Is reading plays stupid? Arent they meant to be experienced

No.

>>7664988
No

kinda

Why the fuck does the latter negate the former?

it's just kinda weird is all

watching plays is more conventionally entertaining.
reading is better for analyzation.
i prefer to read them.

>asks that question
>posts a drama that was meant to be read
Anyway, no. Yes, they were created to be experienced in a theater but if you only see the plays performed in your local theaters you won't know shit about the art form and its history, you'll only have a bunch of tidbits. You simply have to read some of them.

>>7664988
Spectacle is one of the least important aspects of drama. Read Aristotle you pleb. Plot, character, thought, and diction can all be enjoyed on the printed page!

>>7664988
It's not stupid but watching plays are for enjoyment while reading is for a slow in depth analysis.

faust was meant to be read you dip

File: 51NHK766VNL._SX283_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (38KB, 285x474px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 285x474px

But what about scripts?