Memba Dis, Shakespeare? Yeah, He Does...

After class, Yohana and I were talking about Shakespeare, and he suggested that some elements of Shakespeare's plays "have been done before."  When thinking about this, I could not shake the feeling that he might partially be mistaking Shakespeare's influence for a lack of originality; that is, confusing the chronology of different works of art.  Then, I thought about the ways in which he was right: Shakespeare lifted many of his plots from ancient plays and stories and used many methods found in Renaissance drama.  I could not help feeling that this was not a bad thing.  Does this mean he is not original or worth reading? No, it does not.

I think the fact that Shakespeare's plots were not always original is beside the point (or more accurately the point itself).  Shakespeare used these plots and elevated them into a higher art form with more psychologically complex characters and intricate language.  But this does not mean they are merely remakes superior to the originals.  His use of known plot elements was a tool.  Shakespeare was combining elements of different sources to create a hybrid form.  A sense of his taking material from different sources is most obvious when he uses anachronisms (he was aware that historically they did not fit, but they fit in a more artistic way).  In this way, I think Shakespeare's plays are all the more interesting for being "unoriginal."