Comments on: Is Shakespeare Meant to be Read and Not Performed?

By: Nancy

Nancy — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:11:55 +0000

I saw a similar post about this on another blog so it just goes to show you that it is a small world after all (I hate that Disney ride).

By: Andrew Hamm

Andrew Hamm — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:26:32 +0000

Shakespeare wrote plays for a largely illiterate audience with no concept of reading anything longer than a pamphlet. This is, of course, one of the ways in which his world was almost identical to ours.

The book is the enemy. Play it, watch it, hear it, experience it. Reading it as a book is ludicrous.

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:10:06 +0000

mdmax980’s comments are no more true for Shakespeare than they are for any playwright, so are you advocating that _any_ play is better off being read than performed?

Of course, there’s a place for reading. In fact, performing the plays would be impossible without close reading and literary analysis and interpretation.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:07:56 +0000

Duane, I have to disagree with you. That’s an invalidation of playwriting in general. What is a play if not a piece of work to be performed, each time a different interpretation by a different creative team. Shakespeare’s not the only dead playwright, after all.

By: Duane

Duane — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:24:45 +0000

I’m in the “reader” camp for one very specific and simple reason – Shakespeare’s dead. We have no idea what he meant for a performance to look like. So to say that it was meant to be performed, not read, is no longer accurate – while we may be reading the same words he wrote 400 years ago, it is impossible for us to see the same performance. I agree that’s it’s true in general – plays are meant to be performed, not read. For the most part. Yes, true. But we’re not talking in generics, we’re talking Shakespeare. If you want to fully appreciate the value in what the man wrote, you’ll find that in the words, not in seeing somebody else’s interpretation of them.

By: Gedaly

Gedaly — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:34:05 +0000

I think I can argue both sides with that info – when you’re just reading the play you’re only getting 7% of the experience and you can’t imagine everything that’s happening. Some passages of text won’t make sense unless they’re spoken, or some scenes can’t be fully appreciated or understood unless they are seen.

On the other side – not all of the text will be understood when it’s spoken onstage. Even in the best productions actors will skim over sections very quickly and the audience will miss some bits. In that case, you will get the bonus of being able to enjoy all the words when reading it to yourself.

Just to stretch things further, in my opinion Shakespeare’s characters’ communication is much more than 7% speech. Today our words and actions often run contrary to eachother. Unlike modern drama and modern people, Shakespeare’s characters’ thoughts, emotions, and actions are inextricably tied to their words.

But what I will constantly reiterate is that Shakespeare is a piece of theatre. Shakespeare SHOULD be read and studied and meditated over. But it should ALSO be performed. I don’t think one could really exist without the other.

By: mdmax980

mdmax980 — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:27:05 +0000

very good points. Now, I’d like to play devils advocate and throw this at you:

They also say roughly 7% of our communication is all speech, the rest (a large 93%) is based on non-verbal communication, which consists of body language, environment, and the receivers own psychological makeup. when we read a story, we’re given 7% of the communication. the rest is made up through our imagination of how we picture the characters and how they behave.

When we watch a Shakespeare performance the whole 100% is thrown at us, which doesn’t give us, the audience/reader, the necessary freedom that we would get when reading a piece.

I’m all for plays being performed rather than read whether it be Shakespeare or not, but I’m curious on your thoughts on this.