/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1837497]

I want to enjoy Shakespeare. Should I start with reading or watching the plays? Or both? In what order?

[Anonymous No.1837501]

read the play with a dictionary and google search handy.

When you understand every fuckin line, watch the play and see it come to life.

[Anonymous No.1837506]

Read the plays. Don't get the modern language version. This >>1837501

[Nostos !ByFQ.8G1wU No.1837519]

Bill Bryson's pseudo-biography might help put some context to the writer(s) and help you relate to the material a bit more. It pretty short too, a 2-3 day read, but a lot of insight.

[Anonymous No.1837520]

Read the plays. They are dope. Measure for measure is good starting point. due to being super fab.

[Anonymous No.1837523]

Have a dictionary to hand and take your time, but when you do that and some phrase still doesn't quite make sense and makes you itch, let it settle into your bones and go with the feeling.

[Anonymous No.1837534]

Get the Arden volumes, preferably 3rd edition if its been released. If you have netflix a number of the most popular plays are available for instant watch and almost all the others on dvd. Seeing a performance before or after reading - whichever you feel more comfortable with - is the best way to solidify your understanding and enjoyment of the plays, though be warned that most film adaptations edit and rearrange material, sometimes a bit drastically.

[Anonymous No.1837567]

Alright thanks guys, I'll read the plays first.

Where do I start? I would prefer some of his more known, popular stuff first.

[satago110 No.1837569]

Shakespeare wrote his plays to be performed, not read. It wasn't common practice at the time to treat playwrights with the same dignity as literary authors. He never meant for them to be *read*, he meant them to be *expressed*. Of course, who can guess what a dead guy was thinking, it's not like he did a "On Playwriting" book.
The Sonnets, those he meant to be read, but not the plays.
Still, his incredible gift with words makes some of his work worth reading, so go for it. Hamlet and Romeo And Juliet are excellent starters. Avoid the histories.
My opinion is that you should do a combination. Definitely see the performances if you can, and let them guide you to the text. But if you tackle the text and find it difficult, see the plays.
Pic related, from a "first folio" in 1623, printed by a fan 7 years after his death. I think there's a slightly earlier edition where they were ordered by date and not categorized.

[Anonymous No.1837595]

>>1837567

Hamlet - shitloads of psychoanalytical headfuckery, emotion, drama and generally an awesome play that in many ways was WAY ahead of its time.

Many of Hamlet's lines are genuinely funny too, it's very dry and witty humor.

[Anonymous No.1837618]

or you just read king lear.

fucking best play i have ever read.

[Anonymous No.1837702]

>>1837567
There are three major genres within Shakespeare's oeuvre: comedy, history, and tragedy. I would suggest picking one from each to serve as an introduction. Since you're trying to enjoy Shakespeare, I'm going to infer that you're not particularly interested in the importance/popularity of individual plays and, therefore, I'll recommend that, rather than reading and watching the most important/popular plays, you browse summaries on Wikipedia etc and see which premises interest you. I trust you're a better judge of what you enjoy than a random guy on the internet.

That said, however, I'll highly recommend you pick up Hamlet. It really does live up to its hype. though, you should level you expectations before going in.

That said, there are a few things you can read up on before you read Shakespeare that will help you appreciate him, especially if you intend to tackle him as a whole. British, Greek, and Roman history would all be good things to read a book, on. Greek and Roman mythology are an especially important influence. I recommend you read you Homer if you haven't, and one of the innumerable mythology guides.

[Anonymous No.1837708]

Shakespeare General
http://bardcast.blogspot.com/
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978525

Greeks and Romans
http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978539

[Anonymous No.1837731]

>>1837569
The folio was published after his death, but many quartos of individual plays were published in his lifetime, early in his career in fact. Some of them were definitely approved by the author and his company. They sold well as reading material, though never as well as his best-selling poems.

[satago110 No.1837831]

>>1837731
He never authorized the publication of his plays. He sold them to the acting troupes, who would not authorize any copies to be made until after the production (copyright didn't exist then, of course, and rivalry between acting troupes was fierce). The quatros were taken to printers after the production, and then became property of the printer. 18 of these were printed, but are heavily corrupted, probably because they were copied from an actor's memory or otherwise distorted.
So sure, 18 quatros were printed. But I'd be careful about saying his works were published in any widely accessible form until after his death.
In any case, Shakespeare was meant to be seen, I believe. being able to read and enjoy his work is only evidence of his ability.

[sandwiches No.1837885]

>>1837831
>>1837569
>>1837569
This is hogwash. Tell me he wrote Hamlet as a play that HAD to be performed (it's four and a half hours long and almost always abridged) or King Lear for that matter, he just wanted money and was an incredible genius.

For a total novice, I recommend starting with some movies. Check out Kurosawa's Ran (King Lear) and Throne of Blood (Macbeth) and Orson Welles' Falstaff and Laurence Olivier's Hamlet.

I'm only recommending you watch films so that you realize just how badass a storyteller this man was and you'd be convinced he's worth the effort to read.

There's nothing wrong with only reading the plays. Seeing someone butcher King Lear (which I think is a play which can never truly be performed as well as you read it in your head) is not going to increase your understanding of the play.

[sandwiches No.1837915]

Just rambling a bit more.

Hamlet is a play about the mind and being trapped in the mind. Why wouldn't Shakespeare want Hamlet to be read? Why can't the play exist in my mind as opposed to having to see some faggots prance around on a stage? Hamlet was meant to be read, only after Shakespeare could make a buck.

bitch, please

[satago110 No.1837919]

>>1837885
I don't know what you wash your hogs with, but it's true. Though by your next sentence I'm thinking we're not understanding each other.
>Tell me he wrote Hamlet as a play that HAD to be performed (it's four and a half hours long and almost always abridged) or King Lear for that matter
He wrote a play he WANTED to be performed, because, as you said, he needed the flow, just as any damn playwright of any time.. And the length of the play (4.5 hours or whatever) is irrelevant.

[sandwiches No.1837925]

>>1837919
Flow meaning, money? Because I'd agree but only on those terms. I don't think his artistic vision was that his plays had to be performed. I mean, his style is so open-ended and invites so many interpretations that its ripe for theatre production, but that doesn't mean you lose anything by reading it.

[satago110 No.1837928]

>>1837915
People didn't READ plays then. Damn, people barely even COULD read. They went to see them, the teeming masses, because they couldn't sit at home with their kindle. That's the way it was back then. He would have written Hamlet as a book if he wanted people to read them. What, you think he was hoping to see it at the local Borders?

[satago110 No.1837936]

>>1837925
No,you don't lose anything by reading them, that's not what I'm saying. But I've come to know plays in my life, being the son of a playwright and spending my first 7 years as a crippled kid being dragged to rehearsals and openign nights. And I know that playwrites write to be performed, they don't write to be read.
The excellent ones, like our dear Billy, can carry over to be beautiful on the written page.
Hearing the words spoken, with intonation and meaning, can help overcome the hurdles of language and meaning. Ask any teen who's watched R/J and also read it.

[sandwiches No.1837950]

>>1837928
Well, considering that Shakespeare's genius is so vast and all-encompassing, and has aged so well, I'd say, yes. It's not far-fetched to say that he wrote his plays anticipating that they'd be read as well as performed. I find it hard to believe that Shakespeare, who is virtually absent in all of his plays, would have wanted his plays to be only performed after he died.

[sandwiches No.1837956]

>>1837936
Ah, I see. Fair. Yeah, I always recommend that people watch the movies with subtitles on, just to 'get into it' so I guess I'm making a similar point.

I haven't seen a Shakespeare performance in a long time and I don't feel like I've lost anything by it.

[satago110 No.1837978]

>>1837950
Good talkin; with you sandwiches. I'm glad we both agree he was a genius with words, and that here we are in the 21st century discussing his works over who knows how many miles, wifi and fiberoptics, etc. It says a lot about his work, whether it's on a page or on a stage.
In thunder, lightning or rain, see you when the hurlyburly's done.

[Anonymous No.1837999]

I've been getting more into Shakespeare myself lately, and I find it far easier to comprehend and appreciate his work by watching rather than reading it. Here's a few excellent Shakespeare adaptations I've come across:

Henry V – Kenneth Branagh
Much Ado About Nothing – Kenneth Branagh
Hamlet – Kenneth Branagh
Throne of Blood (Macbeth) – Akira Kurosawa
Ran (King Lear) – Akira Kurosawa

[Anonymous No.1838037]

Well, the Sonnets are a good place to start, to show he can master rhythm. Then, you read Titus Andronicus, to show how fucked up shit back then was. Then you read everything else to see that shakespeare is a mster of craft. Hamlet to begin, then King Lear, then some Comedy, any one will do, then you read Romeo Juliet again because fuck everyone's read that shit. Then read the masterpieces that are Julius Caesar and Othello.

Then yfw you realize The Merchant of Venice was a comedy.

[Anonymous No.1838058]

!!!!!!!!!!JULIUS CAESAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read it or see it; that play is fucking incredible.
This summer I'm reading every Shakespeare play I haven't previously read. On Troilus and Cressida right now; it's so far excellent, but also humorous to see Shakespeare try to approach Homer's Illiad by making Homer's minor characters his romantic heroes.

Next up: Anthony and Cleopatra.

[Anonymous No.1838063]

midsummers night dream was my favorite but watch the play first then read it