I have this friend, and she does not particularly care for the art that is English literature. She largely prefers the sciences. So naturally (and admittedly it was mostly to be "that guy") I read to her some of the sonnets and explanations given by Mr. Hughes in his essay, and naturally she responded like a total grinch. "Don't you think people read way too much into this kind of stuff?" she asked me, and I had to respond with "Yes, Alli. Yes I do, but that is my favorite part about 'this kind of stuff' because I get to read too much into it too, but in whichever way I choose. Don't people read too much into ice core samples?" and she was not very happy about my response because to her, snow science is a passion, and ice core samples are an integral part of snow science, and climatology in general. I then tried to explain to her that I was not dissing on snow science, but rather trying to prove a point; that no matter what one is reading, the intent is to pull as much information out of the text as is humanly possible, and apply it to the study which they are undertaking. In the case of ice core samples, one is trying to determine the amount in parts per million of particular gasses trapped in a layer of precipitation from a given era, which will detail the chemical composition of the atmosphere for said era. In the case of Shakespeare, one is trying to learn about one's self. English, and by extension Shakespeare, is a study of reflection. If, as a writer, one is not relatable, then he or she is not really a writer. Shakespeare, obviously, was a writer of tremendous repute, and so it is fairly intuitive to conclude that he is also probably tremendously relatable if one looks at his plays with the correct frame of mind. But try explaining that to a wonderful young girl who studies snow science, and is a horrible cynic (as are many of us).

I do not, however, feel I need to talk to all of the people in my 400 level English class about how relatable Shakespeare is, because I feel like at least the vast majority of the students who will end up reading this post will already understand and agree that it is almost sickening to know that ol' Bill can get so close to your heart without even knowing you. He says all of the lovely things we wish we could have said first, 400 years before we even had the opportunity. "Who is it that says most? Which can say more than this rich praise, that you alone are you?" You have no idea how many times I have wished that I could've said that to someone I cared about, and yet I could never put it quite so simply, and eloquently. Damn you Bill, for being so much more the man I wish I was than me. But how could I damn him, really? Now I have those words, and I can use them at will (public domain) and I would rather say what I come up with than plagiarize Shakespeare, (because he alone is he, and I alone am me) but I will judge my words based on what the situation calls for in the future. The point is this; although my friend who likes frozen water too much doesn't appreciate Shakespeare when I read it to her, she would appreciate the sentiments in a real world context, and that is what Ted Hughes is trying to get us to see and appreciate: that we can pull these things out of their immediate contexts and place them as needed into our own situations, and they will still be spectacular, and they will still be packed to the rafters with heart, and lovely meaning, and they will still be poetic. So even though there are plenty of haters (and lets be honest, half of us hate because we are jealous) Shakespeare is still going to have said almost any endearing thing we say long ago, on a continent far far away. 

I told my friend about this blog post, and she does not seem to be flattered by the fact that she is a very important contributing member to this discussion, but that is ok, because she does not seem to appreciate many things that I find important. For instance, she is wondering how discussing our personal conversations is relevant to my Literature class, and I am now trying to explain to her what Mr. Hughes said about how many of William's plays centered around exploring the dark inner workings of people and social groups, but she doesn't seem to get it. How much more clearly can I read the phrase "Without controling precedents, without opressivley revered earlier masterpieces, those dramatists ha only the bare boards, the fever of global exploration, and the brand new, volcanic, terrible subject matter- the secret inner life, up to that point unexpressed,...", to that woman? And yet, she refuses to understand how any of this is pertinent. I will just tell her that perhaps she will understand to-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow... but in reality she just might never understand.