?

he's overrated

>Be crowned king Arthur

>>3667517
Shakespeare prof here (not kidding). The main challenges are in language and style.
1. Shakespeare is obsessed with metaphors, often piling one on another in long elaborate sequences. He doesn't just tell stories.
2. He's obsessed with wordplay. This means making up piles of new words (about 3000 of them) and using rare, weird words, as well as all kind of verbal play (punning, innuendo, malapropism, etc.).
Also, it gets easier with time and do try to see plays in performance (especially if not cut and simplified too much).
If you have more questions, ask away!

I also cannot understand Shakespeare, I have literally tried for decades and still cannot understand anything, hopeless.

>>3667800
>I also cannot understand Shakespeare, I have literally tried for decades and still cannot understand anything, hopeless.
>Now my charms are all o'erthrown. And what strength I haves mine own, which is most faint.
...or you fully understand.

>>3667517
Are there more of these?

>>3667830
>>>/r/
>>>/b/

>>3667786
How do I get to start noticing these things?

I´m acting in a student theatre company and while I understand enough to be able to grasp the dynamics of conversation, and see where the obvious jokes are (= those that the audience will enjoy too), I know next to nothing about his metaphors, for one.

>>3667869
Do plenty of slow, patient, close reading. Go through a play with extraordinary attention to detail so that you can say what is happening in any given line. Don't be lazy or slack -- keep looking things up. And make sure you have a good set of critical terms so you can describe what's happening. It's mostly an effort of self-discipline. And keep saying to yourself: "Can I explain to someone else how meaning is being produced in these lines and what methods are being used?" If you can do that, you'll be absolutely fine. Shakespeare isn't mostly about story or conversation. He tells medium complexity stories using highly elaborate language. The focus is at least as much on language as on stories.
And with the metaphors, try picking up on them as you read. Notice how long they are, how they're organized, and what they're doing in the text. He uses metaphor all over the place in highly distinctive ways. His writing is so metaphor saturated that it takes the modern reader a bit of time to adjust. And good luck!! The rewards of patience are significant.

>>3667890
Thank you and God bless.

>>3667890
Now that we have a Shakespeare professor at hand, we won't let it go (yeah I'm calling you it, I'm that kind of sociopath). Can you recommend an order for getting into Shalespeare ? English is not my first language, but I'd like to do the grownup stuff and stop reading him only in translation. I heard that
-Romeo and Juliet was a good start
-King Lear, Macbeth and Hmalet were the harder stuff
-Othello was fine middle
(discussing difficulty only here)

Is that right ? Please show me a way.

>>3667923
I'm happy to oblige. The plays are get harder as they get later. The language of The Winter's Tale or Troilus and Cressida is way tougher than that of A Comedy of Errors or Richard III or The Merry Wives of Windsor. And definitely read in the original, if you can. You'll learn a lot about English and you'll get the meaning so much better.
And what you say is pretty much right, although I think Romeo and Juliet can be read in a few ways. The story is exciting and there are some great romantic moments, but the play is also obsessed with forms of poetry (especially the sonnet) and there's a lot of complex meta-literary reference going on. And plays like Henry V and Julius Caesar are probably easier to read than Hamlet and King Lear, though I'd put Macbeth and Othello in the middle of that bunch.
It sounds like you're on the right track and know what you're talking about.

Watch Coriolanus with Ralph Fiennes. Some of those scenes are amazing.

>>3667945
Agreed. I think it's one of the best Shakespeare films to come out of the period since Branagh reinvigorated cinematic Shakespeare -- together with Taymor's Titus. Some of the very recent DVDs of stage productions have been strong too, like Patrick Stewart in Macbeth, or David Tennant in Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing. It's a great period for Shakespeare interpretation just now!

>>3667830

bump

>>3667594
This. Read out loud. Get in character.