I’m always looking for ways to re-review the classics of literature and maybe incite anger from the English community. As I’ve said before, classical literature needs to be held up to constant scrutiny so we can remember why it’s a classic. If classics were determined by an elitist group of English professors then they wouldn’t have the huge following that they do. With that in mind, I have decided to take on the big boss of classic literature: William Shakespeare.

            During my time as a writing major, and English minor, I had heard countless people (ones I respected) giving praise to Shakespeare. Up until my most recent semester, I had little to no respect for the man. I found his writing to be confusing and irrelevant to the times I was living in, so I figured I could get away with not taking his class. The joke ended up turning back on me as I realized it was a requirement to take a Shakespeare class in order to graduate.

            In my class I read six plays by William Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, Cymbeline and The Tempest. (I had read Hamlet in a previous course, and saw multiple versions of MacBeth). One of the things I have to point out first is that in order to grasp the full experience of Shakespeare, one must actually see the plays performed. It isn’t a huge issue whether they be in movie version or on stage, but the more versions you watch, the more of an understanding you’ll get for the story. There are advantages to both mediums, but I have to say, the plays are a lot more fun to watch on stage than in movies.

            The largest barrier for me is the language. Shakespeare is thick. Not just blood vs water thick, we’re talking molasses vs air thick. Without a fair knowledge of the English language and translations in the margins, you won’t be likely to understand the majority of what each character is saying. In fact, I would go on to say that I didn’t really grasp each story until after I’d read it, seen it performed and seen the movie version. So one might ask themselves, why should I put all this time and effort into translating these plays? The reason is that when you put the time and effort into a work of Shakespeare, you will understand why the man is so highly regarded in history.

            The closest comparison I can make is a poem. In order for a poem to be good, you need to be able to dig into it and ride the roller coaster of meanings it could have. In that regard, every line of Shakespeare is poetic. That might be hard to believe, but I spent considerable time in my class analyzing single lines, not the entire play. In each line of dialogue you can find parallels to the overall story, the characters and even other plays. One could read the same line twice and get an entirely different meaning the second time.

            I was also surprised, upon my readings, how relevant Shakespeare’s themes were. He was tackling race before race was even an issue (Othello). He was questioning gender rolls before they existed (A Midsummer Night’s Dream), and he was popularizing epic and fantastic stories before there was a proper medium to display them (The Tempest). He even managed to go back and retell his plays with different outcomes to play with audiences expectations (Cymbeline). Even though it’s surprising that he nailed all these subjects well before their time, what is even more surprising is that they all came from one man. All debates aside about whether or not Shakespeare was really multiple people, it illustrates that multiple genres can be accepted from a single author (or name). So often today do we see branding on authors were they are restricted to the genre they started with. It has reached the point where some authors need to write under a different name just so that their different genres will be separated. Some have managed to bridge this gap, but the branding is unmistakable. As a writer who likes to write multiple different genres, I find it troubling that I’ll be restricted to one when I get out on the market. What Shakespeare illustrates is that someone can write a comedy, a tragedy and a fantasy and still be taken seriously. He can jump from polar opposites in the literary world and pull it off with grace and cunning.

            While I can’t say that I liked all the plays the same, it’s easy to see how each play can appeal to someone. In much the same way that there is a book for everyone, everyone would be able to find something they like in a Shakespeare play.

            It is unfortunate that the language barrier for Shakespeare’s plays is so heavy. Even after all the time I spent with his work, I still wouldn’t read any of them for recreational purposes. I would still go see one of his plays, but the text itself represents too much work to pick up on a whim. This reminds me of a motto among writers and English students. There are two groups of books: books that you want to read, and books that you should read. A lot of books that you should read are usually difficult to read and boring. I wouldn’t say that Shakespeare is boring, but if you don’t put in the effort to understand him, then he can certainly come off that way. So for the general reader, I am unable to recommend reading his plays (though I recommend that everyone see them). But for anyone who considers themselves a writer, they owe it to themselves to give Shakespeare the time of day.