Is Shakespeare Boring?

When it comes to writers, none are placed on a higher pedestal than William Shakespeare. His work has been adapted several times, is frequently taught in English classes from high school to college, and is often seen as the gold standard when it comes to the written word. Of course, even he is not without his detractors. There is a growing section of people who do not care for the man's work, citing it as boring.

Of course, the "literary elite" snub their noses at this sentiment and write the dissenting opinion off as the ramblings of an inferior troglodyte. I hate to burst their bubble, but it really isn't that cut and dry. Often times, the person can't put their sentiments in to words and, as such, the literary types see it as a victory. If you'll indulge me for a minute, I'd like to try and provide a more compelling defense. There are in fact, quite a few things that come into play when figuring out why someone might find Shakespeare boring.


Complete and Utter Format Fail


These are plays, not short stories or novels. As such, they are not supposed to be read the same way. The words are meant to be spoken aloud so that they can accompany the actions on stage. Reading a script is not exciting. I don't care how good the material is, it won't be an engaging read. You could hand me the script to Ghostbusters, but I wouldn't want to read it. That's not the way the material was supposed to be presented. Simply reading the lines would pale in comparison to the actual experience of watching the movie.

You would never sit down and read a script unless you were an actor or actress memorizing lines or a writer or editor going over the lines to make sure they flow.

The same goes for these plays. A two hundred page script, no matter how well written, isn't going to lend itself to being read the same way you would read Ender's Game. Honestly, taking this into consideration, it's a surprise that people are surprised by the sentiment.


Dry and Archaic Language is Dry and Archaic


Even fans of the bard have to admit that his writing style doesn't exactly pull you in. This does tie into my previous argument to some extent, but it differs as well. While the words sound great when heard, they don't lend themselves well to being read.

Once you get used to the language, it doesn't become as much of a chore to read, but I doubt that there was anyone who didn't, at some point, roll their eyes or zone out while trying to read his works during class.



Presentation is Everything


Shakespeare's work really depends on how it is presented to someone. I sum it up as basically, "reading Shakespeare is boring, but seeing it is great". This often holds true, but even other adaptations can fail. There have been several stage productions that don't do the work justice for a variety of reasons. Other takes also tend to botch things from time to time.

One prime example is an audio production of Hamlet that our English teacher had us listen to in order to add some variety to the class presentation. In theory, it should have worked, but all of the actors were so dry and monotonous that it became one of the most potent tranquilizers I've ever come across. Even the most ardent Shakespeare fan would've started to doze off after listening to that.

When it comes to the question of whether or not Shakespeare is boring, the answer isn't as clear cut as "Shakespeare sucks" or "You're an uneducated idiot for not liking these masterpieces". The works themselves are done well, they wouldn't be revered to this day if they weren't. That being said, the idea that these might not appeal to everyone isn't that hard to understand once you look at things more closely. On the contrary, the sentiment is understandable all things considered.