Have you ever wanted to do something with Elizabethan dialogue?

[MarionRivers]

I've been experiencing a lot of Shakespeare recently, and I have to say he is probably one of the greatest English playwrights ever.

Of course, I'm hardly the only one to have that sentiment, but I really believe that in terms of entertainment value he delivers in spades. Part of what makes his plays so great is their dialogue, which once you get a knack for understanding it, is just incredible. Granted, there's much more to Shakespeare's works than just the dialogue, including their violence, superb characterizations, and classic storylines, but the dialogue, right down to the bard's corny one-liners, archaic phrasing, and massive soliloquies, really is a key factor.

And it pains me that no one else will ever write like him again, because when experienced right, his plays are a real treat. That is why I have thought that maybe I could write like him.

I got the idea: What if I wrote a play in the Iambic pentameter? Included old-time words like "thou" and "hither" but kept things generally understandable? Added all sorts of overlong monologues? Made sure to emphasize extremely stilted lines of dialogue that served only to advance the plot?

And just to make it feel real Shakespeare-like, it'd naturally be a power-play story with all sorts of cheap story-telling devices. Could it be like my favorite playwright? The man whose plays don't follow all the rules of modern drama but manage to be just awesome.

I tried and didn't go through with it. I can't hear tone! I can't do iambic.

[Medievalist]

It's not really doable. Really, it isn't.

You would have better luck emulating Marlowe or Webster. The thing to do is look at how Stoppard did Shakespeare in Love, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead--and not just the films.

That's not much easier, frankly; it helps that Stoppard is brilliant as well as over educated and over-read.

[MarionRivers]

It's not really doable. Really, it isn't.

You would have better luck emulating Marlowe or Webster. The thing to do is look at how Stoppard did Shakespeare in Love, and Rosenstock and Guildenstern are Dead--and not just the films.

That's not much easier, frankly; it helps that Stoppard is brilliant as well as over educated and over-read.
Though you could try emulating if not his dialogue, at least his dialogue patterns. Just like Mamet or Tarantino, he has a unique way of having his characters interact,talk, and speechify, even beyond the iambic pentameter and the olden vocabulary. You could still have soliloquies filled with tangential musings, on-the-nose dialogue, puns galore, and tangential philosophical musings every other scene.

It's also rather easy to come up with modern paralells to his types of stories, most of which came from history or legend anyway, and anyone I think who is familiar enough with his work can make them feel Shakespeare in terms of their structure and progression. I would love to write a piece that really feels stylistically Shakespeare.

[Medievalist]

VIOLA
This fellow's wise enough to play the fool;
And, to do that well, craves a kind of wit:
He must observe their mood on whom he jests,
The quality of persons, and the time;
And, like the haggard, check at every feather
That comes before his eye. This is a practice
As full of labour as a wise man's art:
For folly, that he wisely shows, is fit;
But wise men, folly-fallen, quite taint their wit.

[Beach Bunny]

I admire the enthusiasm to try, but I think you've answered your own question here:

I tried and didn't go through with it. I can't hear tone! I can't do iambic.

Regardless of whether it is doable or not, if you can't hear the tones and the rhythms, I would think it would be impossible to write.

Perhaps, you could try to emulate him in prose instead of verse. I'm not an expert on Shakespeare or English literature. Is it the verse, the "thous" and "thithers" which truly makes the plays so great? Or is it the other things that you have mentioned? :)

[Hillgate]

It's not really doable. Really, it isn't.

You would have better luck emulating Marlowe or Webster. The thing to do is look at how Stoppard did Shakespeare in Love, and Rosenstock and Guildenstern are Dead--and not just the films.

That's not much easier, frankly; it helps that Stoppard is brilliant as well as over educated and over-read.

Rosencrantz;)

[Medievalist]

Rosencrantz;)

Oops--Rosenstock, Raymond was the name of the first prof to tell me to Go Read This Play Right Now.

Going to go edit--thanks!

[8thSamurai]

Elizabethan dialogue and Shakespearean dialogue are two different animals. How are your poetry skills?

[small axe]

Zounds, no! But I do regret and resent that current tastes too often dictate that modern dialogue be overly naturalistic, common, or invisible.

Golden must have been the days when dialogue was valued for its intelligence and wit, and did not have to hide those worthies behind "street cred" or be dumbed down for a lowest common denom crowd ...

How y'doin'?
Umdunno, how'z it with you?
Me? A**hole, I asked ya how YOU doin'. Sh*t.
Muthfukah, don' hand me that sh*t! How y'doin'?
haha
A**hole.
haha

A GUNSHOT rings out.

[8thSamurai]

Hi small axe! Nice to meet you :).

One thing that differentiates the two, is being a passive vs. an active medium. Not every film has simplistic dialogue, but they tend to do a bit better (not counting movie versions of Shakespeare or Victorian novels, which already have name credibility).

[donroc]

If only I could equal Mark Twain's 1601.

[GigiZ]

Have you seen the movie "Yes" by Sally Potter with Joan Allen? The entire script is written in iambic pentameter.
Oh, and it's brilliant, a real accomplishment.