Do you think Shakespeare has more universal appeal than most literature Why or why not?

Answer 1

I think it should, if the stories in the plays were better understood. The language is a real barrier and although I do think that his use of language should be studied and praised, the stories he tells (ignoring any argument about whether they are original or copied from other sources) cover a wide range of topics and should be seen in a theatre or in film to be fully enjoyed. There are fantasies with fairies and magic 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', there are pure love stories 'Romeo and Juliet', there are tragedies that deal with the basest of human emotions and human folly 'Othello', there are stories that read like a soap opera 'Much Ado About Nothing' and there are the histories, 'Anthony and Cleopatra', Richard II' and 'Henry V'. There is something for everyone in the writings of Shakespeare, and that is not even touching on the sonnets.

Someone wanting to understand the plays more really should go to the theatre. In England we are lucky to have such establishments as the Globe Theatre in London and the two RSC theatres in Stratford upon Avon. But the films are good, Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado is marvellous to watch, a beautiful piece of cinematography with fantastic music and a wonderful cast. It is a Shakespeare comedy that one can actually laugh at.

Few other authors of literature have tackled such a wide range of subject matters. Modern writers tend to stick to the one genre to please their publisher, and older writers did not tend to stray too far from what they knew either. Playwrights also go the same way, with so many you know what to expect, even the greats. But with Shakespeare you get tragic kings, a man with the head of a donkey, a monster on a Mediterranean island, a girl learning English with her nurse, a man learning that he can love after all, another realising that the woman he want does not want him, the foul murder of kings, a double marriage, victories and losses.