And yet, sadly, she might be right. Way back when, some friends of mine and I went to see A Midsummer Night's Dream and, well, from audience reaction, it was clear that we were pretty much the only people in the theater not having trouble with the Elizabethan English. (Ok, ok, maybe they just didn't find it funny, though I fail to see why not.)

OTOH, it's Hamlet and it isn't as though there haven't been several movie versions of it already (and I suspect the story may be better known than the other play). So I very much doubt that it would be a problem.

And I'm not that impressed with the implication that Shakespeare is this inherently complex thing that "normal" people can't understand without a guidebook; I find that mischaracterization as offensive in regard to his work as it is directed at the audience. It's that kind of attitude that leads to people not even trying to read it (or watch it performed) and that's a shame.

Yeah, I will never be able to understand the whole "aim low" mentality. People think something is complicated and they don't even give it a try because of that.

Like, I recently read a book about physics, which was recommended to me by a friend because of its userfriendlyness (for non physicians) and another friend saw that and said "I would never read that, it's way too complicated ...".

But shouldn't something that looks complicated be a challenge? Shouldn't it make you want to read it to prove to yourself that it is possible to read and understand it? Wouldn't that make you feel much better about yourself? Or maybe I'm just weird *lol*