Drop Shakespeare. Spend a few years learning classical Greek. Read the playwrights of the ancient world in the original. Then read Shakespeare again - go and see his plays at The Globe - then fall on your knees and repent your childish ignorance.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

As a boy in the 1950s I remember seeing Olivier as Coriolanus and Christopher Plummer as Benedick at Stratford. I've always been in love with Rosalind and Viola. And who can forget Anthony Quayle as a jolly but menacing Falsfaff in the BBC Shakespeare series? Helena in All's Well, Hotspur, Hal: you can go on and on.

Never mind the plots and the language. What about the characters?

Christopher Chantrill, Seattle, USA

Oh how I'm with you! In every play I've seen over the last 30 years, some performed by professional companies, it seemed that the only way the actors could remember their lines and get through the evening was by shouting very loudly very fast, with the result that the poor audience, me, couldn't understand a word and the plot was entirely lost on me; and when the current trend seems to be for modern dress I was denied even a tiny amount of pleasure by looking at period costume. Give me Dickens and Hardy any day.
The patronising comments from your correspondents about "Dancing with the Stars", what is this?, are not even worthy of comment.

Jane, Hants,

Firstly may I say that students are allowed to 'diss' Shakespeare-it's called critique and I have done it in some of my a level essays without being discredited.
Though I've not done it often.
And that's because there's not much to complain about.
So what if the basic plot is copied? After all there are only so many stories it's possible to tell. it's the way it is told that matters.
Shakespeare picks the right words, the right structure, the right tone to shape emotion and reaction felt by the audience.
Naturally the language is hard to understand; it wasn't written in the time of extreme slang and 'text speak' thank goodness!

Hatred generally comes from not understanding.

Velida P, Leeds,

There are two greatest gifts from Britain to the the World.
Scotch Whisky and Shakespeare and debate should end there.

Dr K Mukherjee, Kolkata , India

sorry, but i first read shakespeare when i was eleven, out of my own pure choice (it was 'the comedy of errors', & i likedit alot!). i am not a mindless shakespeare fanatic - i don;t really like othello much, nor hamet really, but i do like a midsummer nights dream, taming of hte shrew, much ado a bout nothing, merchant of venice - i could go on, but you get the idea. & i am 28, b4 you discount this as an elderly person's viewpoint

amanda, london,

Shakespeare has always been difficult to read and that feature has been considerably exacerbated by the style of delivery that actors have traditionally employed. Early Gielgud, for example, was something you listened to rather than followed. I think it has got a lot better, but it is still spoken too quickly, and without sufficient pause and accent to make the more difficult language as comprehensible as possible. Having listened to a short excerpt of Othello on radio, this tendency still prevails. The actor should convey the language to the audience but they invariably sacrifice the meaning for the drama.

Henry Percy, London, UK

You should have taken your brother's advice.

Raymond Palmer, Taunton,

Most of us don't read Shakespeare for pleasure. It's too turgid for a bedtime read, which is all most of us can manage, but worse still, it is forever tarnished by being forced upon us at school.

I quite like Tristram Shandy which is arguably even worse but at least I had the satisfaction of finding it for myself. Ban Shakespeare from schools and it will soon become a teen cult. Give the kids something fun instead like Sherlock Holmes then they might actually be encourage to read instead of turned off.

Ben Grumpie, Bristol,

Obviously a fan of "Survivor" and/or "Dancing with the Stars."

Gary Geoffrion, Cleveland, Ohio

I used to think this way when I was young and didn't know better. But Shakespeare is an acquired taste. When we are young and confronted by the difficulty of the language of Shakespeare it can be a turn off. But it rewards persistence and dedication. The stories of course are often ludicrous and far fetched but then so are many others of the literary canon. Dickens is melodramatic, Austen relied too much on coincidence. And of course we now know that their and other writers of their age had an understanding of the world and particularly of medical conditions which was faulty.

But it is the language of Shakespeare that has made him so pervasive in our culture. Every day people who have probably not read or seen any of his plays since being forced to do so at school quote him a dozen or more times without knowing it. The man could write a telling phrase and he has undoubtedly stood the test of time.

Paul Owen, Birmingham, UK

It seems to me from reading this that you dislike the fact that a lot of people love Shakespeare. Not all of us who enjoy his poems and plays have been brainwashed into doing so, or simply like him unthinkingly without making up our own minds about his writing. The language employed in this piece causes your argument to be ridiculously overstated at the expense of credibility.

emm, RI, USA,

Well done. You’ve set before us all the cons, but none of the pros, and I must profess I think you’ve conned yourself. You dislike Shakespeare and in your need to justify your distain all these poorly reasoned reasons you make to appear.

For my part, and my parts are no more than an East End upstart, I’ve always enjoyed Shakespeare, for entertainment when done entertainingly is always entertaining – there, I just managed to get that out without the sunset of a blush embarrassing my cheeks.

Just as love is in the eye of the beholder, opaqueness is in, or not in, the eye of the disbelieve: just what do you not understand of the opening monologue of Richard III, Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this Son of York…?

Bill M (Pom), Sydney, Australia

This is merely a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Amusing at best, ridiculous at worst.

Danny, London,

Wow... someone sounds bitter and angry. Who knew that being too thick to understand Shakespeare could cause such frustration?

Thank goodness for "I'm a Celebrity" and the like - something you can understand.

Mark, Smithfield, NC USA

Once you are persuaded he is Edward de Vere and the son of QEI, then it all becomes much simpler She had him raised, and basked in his glory when he won at the lists, shaking his spear (lance) - over his head, as was the custom after a win in the tilt. Later she kept him in cash after he had squandered his father's fortune. -- Does this help to clarify the situation? Not so much a wordsmith as just your nobleman extraordinaire, his job was to extol the Tudors and blacken the vanquished Plantagenets.

Hermann Burchard, Stillwater , Oklahoma