“Why does Shakespeare even matter?” I was teaching an introductory workshop about Shakespeare to kids ages nine to thirteen, and I laughed to myself because I had been secretly hoping one of them wouldn’t ask. I’ve heard this question several times, from English class to Drama class, and even in the midst of production of a Shakespeare play. “He was a genius,” “He understood the human condition uniquely,” “He’s simply the best” are the most common answers I hear. But when I was asked, all I could muster was “I honestly don’t know.” Is it really because he’s a genius? Or do we just romanticize English writers without cause? Are his plays really good enough to overlook the problems? Or can we just not admit to ourselves that we enjoy them despite their faults? Why have they been studied for hundreds of years? Will this ever end? My answer remains “I honestly don’t know,” and the following is why.
First off, there are a few things that should be noted about Shakespeare to demystify him. Something that many people don’t seem to realize is that Shakespeare had many contemporaries, most notably Christopher Marlowe, Ben Johnson, and John Fletcher. These playwrights are still celebrated, but I’d be surprised if the majority of readers hadn’t heard all three of those names. Their language is similar, they all have substantial bodies of work, and Marlowe is even attributed with collaborating with Shakespeare on three of his plays. In fact, scholars believe 17 of Shakespeare’s 38 plays were co-written. Additionally, almost every single Shakespeare play is irrefutably based on a story that came before. Clearly, The Bard’s work was not as original as it seems [bard simply means poet and Shakespeare is considered “The Bard”]; nonetheless, they stand the test of time. As you may or may not know, there has been speculation about whether a man named William Shakespeare actually wrote any of those plays and sonnets or whether it was another individual entirely; many anti-Stratfordians [those who don’t believe Shakespeare was an author] claim Francis Bacon wrote his plays. One interesting piece of evidence is that the six surviving signatures accredited to William Shakespeare are each spelled completely differently and in illegible handwriting which is why some believe he was illiterate. This is a much disputed issue, but Shakespeare was not the sole embodiment of Elizabethan literary perfection that readers are so often led to believe.
There are many reasons why Shakespeare is considered problematic, mainly to do with his representation, or lack thereof, of women and people of color, as well as his plays’ antisemitism. His most problematic works are often referred to as “problem plays,” a term coined over a century ago. It is difficult to discern whether each of his plays qualifies as “problematic” because that term is subjective. Merchant of Venice is seen as controversial because of its representation of Jewish people with a character named Shylock who is portrayed negatively. The play was even used by the Nazi regime to perpetuate hateful sentiments. Othello is critiqued for its portrayal of a Person of Color as a spiteful, jealous, murderer and White people, including his wife, as the victims. Othello also has a history of blackface. Taming of the Shrew is a story about two sisters, one significantly more attractive, physically and personally, than the other. The title itself says it all: The Taming (domestication, controlling, suppression) of the Shrew (rat, bad-tempered woman). These are only three examples of the issues that come up when reading and studying Shakespeare. It is important to mention that I am not asserting that we should not study these three plays, or any others with similar portrayals, but it is absolutely vital that readers of Shakespeare discuss the historical, social, and political context along with the dire implications of idolizing such controversial plays that contribute to negative and damaging stereotypes.
Now, on the other hand, there must be something positive about Shakespeare’s work for all the negatives that are overlooked. There are many problems to be held, I do not deny this. While his plots aren’t always original, he has a unique way, at least for his time period, of dissecting and depicting the human condition. Shakespeare’s sense of poeticism, knack for realistic dialogue, and mindblowing command of language are three defining features of his work. To speak to his poeticism, as was the nature of the time, plots were almost always metaphorical or spoke to a higher truth. Anyone who has read The Tempest or A Midsummer Night’s Dream knows this well. While the Bard is a master of allegory, he is not unique as other writers of the time also used overarching metaphors. Another major trait is his raw dialogue. Though the use of verse and blank verse disguises it, the way his characters relate to each other, when performed successfully, is human beyond most other playwrights, or at least beyond his contemporaries. There is a reason a good portion of the most famous quotes of all time are Shakespeare’s words: “All that glitters is not gold,” “To be or not to be,” “Parting is such sweet sorrow,” and “All the world’s a stage,” to name a few. This again, is not unique as many writers are oft quoted, though arguably never more than the Bard. His use of language is the attribute that is primarily Shakespeare’s own, as evidenced by the impact he has had on our language. There is an extremely long list of words that Shakespeare quite literally invented (to name a few: hurry, eyeball, elbow, suspicious, lonely, gloomy, majestic, amazement, apostrophe, cheap, coldhearted, fashionable, overview, and about 400 others). While each of these aforementioned reasons individually might not answer the question of whether Shakespeare should be studied, they collectively paint the picture of a prolific playwright who drastically altered the very language this is written in as well as today’s culture.
Shakespeare’s work is no longer the hard to understand, posh British, men-in-tights writing many people think it is. Since the 1990s, the upper crust of Shakespeare productions have reverted to that of Shakespeare’s original intention: human stories that are meant to resonate with people from all socio-economic classes. Countless productions of his plays have featured non-traditional gender and race casting, many of which are the most critically acclaimed. It seems audiences are tired of seeing the same portrayals of the Prince of Denmark and the Star-Crossed-Lovers. This is what the beauty of Shakespeare is-- that the archetypal, commedia dell'arte type characters permit, and even require, inventive casting and directorial visions so that the works speak to a more realistic and relevant truth. If Macbeth is performed as it was in the 1930s, it is likely to get very poor reception from the audience. If Shakespeare continues to be a cultural phenomenon, it is essential that the notions of what it should look and sound like are removed so the oppressive nature his words can be harnessed to embody are avoided.
Additionally, as any drama teacher will tell students a million times, Shakespeare was meant to be spoken, not read. This illuminates the fundamental flaw in the way that youth are introduced to his work. They sit at their desks and begin with Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, or another of his more renowned plays. They start to read, probably without really understanding much; then, they are told what it means. This type of introduction often produces a hatred of his words and a deep misunderstanding of the Bard’s intentions. If you were brought to a Shakespeare play as a child, you probably remember falling asleep, if you remember anything at all. This is troubling because it perpetuates the idea of Shakespeare being “lofty” and hard to understand instead of provoking adoration and passion. While this is changing for some, other teachers have instead resorted to removing Shakespeare from the curriculum altogether. This is a mistake, not because everyone needs to study his work and needs to love it, but because it isn’t solving the problem, it is merely avoiding it. Bringing Shakespeare into the conversation of race, class, education, and inequality would be a productive way to bridge the subjects of art, culture and society.
So, is Shakespeare relevant to the youngest generation? Most Gen-Zers pride themselves on embracing social justice and rejecting the status quo, so where do these problem plays fit in? And is there even a place for a 400 year old playwright who wrote almost exclusively white characters? Taking his genius, lack of originality, eloquence, short-comings, and everything else into account, I have formulated something of an answer. He is relevant, as he has always been, to a good number of people. This may be a disappointing answer, so let me explain. The big issue I have with Shakespeare, is that he is so incredibly ubiquitous. The Bard’s words are in our mouths, his quotes are in our favorite books and movies, his characters are played by our favorite actors; Shakespeare is foundational in the Western European conception of reality and humanity. However, and this is my main point, he is simply a playwright. I don’t particularly like Henrik Ibsen. You might love him. Why do we all need to study, act, read, and know everything about Shakespeare? I have come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t. He was great. He was a genius. But not everyone may feel the same way, and they shouldn’t be forced to feel differently. Perhaps he should be taken out of the Common Core Curriculum. Perhaps we shouldn’t be required to audition with Shakespeare monologues. Perhaps he was an artist like any other and we are all entitled to our opinions about Shakespeare regardless of who wrote the works and whether they are as profound as our curriculums make it seem.
Comments