Stacy Conradt
The Quick 10: 10 People Who Hate Shakespeare
by Stacy Conradt - August 18, 2009 - 3:30 PM

q10

sexToday’s Quick 10 is from a book that never fails to inspire me when I need to brainstorm some lists – 5 People Who Died During Sex by Karl Shaw. We might spend entire semesters poring over Julius Caesar and Hamlet in high school, but there are plenty of people who think the Bard was really just a hack. Here are 10 of those people.

BILLYshakes1. Voltaire called Shakespeare’s works an “enormous dunghill.”
2. Tolstoy was equally unimpressed, calling Will’s writing “Crude, immoral, vulgar and senseless.”
3. George Bernard Shaw really waxed poetic about how much he hated Shakespeare. “There is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare,” he said. “It would be positively a relief to me to dig him up and throw stones at him.” But there was a writer he hated more – Homer.
4. British poet Walter Savage Landor had no love lost for the prolific writer either, and apparently would have been a great fit at Saveur or Bon Appetit: “The sonnets are hot and pothery, there is much condensation, little delicacy, like raspberry jam without cream, without crust, without bread.”
5. Charles Darwin may just have been too evolved for Shakespeare: “I have tried lately to read Shakespeare and found it so intolerably dull that is nauseated me.”

6. English playwright Robert Greene dismissed Shakespeare as a mere amateur who has been romanticized over the years, calling him “An upstart now beautified with our feathers.”

7. J.R.R. Tolkien, in speaking of his days at King Edward’s School, said that he “disliked cordially” the Shakespeare section of his English literature studies.

8. Dr. Samuel Johnson, a well-known English writer and scholar in the 1700s, had his red pencil out while reading Bill. “Shakespeare never had six lines together without a fault,” he once said. “Perhaps you may find seven, but this does not refute my general assertion.”

9. Samuel Pepys spent an evening watching A Midsummer Night’s Dream, then recorded in his diary that [he] “had never seen before, nor shall ever again, for it is the most insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life.”

10. King George III was maybe not so firm in his hatred, but more disapproving of the melancholy turn many of Shakespeare’s works took. “Is this not sad stuff, what what?”

What do you think? Genius, overrated, or were the works we know as Shakespeare’s not even his? Share in the comments!

Have a Q10 request? I’m on Twitter and I’m all ears! Err… all keys. Something.

twitterbanner.jpg

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (44)

  1. Shakespeare was influential, yes. I’ve only been able to complete Romeo & Juliet and Hamlet, among some sonnets here and there. I will be the first to admit that I will never be able to amount to the success that he has achieved, now will I ever see myself becoming as good a writer. I don’t consider him one of my favorite writers though. What he did when he did it is astounding. But today, more educated writers are cranking out books, plays, poems, etc. that I find more appealing.

    posted by Steven on 8-18-2009 at 3:38 pm

  2. Tolkien would use the phrase “disliked cordially,” wouldn’t he? Pompous old peacock.

    Of course Shakespeare is overrated, to an extent. But there’s no denying that he was revolutionary–he used so many literary techniques that one can really base an English 101 course entirely off his works. And, really, anyone who doesn’t find his works enjoyable isn’t listening closely. Or reading closely. His sense of humor is playful and witty–and, at times, downright lewd.

    But hey, if you don’t like him, George Bernard Shaw… well, that’s just fine, because you’re still considered second. =P

    posted by Allison on 8-18-2009 at 3:42 pm

  3. I dislike poetry in general. That is why I cannot understand what possessed me to fulfill my literature requirement in college with a Shakespeare class. Due to that class, I’ve wasted an appalling amount of time reading more than 10 of his plays. Perhaps it’s my inner psycho, but the only one I enjoyed was Titus Andronicus and even that was poorly written.

    posted by Anna on 8-18-2009 at 3:51 pm

  4. While I find most of his work unreadable (for a variety of reasons, evolving language chief among them), a classmate of an “ex” of mine said it best:

    “I hate Shakespeare. It’s so full of clichés.”

    posted by Jeff on 8-18-2009 at 3:54 pm

  5. Reading Shakespeare is dull.

    Seeing Shakespeare performed is dreary.

    Seeing Shakespeare performed well is wonderful.

    posted by Steven on 8-18-2009 at 4:05 pm

  6. one more person that doesn’t like bill:
    Ian (me)

    posted by Ian on 8-18-2009 at 4:22 pm

  7. Can I be number 11? Overated, irritating and in my humble and inconsequential opinion boooring.

    posted by Lili on 8-18-2009 at 4:32 pm

  8. I agree with Steven. Reading Shakespeare in high school and college is awful, but go see it at the Globe in London or the Rose in Stratford-upon-Avon and you will love every moment.

    posted by Lovely on 8-18-2009 at 4:37 pm

  9. Re #6: the quote should be “an upstart crow beautified with our feathers.” A great image!

    BTW, I love Shakespeare – it just takes a little effort!

    posted by Jon. on 8-18-2009 at 4:39 pm

  10. Unfortunetly we live in an age where Romeo and Juliet and Caesar are the only plays people read unless you’re an actor. And then people are forced to read them when they are 16. You can’t fully appreciate Shakespeare at 16. You barely understand the English language as we speak now, let alone from years past. Not to mention “it’s differnet” the number one complaint of teenagers who read Shakespeare. The passive aggressive way of saying “it’s difficult and time consuming.” Yes, it is tedious. And to do it well requires a few dictionaries and lexicons by your side. But once you understand what is being said, the emotions expressed, it’s amazing how those themes relate to modern, every day life.

    posted by Katrina on 8-18-2009 at 4:45 pm

  11. Some of those, such as the Darwin, come out of context. Darwin for example was bemoaning getting old, and basically said that none of the stuff that he enjoyed as a youth still held the same sort of excitement for him. It was not a personal argument against Shakespeare. The full passage is detailed here:

    http://blog.shakespearegeek.com/2009/03/so-intolerably-dull-it-nauseated-me.html

    posted by Shakespeare Geek on 8-18-2009 at 4:53 pm

  12. I feel that Shakespeare is extremely influential, but definitely overrated. He should be just one of many authors we revere through the centuries of English literature.

    posted by Rachel O. on 8-18-2009 at 4:53 pm

  13. The reason we watch Shakespeare’s performances and enjoy them is because the actors have spent countless hours, days and years learning what those words mean so that when they say them, no matter how oddly phrased they are, we understand the emotion behind them and appreciate the work it takes to say those words honestly and from the heart.

    posted by Katrina on 8-18-2009 at 4:55 pm

  14. I think that Shakespeare is a pretty awesome writer, and yeah it takes forever to read it, but I can’t think of a play I would want to read. It’s always boring to read plays, even the best.
    The reason it’s so dreary to watch Shakespeare frequently is because people start thinking “oh this is a classic, I need to give it gravitas and respect” instead of going “duuude! that Mercutio guy is nuts!”
    What’s really awful is that people are only familiar with Romeo and Juliet, which while I like some of the lines and characters, is the most ridiculous plot!
    Romeo: “I’m completely in love with Rosalind! Oh wait, there’s this Juliet girl over here… you’re pretty!”
    Juliet: “You’re handsome!”
    Romeo: “Want to get married?”
    Juliet: “Sure! I’ve known you less than a week, but you are my one true love! Wait, my parents hate you!”
    Romeo: “Don’t worry, there’s this priest who will make it look like you’ve died. Oh wait, she looks dead- gotta kill myself.”
    Juliet: “Oh, Romeo’s dead. Oh happy dagger!”
    The End.
    Ridiculous. :)

    posted by Layla on 8-18-2009 at 5:09 pm

  15. I agree w/ Steven, Shakespeare is usually tedious, unless really well performed. It’s barely recognizeable as English, and you have to think so hard to translate what they’re saying, you miss the point.

    But, if Tolkien is going to disparage Shakespeare’s writing, I think ol’ Will deserves a second chance. Nothing is worse than the overblown tripe that Tolkien pedals.

    Main characters have 3 or 4 different names, PLACES have different names, “Songs” that are more like 6th grade attempts at poetry.

    Not to mention, the weakest conceit in literature. One ring to rule them all? Really? What was the danger of the Ring falling into Sauron’s hands? He’d raise an army and invade the Shire, destroy the races of man (elves, human, dwarves, hobbits, etc)? Hey HE TRIED TO DO THAT ANYWAY, W/OUT THE BLOODY RING.

    Tolkien gets an A for imagination, but an F for writing. Epic Fail for his editor.

    posted by Jonny on 8-18-2009 at 5:09 pm

  16. Uh, Robert Greene was Shakespeare’s contemporary (he actually died first in fact), so unlikely to be dismissing him as someone who has been ‘romanticised over the years’.

    posted by Gwan on 8-18-2009 at 11:08 pm

  17. If you understand Shakespeare, he makes for a great read. I’ve also seen the plays Henry VIII and Othello, and I have been impressed.

    posted by Monica on 8-18-2009 at 11:40 pm

  18. While Greene indeed wrote the feathers comment, saying Greene called Shakespeare a mere amateur who has been romanticized over the years is misleading.
    Greene was Shakespeare’s contemporary (and Shakespeare outlived him).

    posted by Bob on 8-18-2009 at 11:56 pm

  19. As a former technocrat and logician, I can say that Shakespeare was once difficult for me to understand, because it was quite esoteric, and riddled with Grammatical errors. However, if you just have fun with it, it makes a lot of sense. Actually, it’s deeper, I think, than Western Philosophy.

    posted by mc on 8-19-2009 at 12:31 am

  20. I bought this book a few months ago and I read it in a day. it’s the best. Are there any other list books you guys can recommend?

    posted by jillums on 8-19-2009 at 12:42 am

  21. “…to do it well requires a few dictionaries and lexicons by your side.”

    I’m sorry, but I read for enjoyment and having to do this in order to understand what I’m reading isn’t my idea of fun.

    posted by cmfalls on 8-19-2009 at 1:16 am

  22. Shakespeare’s works are beautiful. Shakespeare is a genius. Those people who hate Shakespeare & speak English are hypocrites of their own language. I also can’t believe that some of the greatest writers of all time hate Shakespeare. And by the way, WHY ISN’T CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE THERE????
    I mean, he’s Shakespeare’s greatest rival. He is supposed to hate Shakespeare. WHY??????

    P.S. Voltaire hates everything except tolerance, atheism & orgies.

    posted by Karl on 8-19-2009 at 5:38 am

  23. kinda funny because I think reading Shakespeare is the gateway to reading all the other great writers. Don’t bite the hands that feeds you, boys.

    posted by joe on 8-19-2009 at 7:34 am

  24. Othello is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing out there. However, I can understand why a lot of people have trouble with Shakespeare. It is sometimes like trying to read a play in a foreign language. I actually read somewhere that readers in other countries enjoy Shakespeare a lot more easily because when he is translated he is translated into the modern version of their language, not the middle english version we have to struggle through. Perhaps that could be a project for someone’s thesis…

    posted by Cathy D on 8-19-2009 at 8:26 am

  25. @ Cathy D: Technically, Shakespeare wrote in Early Modern English. If it were Middle English we wouldn’t be able to understand it at all. So it could be worse!

    I enjoy reading Shakespeare, but his plays are not something I pick up if I’m looking for an easy read. I think the reason many people dislike Shakespeare and other classic authors is that they’re forced to read them in high school, when most students aren’t capable of fully appreciating their value. I think it would be much better if schools were able to instill an early love for literature in their students and then allow them to choose on their own what to read.

    posted by Kelsey on 8-19-2009 at 9:23 am

  26. I think Shakespeare was brillant. As evidence of this fact, I give you “10 things I hate about you” and “Romeo must die” and “O” and the many other adaptations that have been made of his stories. While some of his plot devices seem trite, you must admit that he understood human nature and the complexity of emotions. Even the “just one of the guys” movies takes it theme, a woman pretending to be a man to get close to a guy, is from Bill. Not high cinema, but it goes to show that you can take his works, modernize them and they still hold true.

    Oh, and Jonny, don’t be dissing Tolkien. The man created an entire world, complete with languages, histories, and cultures. Every fantasy book that has come after him has been influenced by him and even the whole genre of Dungeons and Dragons, World of Warcraft, and Everquest all owe a debt to his work. Sorry you didn’t enjoy it.

    posted by Eric P on 8-19-2009 at 9:34 am

  27. As for Marlowe, I don’t think that he hated Shakespeare. If you believe some of the historians, Bill stole a lot of ideas from Chris. The Shakespeare in Love people want us to believe that, while rivals, they were also friends. If Chris had survived that duel/bar fight, he might’ve grown to hate Shakespeare, especially if Shakespeare got famous using his ideas.

    posted by Eric P on 8-19-2009 at 9:42 am

  28. I have always dreaded reading or watching Shakespeare. I couldn’t even enjoy a brief Neil Gaiman-Sandman rendition of one of his works. I agree with Cathy D that if someone would update Shakespeare’s works (and NOT by making a movie with a modern plot but the same dialogue), then it would help a lot more people grasp the plot enough to want to read the original stuff. I always disliked that when reading Shakespeare in class, the teacher would interrupt to “interpret” what just happened or what was said. That shouldn’t be necessary.

    posted by jamie on 8-19-2009 at 10:19 am

  29. Call me crazy, but I discovered my grandmother’s collection of Shakespeare when I was ten years old and fell instantly in love with it. I must have read the plays hundreds of times over since then. Speaking as a soon-to-be English teacher, I do not feel right forcing students to study the works of the Bard in school. They are important to our literary world, but I think that it is something they should come to love (or hate) voluntarily.

    posted by rj on 8-19-2009 at 10:52 am

  30. And I have read Voltaire, and think that if his works reflect his love for writing then he should have found another vocation.

    posted by rj on 8-19-2009 at 10:54 am

  31. I disagree that students at 16 who are forced to read Shakespeare will by default not get him. My husband teaches high school drama and is a passionate lover of Shakespeare. If you can get someone who a)loves Bill and b) can communicate well then often you might be quite surprised at how much they wind up liking him. Sometimes the teachers who have to teach Shakespeare either don’t get him or don’t like him or both, and that class is behind right out of the gate in getting him.

    posted by skyweaver on 8-19-2009 at 11:17 am

  32. I must say that it was in 7th grade that I was introduced to Shakespeare and even though my teacher was tough she made it easy to understand the language. For my birthday this year I went and saw Twelfth Night. It is my most favorite play, because it is funny. I think people get too wrapped up in the tragedies. Either that, or they are presented a comedy that isn’t performed to be funny. It is a real shame.
    As for the stories of Shakespeare not being the real writer, I have as yet to make my decision. Although I have heard some very interesting tales speaking of such things. Sir Francis Bacon being a contender in real authorship…or numerous authors all using the same pseudonym…or a woman wrote it all. I am not sure as we will come to a conclusion in such matters.

    posted by Tiffany on 8-19-2009 at 11:31 am

  33. Layla, I love your take on Romeo and Juliet!! I’ve never much cared for that play, although I do love others Shakespeare has written. (Hamlet and Much Ado being my favorite tragedy and comedy, respectively.) I also agree with the comments that the plays are best enjoyed as theatre, not reading material.

    posted by Kristin on 8-19-2009 at 1:47 pm

  34. I agree with Katrina & Kelsey (but skyweaver also makes a good point). High school is not usually the best time for getting into Shakespeare.
    I personally love Shakespeare’s work. It’s really meant to be watched, but I enjoy reading it too. I actually find the language fascinating, and even though I don’t -need- it to follow the plays, I like having a glossary nearby to deepen my understanding. “Shakespeare’s Words” by David & Ben Crystal is an awesome companion.
    And his “grammatical errors” are only considered as such today but would be correct in his time.
    When I was in my teens I read Malory’s Arthur tales for my own enjoyment (true Middle English; much tougher than Shakespeare). So I guess I’m just a nerd – I’ve always loved words and grammar and the evolution of the English language.
    I do believe he was a genius, I mean the guy invented over 1700 new words that were added to the OED to start with. And I forget who described him as “writing about human nature from the inside out” but they put it perfectly. It is hard to imagine literature without him.
    As far as authorship goes, I’m with Tiffany. But it sounds that Edward De Vere may actually be the leading contender if it wasn’t Shakespeare. It is tough to imagine how a simple poor actor came to have so much knowledge of other countries, foreign language, etc. But who knows?

    posted by Nerak on 8-19-2009 at 2:03 pm

  35. I feel sorry for all of you who pan the greatest writer of the English language. His writing is music. If you are not moved listening to Kenneth Branagh do the St. Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V, there must be something wrong with you. Overrated?? Are you all 10 year-olds or just the products of public education? I get why the pompous mentioned above claim to dislike Shakespeare…they have to say that in order to hang on to their feeling of academic snottiness (especially Shaw..who is he to talk??!!) but the rest of you….shame..

    posted by Decam on 8-19-2009 at 2:27 pm

  36. Check out “The Complete Works of Shakespeare (abridged)” by the Reduced Shakespeare Company on DVD (available from Acorm media). In 90 minutes three American men perform all of Shakespeare’s plays. It’s one of the funniest plays I’ve ever seen. The DVD is a recording of a live stage performance. Warning: not for people with weak hearts or English degrees!

    posted by Dan on 8-19-2009 at 3:43 pm

  37. You can add my father to this list. He only recently told me that he’s not fond of Shakespeare. Alarmed, I inquired “Why, then, is my middle name Juliet?” He shrugged off my question in the typical father way: “Go ask your mom.”

    posted by LorinJuliet on 8-19-2009 at 4:00 pm

  38. I’m pretty sure that every member of the Monty Python comedy troupe has had derogatory words for Shakespeare, and those guys are no dummies.
    Still – come on, is he really that bad? There’s some good wordplay there, people, even if it usually has to do with something naughty. Some of the guys on this list sound a bit prudish to me.

    posted by Melanie on 8-19-2009 at 5:53 pm

  39. Uh…language-wise, the reason Shakespeare seems “…so full of cliches” is because HE INVENTED THEM– therefore they are not ‘Cliches’ at all.
    Cliched plot and/or story-wise? That’s an unimportant point when interpreting what was Shakespeare’s genius. It’s what he was able to do with the hackneyed and mundane that sets him apart from other dramatists and authors. And his interwoven philosophy of life is unparalleled, treating every subject under the sun from every angle possible. Anyway, I wonder if any writer since the beginning of storytelling has had a completely original idea uninspired by what they’ve heard or read before. And yes, there is no doubt that what he wrote was intended first for the stage–not the page. But the language needs to be read as well as played in order to be fully comprehended. And it’s hardly ever taught the way it should be taught, which is why many of the not so-famous hate him too.
    As far as the “famous 10″?– simply jealous (Greene, Voltaire, Tolstoy), snobby academicians (Johnson, Pepyes) trying to make a name for themselves, hated it in high school…King George III (what an expert!)?!?! rounds out the list?- Protesters, pitiful–poor. And if you’ve read any of the protests, you realize they’re as pitifully lacking in ammunition.
    JM theshakespeareplace

    posted by JM on 8-19-2009 at 9:03 pm

  40. George Bernard Shaw must have liked Shakespear somewhat. Why else would he write the one act play, ” Dark Lady of the Sonnets”? It skewers Will, the “Dark Lady” and Elizabeth the First herself. But not mean in anyway. That is why I directed at Ventura College in ’84. A fun play.

    posted by Jim LeVasseur on 2-6-2010 at 1:56 am

  41. Did he write the plays? I lean towards Edward DeVeir, Duke of …Oxford. I read that the orignal name on the plays was, “Shake- spear” or something to that effect.
    But as Mark Twain said “Hamlet is a wonderful play written by Shakespear…or man calling himself Shakespear.

    posted by Jim LeVasseur on 2-6-2010 at 2:01 am

  42. It was fascinating to read so many different comments about the value of Shakespeare’s plays. And then someone FINALLY made the most essential point…Shakespeare wrote the plays to be performed, not read silently in a classroom or library or anywhere else. Yes, reading them silently, there is much to enjoy for some people. But seeing and hearing them is how Shakespeare meant for them to be shared. And I seriously doubt that his feelings would be hurt if every soul under the heavens didn’t love his every word then or now.

    posted by Mike Doyle on 2-8-2010 at 4:41 pm

  43. Just thought that I would mention that the quote from Charles Darwin is in one of the journals from right before he died. He was fatally ill with Chagas disease, which among other things, causes flu like symptoms and nausea , meaning he was probably already nauseous a lot of the time, even without Shakespeare’s help.

    posted by GreenArrow on 2-26-2010 at 5:51 pm

  44. The problem I and every other generation has or will find with Shakespeare is the unnecessarily flowery, impenetrable and nonsensical choice of words and grammar. Anyone who thinks that Elizabethans spoke like this is mistaken. You only have to read Shakespeare’s contemporary, Edmund Spencer to see that (reassuringly) English could be written in a way perfectly understandable to our modern eyes. I beg to suggest that even Chaucer writing in Middle English in the 14th century is today more comprehensible that WS ever was or will be. It would seem that WS had developed a style unique to himself. It was fashionable. And bear in mind that no written example of Shakespeare’s scripts has ever been found. The folio and quarto were the result of actors reciting their lines from memory and a vast amount of guesswork and interpolation.

    posted by Stuart on 10-20-2010 at 5:25 am

Comment

commenting policy