To Read or Not To Read

Posted by Jem Bloomfield Sep 29, 2007

Shakespeare wrote plays, we are continually reminded by critics and teachers – he did not write “excerpts”, or “speeches” or poems which happen to have the names of characters in the margins. There’s a general consensus at the moment that Shakespeare should be regarded as a man of the theatre, involved in the staging, producing and acting of his plays, rather than a solitary genius toiling in a garret for the benefit of posterity.

This is surely a Good Thing – if we didn’t pay attention to his works as drama, we’d miss important aspects of certain scenes. The mot obvious example is silent characters – Antonio at the end of Twelfth Night, or Isabella at the end of Measure For Measure, who disappear from the page as soon as they stop speaking, but can have a huge influence on an audience by what a director chooses to do with their silent presence.

It hasn’t always been this way, though. The Romantics tended to see Shakespeare as a poet rather than a dramatist, who had written for the stage but could best be appreciated in the study, away from the noise and inconvenience of audiences and actors. (And since Coleridge was a major editor of Shakespeare, this view held some sway.) Though it seems a bit presumptuous to hoik the Bard out of his natural milieu like this, it must be admitted that he wrote very complex, multi-layered poetry in highly-wrought language at times, which might (oh heresy) be best appreciated by sitting down and reading it thoughtfully...