Is Shakespeare actually impossible, or am I just a total idiot?

[Reasonablemary]

I’ve been speaking English for over 20 years, yet every time I open one of his plays, my brain just leaves the chat. I know it’s 'Old English' (technically Early Modern, but who’s counting?), but since everyone acts like it’s the greatest thing ever, I assumed the language barrier wasn't that bad. To the native speakers out there: do you guys actually get this stuff, or am I the only one reading 'thee' and 'thou' and feeling like a complete moron?

I honestly thought that Shakespeare was dreary and dry until we started going on school trips to see the plays. That transformed my understanding, not only of the plays but about theatre and acting. It was truly eye-opening. So I would go and see the plays. I should also say that though I didn’t like Shakespeare, some parts of the plays have stayed with me and have become part of me when, I recall them.

Having said that, I realise that for some bizarre reason when I was a child, I memorised Mark Antony’s speech in Julius Caesar. Heaven knows why, but that also taught me a little about the power of words.

This is why the film version of Romeo and Juliet set in modern day didn’t work

PS Forgot to add that yes I do get the “thee” and “thou“. But what many people nowadays miss is that those were terms of familiarity and closeness. Whereas now we tend to think of them as being what you use to when addressing someone who is either superior or in someway being respected. Then it meant informality and, often, love. Like “du” and “tu” in German and French. We have lost that distinction, now, in English.

I am writing this for the lurkers.

It's perfectly reasonable to not enjoy Shakespeare.

People are different and that's ok.

As PP have said, watch live shows or films to connect and understand, but if you have set yourself the challenge of reading Shakespeare, persevere! Read without the expectation that you will fully understand and plough on regardless. Read more than one play and go fast, immersive, rather than reading all the footnotes/sidenotes.

I was a bookish child and was v ill at fourteen, in bed for three weeks, and had run out of other books so set out to read the complete works from the massive copy we had on the shelf. After a while, it clicked and it was easy to read normally. Obviously not suggesting you should lie in bed for three weeks reading Shakespeare plays back to back, but I really think it was the extended exposure that made the difference, because I didn’t know the stories and I had an unannotated edition and suddenly found myself understanding.

Baz Luhrman’s one? It absolutely worked, I’m going to see it at the cinema for one of many, many repeat viewings next week!

Hi @Reasonablemary what play are you trying to read? The Shakescleare website is great for a side-by-side literal translation to help understanding. It looks much better on laptop/bigger screen than bunched up on your phone. This link is for Hamlet, but they have lots of others:
https://www.litcharts.com/shakescleare/shakespeare-translations/hamlet

The plays are hard to read because they are 400 years old - that’s twice as old as Jane Austen’s work, who is probably the earliest novel author who is generally read for pleasure today. Shakespeare’s language is also highly inventive as he coined so many phrases that have passed into common usage - but that also makes him more difficult to read.

As people have said, he does come alive in a good production - and even in a not so good one, a good actor can make his role come alive. I would try watching some films.

I think the Black Country accent is meant to be closest to Elizabethan English? So break out your inner Lenny Henry.

Ive never read Shakespeare beyond school but took my DD13 to the Globe today to see Romeo & Juliet because she’s about to start studying it at school. If I’m honest I probably couldn’t “ translate” exactly everything that was said into modern language but I totally understood the story. I have actually bought her a couple of study guides and they do provide the original text and a modern interpretation so it’s possible to read it in that form but seeing it performed opened it up so much.

I really tried to love it but the setting and the guns didn’t gel with the dialogue for me. Leo was a cutie back then

This. You need to see it on stage.

His delivery of “Either thou, or I, or both must go with him” still makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up even though I’ve seen it probably 20 times. And Harold Perrineau is a delight in every scene. The singular thing I don’t like about it is Clare Danes’ sob in the crypt. But everything else including the soundtrack is perfection!

For the first two years of secondary school we had to read Lamb's Tales of Shakespeare aloud taking turns round the class. It was dire. Then in the 3rd year (year 9) we had a theatre group come into school and perform parts of The Merry Wives of Windsor. It was hilarious and surprisingly rude! We were converted and it all made sense after that.

A pp above recommended Lamb's Tales but they have all the rude and funny bits taken out so I wouldn't bother other than to get a synopsis of the story.

You might be able to find some of the BBC productions.

The BBC's Shakespeare collection is available on i-Player. Back in the '80s, I think it was, they did all the plays. They had good casts and were straightforward productions, nothing experimental, so a good introduction.

If watching the history plays, read up a bit on the historical background first; Shakespeare's audiences would have been familiar with it.

If watching the history plays, read up a bit on the historical background first; Shakespeare's audiences would have been familiar with it. I agree but be aware he was something of a Tudor propagandist and likely to be biased. He had to be to get his work performed.

Always hated it.

I also went to see The Tempest at school. No idea what was going on and my English teacher fell asleep.

On the evolution of English, you might find this interesting: https://www.deadlanguagesociety.com/p/how-far-back-in-time-understand-english?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

His 'History' plays are examinations of human character, not attempts at actually telling history. So, Richard II becomes a study on what it's like to lose a crown and the psychologicl implications of that; Henry IV Part 1 is about learning ones's values. Yes, he had to be careful, but the History plays are much richer than 'propaganda'. They are a vehicle for telling raw, human stories

Shakespeare was the reason I gave up A level English after a year. I like to think I'm not completely thick but even when we watched a film of Macbeth and went to see the Crucible I had absolutely no idea what was going on. I'm really interested in linguistics now as an adult but when teen DD asked me to help with her GSCE English revision the horror all came back to me and again I had absolutely no idea what it was all about. Weirdly we both managed to get an A/9 in our GSCE English literature without ever understanding it, just reciting what the teacher told us to write!

When you get into it, Shakespeare is still very alive. Hamlet with David Tenant and Patrick Stewart was magical, for instance. I remember at GCSE being really pissed off that our class was doing A Taste of Honey, and I ended up being the only one in the year reading Romeo and Juliet instead, using guides to self teach.

I loved A Taste Of Honey

I really like the concept & the flair of the direction, but while the acting is good I didn’t get the sense that it had great verse speaking. That probably doesn’t matter too much re the impact of the film on the viewer though as it is a fantastic spectacle.

I do think there is definitely a question about whether, given that Shakespeare’s plays are standard exam texts, there are adequate filmed versions that are easily accessible as not every student will be able to access a theatre production. If you are studying Romeo and Juliet, then you have the old Zeffirelli version (which is still watchable & is a very straightforward adaptation that shows the original setting) then Baz Luhrmann one that shows the scope for a director to rework the text. But these should exist for all texts - I had a real problem with this in lockdown when my DC were set Shakespeare themed homework but not on a play where I could find an accessible & straightforward filmed version. They were quite young but old enough to watch a straightforward & attractively filmed one (like the Zeffirelli or Branagh’s Much Ado).

This is one of my most jaw dropping threads - I am old enough to know O Levels (clue in my username)
we did The Tempest (love)
Henry IV pt1, poss pt2 but I was bored by then
None of my teachers at school ever explained that these plays were written to be watched as opposed to be read on paper in books
We just had to pore over the texts annotating
Then go home and watch Neighbours

yes, and there's actually a scene in Measure for Measure which shows this: Angelo and Isabella are ostensibly being civil and using "you" but eventually all pretence is dropped and he says "who will believe thee, Isabel?"