Shakespeare, A Cure for Dystopia?

There is a current trend in young adult literature in the mass production of what is styled as “dystopian literature.” One must wonder as to the popularity of these novels especially amongst political seasons, that whether or not it is an admission or at least an acknowledgment that Oceania is no more dystopian than the United States of America. In reality, the great crisis of nations and governments is that they have always been in crisis and are all a little dystopian.  Though there is no real proposed cure other than a violent regime change, I'd like to propose a fleeting thought of mine that Shakespeare might might serve as a kind of remedy or at least a catalyst of change for dystopia.

When St. Thomas More wrote Utopia, the name for the literary genre from which we owe the negation of More’s famous work, he was writing about a no place, a nowhere, in space and time that was far from an idealistic society free of injustices. This point is missed by many high school teachers and many college instructors who wrongly believe More was attempting to fabricate the perfect society. When in fact, More was writing a commentary on 16th-century society.

 However, from the political and social uprising and encroaching threat from socialism and communism of the 20th century, three works were born, which are the grandfathers of English dystopian literature: Brave New World, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451. It is quite obvious to see the parallels and similarity in themes and message in these three works as they contain in them all the requirements in what it means to be a dystopian work of literature in its various executions:

•  A Government control of information.  
•  A Governmental appearance of transparency. 
• A complacent society. o A futuristic world. 
• A government-sponsored revision of history. 
• All things are for the good of the State even when in direct opposition to basic human rights. 
• The illusion that all things past are ignorant, and all things present and future are enlightened. 
• A civilian population is constantly monitored. 

 Despite the common themes and views in these three novels, there is something even more important that binds these works of literature together: Shakespeare. In many modern dystopian themed books, Shakespeare is conveniently absent or largely ignored. There is nothing Shakespearean, other than in superficial aspiration in The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, or Divergent. Shakespeare, one might argue, is the real underlying cause of the protagonist’s undulations that leads him to question the very world in which he lives. So, what is it about Shakespeare that leads Montag, John, and Winston to their freedom or demise? More importantly, what is it about Shakespeare that dystopian governments hate? Out of all the world’s of literature, why is Shakespeare on the government’s hit list in these books?

 In the context of all these three books, Shakespeare represents a past of which the present governments would like to forget or pretend never existed. In a world where media is constricted to one style, the very act of reading is rebellion. Moreover, it is also to see how the government manipulated the message and text before casting it on the parlor walls. That is, reading the primary source weakens the supposed strength of the dystopian government. In a so-called technologically advanced society where emotions and raw passions are not allowed due to the statewide doping plan, Shakespeare gives to the reader a view of the unshackled joys and sorrows and sufferings of life. It shows to the reader an example of love as sacrifice, which in turn would destroy the governmental marriage and breeding programs if such ideas every escaped. In a culture aimed at efficiency, there is nothing less efficient in terms of communication than the words of a poet and even worse would be the words of the world’s greatest English poet.

Those who partake of the Bard’s words are all outsiders in these works of literature. They are at one time at home, but strangers in their own houses. The so-called savages in Brave New World set apart from the rest of the populace and seen as nice people and a nice place to visit are the only people living life right. It is the so-called savages who practice discipline and morality, and it is they who try to overcome their animalistic nature and embrace marriage and motherhood and fatherhood. In Fahrenheit 451 the only people who are able to read an unedited rendition of Shakespeare, a version not cast on the parlor walls, the primary source, are vagabonds who ramble the countryside with the last unedited version of the most famous works of literature. Moreover, at the end of the Fahrenheit 451, the author makes it clear that to read is to be changed. Furthermore, to read Shakespeare, as Montag did, is to be changed into the Bard, or at least characters from the play, which is obvious when Montag kills his commander shortly after his commander quotes from Julius Caesar.

 In 1984 those who long for Shakespeare in gasping sleepy dreams are the ones who join the rebellion against Big Brother. For a culture that is trying to shrink the vocabulary, for words form ideas and ideas form beliefs and beliefs are something for which people are willing to die, Shakespeare is the direct counter to this New Speak that looks to detract from language where Shakespeare is said to have added over 1700 words to English. New Speak is aimed at the degeneration of the English language bringing about atrophy of the mind and in the end control of behavior, and it can be guessed at how New Speak would rewrite Shakespeare:

• Hamlet’s death is the result of a condition of suicidal madness and death wish cause by his reaction to the death of his father along with the visionary and auditory delusions brought about by said death.
• Sonnet 18 would be rendered as such: “Shall I compare thee to the Big Brother.” 
• Romeo and Juliet would be killed by the tough police after the priest, who isn’t really a priest but an agent of the state called a magistrate, reported a through crime. The magistrate would be a celebrated hero. 
• The happy marriages at the end of a comedy would be the result of a precisely orchestrated paring done by the government bureaucrats so as to produce the best offspring. 

 In some circles teachers and administrators will hear the same tired arguments about the reading of Shakespeare. The opponents of the Bard will argue that they have never used Shakespeare in the “real world” or that it is difficult and causes suffering in the learning process – almost as if they are parroting arguments from these three dystopian works of literature. Huxley, Bradbury, and Orwell make it obvious that many are correct; they do not use Shakespeare in the real world any more than they use any other media entertainment in the real world, but it is the uselessness of Shakespeare that is most greatly needed in the real world. If it can be summarized briefly, Shakespeare is the remedy to the dystopian society, which is why dystopian governments hate Shakespeare. Moreover, it is this very reason, lest we become even more dystopian, that we need to continue reading Shakespeare in its original rendering and even teaching it in schools. A yearly reading of Hamlet will do more good for our society than reading the latest bestseller written by the hottest new political personality, for Hamlet does not lie to us.