How to use this Page

Back when I taught 9th grade English, we studied R & J. The kids understood it best when they were acting it out, hacking each other to bits, and then tracing their fallen comrades' bodies on the floor with crime scene tape.

Kenneth Brannagh made a very good point in an interview on Fresh Air back when his Hamlet came out. Shakespeare is not meant to be read, it's meant to be seen. There's a reason Anne's kids understood it best when acting it out. It's not a book, it's a play.

We studied Shakespeare during one of my semesters in college (theater class). I was absolutely amazed at how beautiful and thought out his plays were when I really began to understand them. He wrote all of the lines in rhythm--times of stress were off-beat. He would actually change the way a word was written with a dash to achieve this (e.g. hallow-ed).

You're right. Studying the Bard does take hard work, but after a semester of Shakespeare reading a different play for each class, it became second nature. One gets used to the language and then it's easy. However, it has been since I taught high school a few years back that I've read any of his works. I'm sure I'm a little rusty.

In high school I HATED having to read Great Expectations, The Great Gatsby and Moby Dick. The only time I truly paid attention to an english assignment was when we were reviewing Shakespeare. It isn't an easy read, but once you get into the flow of Olde English he tells some of the most compelling stories.

As as Don pointed out. I think people tend to forget that his works were plays, not books. It's a different feel entirely.

I was in graduate school when I overcame the language barrier and finally understood why Shakespeare is such a big deal. His themes are timeless and the words are beautiful. And how in the world did he manage to make so much of it rhyme? It's all I can do to write a decent haiku, much less fit my thoughts into such strict constraints. Iambic pentameter, indeed.

the best way to enjoy and understand shakespeare is to see the play. i'm a theatre grad and i have been bored to tears reading shakespeare but once you see a good production it all just clicks into place

Love this post! So true that seeing the play is the best route to loving Shakespeare. I've found that if you can't see the play, reading Shakespeare aloud can help with understanding. It also helps you appreciate the beauty of his iambic pentameter.

The long prose sections, usually silly conversations featuring the comic relief characters (like the Fool in Lear) can be tiresome to the modern ear, but when I reread one of the plays I find myself skimming those if my attention wanders.

I took a year-long course in college in which we read and studied every play. A few years ago I found myself missing them, and have made it a point to reread one play a year. If possible, I try to read one that will be performed by our local Shakespeare in the Park troupe, so that I can enjoy the production once I'm done.

At my elementary school, each 6th grade class had to perform a Shakespeare play every year, and all the other grades had to watch it. I remember in 3rd grade falling absolutely in love with Midsummer Night's Dream. Of course, I found out much later that the 6th grade versions were heavily edited and rewritten, but for me, the point remained: you have to see it to understand it. I had very little trouble with Shakespeare (or, later, Chaucer) because I could see the humor playing behind the nearly-foreign language.

Same with Beckett in college. When I first read Waiting For Godot, I was completely lost. Then a couple people from my class acted out a scene, and it clicked; I'd had no idea before that moment that it was supposed to be funny.

It's all about perspective and understanding. Some people will "get" a work right away, whereas others need to view it from a different angle, and it make take the guidance of others to help them see that.

It has everything to do with the teacher or professor who helped get you there. I had one at NYU who would "cast" each play before we read it (Pacino, Harry Dean Stanton, even Donny Most from "Happy Days"), and then again, with us, after we'd read it (DeNiro, Harvey Keitel, Bruce Davison from the Willard movies). He would fall down and play dead in the front of the classroom when reading a scene which called for it. It was impossible NOT to get Shakespeare in his course.

I am still in his debt.

As a junior my English teacher helped me fall in love with Shakespeare. He told us the history, what life was like for the people, what the stage looked like... It made it all real. We also read four or five plays. That summer after a two day workshop at the local college he took a bus load of us to a three day festival.

I read and enjoyed some of them, but never got to the point where the language seemed natural. It's always fascinating how he manages to please so many opposing audiences.

I'm with CS above. Reading Shakespeare is nothing compared to seeing talented actors perform it. Reading it kinda bores me, except for some small pieces.

I know there are people who disagree with me but I thought Mel Gibson's Hamlet was genius. There are so many jibes and jokes you would never get while reading that he really brings to life.

GK, I had the same experience with Waiting For Godot.

Michael Gavaghen - sounds like you had an amazing teacher, and I agree it depends on who helps you get there as to whether or not you enjoy or "get" Shakespeare.

Excellent comments, everyone!

~ Rachel

Because I read a lot of middle grade and young adult books, these are a couple that came to mind:

Penderwicks
Hunger Games: I know the actual scenes between Katniss and Prim are few and far between, but it was a sacrifice one sister made for the other that started the story.

i write a lot about sisters, i'm obsessed by sisters because i don't have one, i have three brothers...it's not the same!:(

I have two sisters across the country from me but we're in constant communication so I can completely relate. Interesting -- I just realized that none of the female MC's in my YA mss have sisters. I had to check that list to make sure Little Women was on there and was thrilled to see it as number 1.

My sister (3 years younger) and I didn't get along very well when we lived with our parents but we started living together after she graduated college (we had a trial period first - she came to live with me for an internship during college) and we get along great now. In fact, I'm considering joining the Coast Guard and she wants to follow me.

I also have to agree with the relationship in Hunger Games. There aren't too many scenes between the sisters, but let's put this in perspective - Katniss volunteered to fight in a DEATH MATCH for her sister.

In one of my novels, the MC is an only child and in the other she has an older brother who more or less raised her after their parents died.

I have three (much) older sisters, and, unfortunately, our relationships are the opposite of yours and your sister's. I used to try, but I've pretty much given up.

As the youngest of four girls, though, I've always been fascinated with families of girls in fiction, mostly children's fiction -- the Marches, the Ingallses, the Bennetts...

What always intrigued me is that it was almost inevitable for the second daughter to be the viewpoint character.

There's a thesis in there for some grad student, I'm sure. But not for me [g].

Liz Jensen's 'Egg Dancing' has a wonderful couple of sisters in it, all the more believable because they were close, but always squabbling.

Have you checked out what's happening at the Blogging From A to Z April Challenge. We have some really creative participants who have joined us!

Lee

Oh, I would have Jane Austened my list, completely: Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility - they'd have to be on.

"THE OPPOSITE OF ME" by Sarah Pekkanen. It's fantastic!

THE ALPHABET SISTERS by Monica McInerney - make sure you have tissues handy for the last sixty pages (and you're not reading in public).

Emily, I've had a copy of THE OPPOSITE OF ME waiting for me to read for a while now. Thanks for the thumbs up! ~ Rachel

This seems pretty much like a no-brainer; you don't have to look any farther than the romance genre to find authors who are unfairly maligned for the work almost as much as readers are for reading it.

Science/speculative fiction writers fare little better. Margaret Atwood and Audrey Niffenegger both come to mind as authors whose work has been very clearly set "above" the SF genre despite the clearly SFnal aspects of it.

Both of these genres, I note, aren't even on the radar in this article.

Not to mention children's book authors barely being on the radar--to me they are huge stars in the literary universe.

There is a willful disdain for commercial fiction among some fans of literary fiction (not this one). In my creative writing program the professors insisted we read literary fiction to the exclusivity of all else except the classics. The faculty who were most ardent in this were most often the unpublished professors, many of whom seemed to hold the majority of American readers in disdain for not reading the books they thought they should.

Apparently a lack of readers made these obscure books all the better, just as a lack of viewers makes a film all the more likely to win an Academy Award. The thing that really made these great minds mad was when a book was both popular and good. Harry Potter griped them because it made tons of money and was read by everyone. Apparently those are two qualities a “good” book should never possess.

Book snobs have been around forever. They write books intended to be unpopular, griping stuff about their unresolved issues with their parents or spouses, and then they resent the public when the public reacts accordingly.

I am always flabbergasted by unpublished literary writers who refuse to even consider reading a book by Stephen King. Makes sense to me. You’re trying to publish your novel, so it’s best to ignore, or better yet, do the exact opposite of the world’s bestselling novelist.

After all, the common masses are uneducated louts and would never respond to a true work of art like the manuscripts lingering in countless drawers of bitter professors, unpublished and unread like great art should be.

yes i think there is definitely a class system but only to literary people of course! i think it goes something like poets and playwrights, literary novelists, all genre, children/ya (literary and then genre) and ghostwriters. not saying i agree with it especially as i write ya but that's how it seems to me.

I have my own matrix: sells well, doesn't sell, required in school, not required in school. Everything else is just ego.

Great comment, Anon 6:32. This scale seems to be in reverse order of financial viability. Any publishing list that puts J.K. Rowling at the bottom is a little silly.

I do think it's amazing that romance and women's fiction writers don't even get a mention--so far below the radar we don't exist, I guess.

I resent that children's literature is barely mentioned, but maybe because it has it's own rank system. Some of the best literature in the world is written for children.

I suppose I am not entirely surprised this class system, in which the British society is so entrenched, creeps into book-talk, but it still stirs up all manner of heated thoughts.

(Can he be more snarky: "USA, which, as we are always being told, is a classless society"? Yes we know you've read Howard Zinn. )

It seems to this whole games, as he calls it, is unnecessary and condescending, especially in that tone of the piece.

So what class does a person belong, when he thinks it's sport to display his prejudices?

@ Angela,

I don't know about Niffenegger, but Atwood has always been adamant that her work is 'literary fiction', and not SF. It's generally located in the general fiction or literature section of the bookstore. She did that precisely to remove her work from the SF stigma.

It all counts as entertainment doesn't it? That's what motivated Shakespeare.

I think many people have different ladders. I've always admired the mainstream authors who have the courage to claim they are the one True Non Genre, and even keep resolving to read The Brothers Karamazov and discover the resolution to the problem of evil and the existence of God. Lots of science fiction writers would make a similar claim, putting themselves at the top of the ladder - though I have to admit much of the stuff I love reading has no major insights into the human condition that I can find. Mystery writers and romance writers usually confine themselves to claiming the best books in their respective category deserve a place in mainstream literature, which I think is kind of wimpy. After all, sex and death are the ultimate brackets of our lives, aren't they?

This makes me happy, because I find the existence of writers who give a shit what other people think quite affirming.

I have to say, as a YA author (and former historical romance author), I think these class lines are obvious at any large gathering of publishers/writers. They are almost always completely based on assumption (ie. children's writers must dumb down their work -- THE GIVER? dumbed down? I don't think so). Anything that is popular means that it appeals to a large audience, ie. panders. Sigh. I try very hard not to judge a book by its genre, but by the ideas and thoughts and emotions that it rouses in me as I read it. I long for the day when every critic does the same (I think the majority of readers are already there :-)

Kelly

How can a format (because that's all poetry is, a format) be "elite"? That's like saying a memorandum is more professional than a business letter without considering the relative value of the content in each.

I certainly think some works of art are better than others, but elevating formats and genres is the lazy way out. It seems like primate social signaling masquerading as taste. Poets makes the right sounds and gestures, and get promoted to the head of the monkey troop.

Some of my favorite authors are either at the bottom of this pile, or barely mentioned. (I agree, Romance and Children's authors are not given the respect that some of them deserve) But then I don't judge by genre. I judge writing.

The reality is that this is not the way 'elite' in this case is defined. Judging by genre is the way it's been for as long as I can remember. I am waiting for the day that is no longer the case. But I won't hold my breath.

Obviously, there is an inverse relationship between the quality of writing and number of books sold. That's why the greatest modern writer is Knut Nims.

Oh, wow, it is so generous of McCrum to let us know what we are supposed to value, since we can't figure it out for ourselves. Next, maybe he will put the races of mankind in order of value for us. Oh, and weather. I'd hate to be reading something set in a warm climate when everyone but me knows that icy settings are the real quality test of writing.

Going with nelsonleith's assessment, I guess I'm the head of the monkey and its tail, having written both a book of poems and working on a middle-grade novel!!!

I was just talking to someone yesterday about this very issue, how differently poets are seen (and revered) in Europe as opposed to America, even in the publishing world. Unless you're a well-known poet in America, it's almost impossible to even get your book of poems read, let alone published. "There's no money in poetry!" is what I've been told. "No one reads poetry." another said. Well, poetry is alive and well in places like France, Britain, and Spain, so I'm actually considering translating my poems into French!!!

A pity really because every time I do an "open mike" poetry reading somewhere, people come up to me afterwards and ask where they can buy my book of poems! No, I haven't considered self-publishing.....not yet.

"Well, poetry is alive and well in places like ... Britain"

Hmmmm. There are small presses and government arts grants, but a poet can expect three figure sales and three figure advances. So 'alive', yes, 'well', not really.

What's being discussed here is not some broader social status, it's how people are treated at literary festivals like Hay on Wye. Poets always get treated well compared with, say, thriller writers. It may be because Hay's in Wales and they count as druids.

But poets planning to emigrate to the UK because that's where the streets are paved with gold may be in for a shock.

Anon: How does "....translating my poems into French." become emigrating to the UK or that the streets are paved with gold??? The UK is smaller than the state of Oregon and yet, in the States you can't even expect a 3 figure deal for your poems. Instead, the unknown poet has to spend money entering contest after contest (each with an entry fee) with the hopes that a university press will publish a poem or two or hitting the jackpot with a chapbook!

On this Friday, I wanted to say how much I appreciate your blog. I love the format - everyone in the office contributes with lots of different ideas, even disagreements. I love that everyone is consistently upbeat and charging ahead. It's never a rant. It gives me confidence that the future of the publishing industry is in good hands. Thank you.

First of all, ditto what Anonymous just said. On the subject of e-books, I have to say I'm not a fan. While I admit I sometimes read them because they're quick and convenient, and I certainly think they're going to grow more and more popular, I would be devastated if they began to outweigh the book market. There's nothing like the feel of curling up with a book. A solid book with a ridiculously lovely creased spine. And let's face it: it would be very difficult for flap copies to say "a real page-turner" if everything became digital. What would they say? "You'll be clicking 'Next Page' at the speed of light"?

Also, from the point of view of a writer and someone who wants to be published, I somehow think the satisfaction of having a book available online would pale in comparison to the feeling new authors must have when they see their books in print in bookstores.

I think things are going to end up like they were fifty or sixty years ago, where there are different sizes of players, and the midlist is healthy again. eBooks are going to be the major part of that, but I don't think that paper is dead.

I think this because in the end, it's what the audience wants that will dictate the form everything takes -- at least when it comes to something as cheap and easy to produce as ebooks.

Personally, I expect I'll own lots more books than ever before, but I won't realize it. (It's a lot easier to buy a bigger hard disk than it is to buy a bigger house.)

If it's a throw away novel, if it's a manuscript that's got to be read over the week-end, then I can see purpose in the electronic readers. If it's a beautiful book with colour photographs -- it's not there yet. I'm sure it's evolving, I'm sure it will become better, but it hasn't yet replaced the pleasure of holding a real book in the hand. But then again, I wonder what proportion of the reading public ever hold a book that in itself is a pleasure to touch and look at?

ebooks take up less space. You can carry several books on a trip. Easy to buy, never out of stock. But, you can't share them with your best friend, go to the library or book store and spend glorious hour after hour perusing the shelves. No lazy afternoons at the book store with a cup of hot chocolate, tea, or coffee. When you change ereaders, everything you bought is gone. I want my books personal, real. Not sterile and digital.
You can't feel the heft of a new bestseller series in your hand. When you open the book, there's no crackle, no soft paper on paper sound as you turn the page. And, e-ink is ugly. Well, the iPad version looks alright enough, but it's still not a real book, which I'd always prefer.
All that said, I think ebooks are a terrific market for books that go out of print - a way for the publishing world and authors to eek out a little more money from a book that may no longer justify the cost of a physical copy.

I personally love my books. I don't see myself investing in an e-book reader. I have talked to some of my friends about it and they agree they love the idea of having bookshelves in their homes, the dream of an at home library, the smell of books, the feel, everything that e-books lack. I'm not saying they won't get more popular but I do not think they are going to wipe out traditional books as we know them. Maybe we can buy traditional books and they will have a feature where we can add them to our e-book readers to have on the go? That wouldn't be too bad, but for the most part I'm sticking to traditional.