How Shakespeare?

[milo]

In physics, we don’t study the Principia. Sure, people know of it and study Newtonian mechanics, but not what Newton wrote. In cinema, Orson Welles is studied only by students of cinema and then promptly forgotten. Artists don’t labour over how Leonardo mixed his oils. All those are historical curiosities. Batsmen don’t try to emulate the three W’s. They’re just better these days.

I have already read ahead so I know this is not a great argument - Newton's charm wasn't in his writing.  People certainly watch Orson Welles films.  Painters may not labor over da Vinci's oil mixing technique (though scholars do ) but I bet they study his use of space, etc . . .

But in literature, we actually read Shakespeare and Milton. Why do we read Shakespeare? His plots are contrived, and theatrical dialogue is the opposite of real life. If we are to read him for the poetry of his plays, as some have argued, then what are we to make of:

people still view art as well.  You are comparing the creation of media to the consumption of media.

 It pleased the King his master very late
 To strike at me, upon his misconstruction;
 When he, compact, and flattering his displeasure,
 Tripped me behind; being down, insulted, railed,
 And put upon him such a deal of man
 That worthied him, got praises of the King
 For him attempting who was self-subdued;
 And in the fleshment of this ⟨dread⟩ exploit,
 Drew on me here again.

It is torturous, long winded yackery. No doubt, being a stage man, this dialogue would’ve done well for the players of his day, but how are we to read it?
How do we read the ancients? Typically, as alien writers from a different planet.
Antigone is more interesting when read sitting in a theatre in Halikarnos than in the library.

How should we read Shakespeare today, then? I personally read Shakespeare for the poetry, and skip over the boring bits. But that brings to mind another question - how many Shakespeares have we not read?

You can listen to salieri and realise that Mozart wasn’t some unique hot house genius who created the only Melodies of their kind. He was a genius, but many of his Melodies were similar to other tunes of the day. Have we heard all of them? No, not even the ones that survive. Perhaps Shakespeare had many peers whose works were simply not collected and published neatly in a folio. I don’t mean Marlowe and Kyd, I mean writers who just weren’t preserved.

There has been a ton of work and theories dedicated to this kind of concept.  He definitely wasn't the only one but he is pretty much accepted as one of the best writers of the Renaissance period.

A lot of it is no longer enjoyable to read to modern readers.  I have read what Shakespeare I was required to read and then some highlighted passages.  It's a chore.  I can still recognize the genius behind it.  I recently read an essay by Eliot trashing Hamlet from a time when that would have been considered edgy and cool.  Trashing Shakespeare in writing is like trashing the Beatles - there is always somebody who thinks they are being contrary by having taste different from the masses.

Interestingly enough - I knew a writer who was really into Shakespeare's Sonnets which are pretty universally agreed to be mediocre so I have read a couple dozen of those and - honestly - they are better than I expected.