Shakesperian status

[Jake]

A subject I have never seen mentioned (I did look on this forum) is whether Enid will have the sort of status Shakespeare has got. I mean people say that it is impossible for a playwright to ever be more famous than the bard, but do you believe that there will ever be a more famous children's author? I know that there is a modern pretender but to me she will not produce the volume that Enid did, even if the individual books themselves are more successful.

[Moonraker]

I wouldn't have thought so.

[Lucky Star]

Shakespeare's place in history is pretty unique really. I can't see anyone else achieving that kind of status. Mind you in a couple of hundred years time who knows? Maybe Stephen Isabirye's book will be taken as fact and the people will worship Enid for inadvertantly predicting the discovery of an anti aging drug as forseen in the Famous Five when they never grew any older.

[Daisy]

Maybe Stephen Isabirye's book will be taken as fact and the people will worship Enid for inadvertantly predicting the discovery of an anti aging drug as forseen in the Famous Five when they never grew any older.

I like it!

[Katharine]

I hope Enid Blyton doesn't ever achieve the same kind of status Shakespeare has, as it will mean many school children will instantly be put off her books. I hate the throught of pupils being forced to read her books for their GCSEs groaning over the translations down one side of the page.

[Eddie Muir]

Love you comments, John.

[Lucky Star]

Thank you Daisy and Eddie.

[Jake]

Maybe Stephen Isabirye's book will be taken as fact and the people will worship Enid for inadvertantly predicting the discovery of an anti aging drug as forseen in the Famous Five when they never grew any older.

I would argue Richmal Crompton beat her to that LOL.

[Spitfire]

I hope Enid's work will remain popular for generations yet, and I hope that they will eventually be considered classics and the original texts restored... but they'll never attain the status of Shakespeare, nor should they. Enid wrote specifically for children; she used simple language, her genius was her ability to think as a child and turn her wonderful, unspoilt, ever-optimistic imagination into story after story.

Shakespeare, on the other hand, used English in a way which was creative and innotative in his own time, in sentence structure and grammar as well as in the many, many apt turns of phrases which have since become standard phrases in our language. His genius enriched the English language no end; the characters in his plays are real - crude, rude, funny, ambitious, deceitful, idealistic, bored, heroic, stupid, smelly, rich, old, tired... his plays are still relevant today because there is nothing pretentious about them; they are not in the slightest bit high-brow even if the language is a challenge to us these days. Shakespeare depicted human nature then exactly as it remains now. And not just in plays - some of his sonnets are really beautiful.

Sorry - I didn't mean to turn this into a Love Shakespeare Rant!! I guess I'm partly responding to your post, Katharine, but also partly remembering from another thread a while ago that quite a few people on the forums have said that they didn't enjoy Shakespeare at school at all. I was lucky enough to have great English teachers -one in particular was excellent - and we studied Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night and Romeo & Juliet in my third, fourth and fifth year at senior school. I loved every bit of it, especially when we went to see a production of JC set in modern times.

*Rant over*

[Katharine]

Interesting 'rant' Spitfire. Unfortunately I only studied MacBeth and Henry IV at school and both of them contained plots to kill people in power which isn't my favourite subject, and in the case of Henry IV, I kept getting confused with who was siding with who! Believe it or not, a bit too political for my liking.

At the moment I'm re-watching all my VHS tapes, and the next one on the list contains a 1930s version of A Midsummer Night's Dream. I must admit I do quite enjoy watching that, the dialogue seems to 'flow'. Maybe if we'd studied something like that at school I wouldn't have been put off Shakespeare.

I'll also admit to approaching his works with a prejudice, as I'd had it rammed down my throat how marvellous he was and how wonderful his books are. I prefer to make up my own mind about whether I like a book or not.

[Spitfire]

Ooh, I've never read or seen A Midsummer Night's Dream, though I keep meaning to read it - it's on my Promise to Self list!!! Everything I've heard about it appeals to me. I've not read Henry IV either - though I think that's the play which contains Falstaff? I don't think that play would have appealed to me as a teenager, but I did read Macbeth with my cousin when I was about fourteen - we read it aloud, taking various parts and it was really good fun. It is quite dark though - which is probably one of the reasons why we were drawn to it! - but though we enjoyed the drama and the language we didn't take it seriously and so any 'themes' went right over our heads!

I'll also admit to approaching his works with a prejudice, as I'd had it rammed down my throat how marvellous he was and how wonderful his books are. I prefer to make up my own mind about whether I like a book or not.

I can completely understand that, it would be enough to put anyone off. I don't think any of my teachers were like that. I remember when we started reading Julius Caesar in class - it all came to life - the busy, smelly streets of Rome, the cobbler's joke... and then later on, when Brutus gave his speech, I was hooked. Our teacher used to dramatically 'declaim' some of the speeches, putting on different voices (he had been an actor and we all thought he fancied himself a bit!!) - and then get us to do the same - and though there was a lot of embarrassment at first a lot of kids did relax into it and read aloud really well.

I don't pretend to understand Shakespeare fluently though, and I've only read a few of his plays!

[Katharine]

Falstaff rings a bell, there was also Percy? and Henry Bollingbroke if I remember correctly. My main memories of MacBeth were having to read each line and then check out the translation to the side. Maybe if we'd actually acted it out it might have had more appeal.

I think I had to study something by Shakespeare for my English A level as well, possibly Richard III? I'd have to go and check my bookshelves to find out for definite though. I can't remember anything about that at all, which probably explains my lousy result. I do remember all the other books we studied though, just not that one for some reason.

I think the other reason I was prejudiced against Shakespeare was because when I was a teenager Enid Blyton was looked down upon by some teachers, and I wasn't having anyone tell me that I couldn't read her books any more but read the 'bards' instead. Maybe if I'd been allowed to discover his works at my own pace I'd have been more receptive.

[Perce]

there was also Percy?

Ok Kathy!

[Katharine]

OK, a quick Google has shown me I got a bit muddled. He was acutally Henry Percy (also known as Hotspur)! Must have been thinking of that character from Black Adder - 'Percy, who's Queen?' 'Ooops, butter fingers' - one of the best lines ever, but not Shakespeare.

I see there was also a character called Francis - that man gets everywhere!

[Anita Bensoussane]

I hope Enid's work will remain popular for generations yet, and I hope that they will eventually be considered classics and the original texts restored... but they'll never attain the status of Shakespeare, nor should they. Enid wrote specifically for children; she used simple language, her genius was her ability to think as a child and turn her wonderful, unspoilt, ever-optimistic imagination into story after story.

Shakespeare, on the other hand, used English in a way which was creative and innotative in his own time, in sentence structure and grammar as well as in the many, many apt turns of phrases which have since become standard phrases in our language. His genius enriched the English language no end...

I agree, Spitfire. Blyton's beauty lies partly in the simplicity of her phrasing while Shakespeare's lies in a complexity of phrasing which allows for a certain subtlety and rich layering.

For some reason, I've never managed to fall under the spell of A Midsummer Night's Dream and it's not a play I particularly like. Favourites of mine include Twelfth Night, Macbeth and Measure for Measure.