Whats stopping me from considering his works to be closest dramas? They have few stage directions, complex dialogue, and definitely can't be completely understood after one read-through, let alone after watching one performance
>>24799756Shakespeare went to the rehearsals of his plays so he didn’t write stage directions. Anyway playwrights didn’t write comprehensive ones until long after his time. He wrote his plays to amuse audiences in a theatre and he never bothered to have them printed.
>>24799756>Whats stopping me from considering his works to be closest dramas?Nothing. That's what I do.
>>24799756>Whats stopping me from considering his works to be closest dramas?I don't get what this question means. You know he wrote them as stage plays. You know they can be read, enjoyed and studied as printed books. What are you asking? What are you worried about? Do you mean that within each play there's some kind of Platonic form which reading should uncover, and you're worried that you might not uncover it if you're not imagining actors moving around on stage? If you 'consider them as closet dramas', do you then forbid your brain from picturing Elizabethan London, or thinking about how you might stage something? If you don't consider them so, do you forbid your imagination from picturing actual Verona or actual Scottish heaths? Do you deliberately ignore the history of staging and banish it from your thoughts on the text? I don't understand! Just read the plays and make of them what you will.
>>24799756> Whats stopping me from considering his works to be closest dramas?It would be 1. Fake2. And gay3. cringe 4. Blue-pilled
>>24800251>Just read the playsOr better still, watch them, as the author intended.
