Ira Glass and the History of Shakespearean Criticism

So, as everyone knows, earlier this week NPR radio star Ira Glass ignited a firestorm by daring to voice his opinion about Shakespeare, writing the following tweets:

Unsurprisingly, the pro-Shakespeare crowd has been having a field day with this. As the world's leading (i.e. probably the world's the only) Shakesperean webcomic blogger, I feel obliged to address the matter. So here...

It's like chocolate. Some people don't like chocolate - I think they're crazy, and they don't know what they're missing, but I'm certainly not going to argue with them about it. It's a personal thing. People have been busy disliking Shakespeare for centuries, but Shakespeare is still here. And so is chocolate. I happen to think the world is a better place because both of those things exist, but people are free to disagree with me. 

Basically, my only quarrel with Mr. Glass is the utterly pedestrian terms he uses to attack Shakespeare. "Shakespeare sucks" is such a bland and banal statement when compared to George Bernard Shaw's devastating "it would positively be a relief to me to dig [Shakespeare] up and throw stones at him." If you're going to criticize Shakespeare, do it emphatically and with some flair. 

Expensive Educations

fellowes.jpg

I am probably being slightly unfair to Fellowes. I have not yet seen his new Romeo and Juliet , but he has reportedly taken pains to preserve the most quotable lines, so Juliet apparently does say "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" and not the more comprehensible "Why are you Romeo?" However, the great remainder of less-quotable lines appear to have been twisted out of all recognizable shape, and the overall implications of Fellowes's flippant remarks are a bit distressing.

Far be it from me to claim that Shakespeare's 400-year-old language is easy to understand. It's not. However, the language barrier isn't nearly as substantial as certain expensively educated people might think. Take a ten-year-old kid to a performance of A Midsummer Night's Dream  and she'll be able to tell you exactly what is going on, even if she thinks an eglantine is a sort of pastry. Anyone can appreciate Shakespeare. The language may seem foreign at first, but the story, the characters and - crucially - the way everything comes together in performance make it comprehensible. 

I am of the opinion that adaptations of Shakespeare's plays, even apparent hatchet-jobs such as Fellowes's (and an upcoming biker-gang-themed take on Cymbeline, the premise of which has left me entirely baffled) should be embraced and encouraged. The Globe's education advisor, Fiona Banks, summed it up nicely when she said that "[adaptations] have the potential to help us re-imagine and re-discover a wealth of wonderful literature. But they are not a prerequisite for their enjoyment by the non-Oxbridge educated members of the population."

The figo for thy expensive education, Mr. Fellowes.