Should Shakespeare still be taught in schools?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I was going to post this on I Love Books but would rather expose this to ILE as I think everyone has been forced at one point or another to read Shakespeare.

I often wonder why there is so much importance placed on the works of one author. Obviously Shakespeare is highly regarded, was responsible for many linguistic devices in the English language and was seemingly able to tell a bloody good story.

But why teach it in schools? It's as if there is an unwritten curricular law saying that speakers of English must read at least one Shakespeare publication, usually around the age of 14 onwards. The answer is usually as basic as "he was the greatest writer in English history". To me this is the same as saying that The Beatles were the greatest rock band, Mozart the greatest composer, or that Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest painter. These statements are flawed because surely it is down to personal taste?

There's no denying the importance of Shakespeare on the English language. But then, so have the French language, American culture, technology, psychology and the media and we never place as much importance on these as the mighty Shakespeare.

Another more important point is that Shakespeare is no longer English. It is written in a redundant tongue that nobody uses anymore, and takes quite a bit of concentration to understand. Why are we teaching children in English classes to read something that they will have no use for? These stories are several hundred years old and are no longer relevant linguistically and contextually. Maybe if they are analysing the historical context of English then of course Shakespeare would have to be part of the syllabus along with Chaucer and Hardy and Beowulf and Austen and Coleridge and Keats etc.

But why aren't they reading stuff that came out recently? Because it's too easy? Because it isn't "high-brow" enough? Because it isn't as good? Bollocks! I think kids would benefit from English lessons if they were reading something that they could relate to let alone understand. Shakespeare never wrote his plays to confuse year 9 students - he wrote them as soap operas for the drunken masses, so why read them differently? I'm sure there has been enough excellent literature speaking about things more relevant and in a more modern tone in the last couple of hundred years than Shakespeare that could be taught in school.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 08:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ironically, my question was really badly written but I am at work and keep having to make sure the boss isn't looking.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

As someone who was forced to read Jurassic Park in an "advanced" English class in HIGH SCHOOL, I say THANK FUCKING GOD FOR SHAKESPEARE. The only tolerable thing I read that year...

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

To me this is the same as saying that The Beatles were the greatest rock band, Mozart the greatest composer, or that Leonardo Da Vinci was the greatest painter. These statements are flawed because surely it is down to personal taste?

No, because literature and pop music are not judged in the same way, by anyone, really.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Jurassic Park? Jeez! Well there are extremes of course.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Another more important point is that Shakespeare is no longer English. It is written in a redundant tongue that nobody uses anymore, and takes quite a bit of concentration to understand.

Well, no-one talks like people in movies, D12 records or Evelyn Waugh novels either. As you've said, a lot of Shakespeare's language, his coinages (or maybe phrases that were current in the 1590s) *are* still used.
To put it another way, why did Nietzshce obsess about Greek tragedy? How was it relevant to the early years of the German state? Well, in the same way that Roman and early Brit history was relevant to Shakespeare at the dawn of the modern Protestant British state.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Matt DC, it's the value of the statement here. You can't say that someone was the greatest author ever. You just can't - especially when there have been many many writers who have come along since Shakespeare's time. Sure, I'm sure Shakespeare was one of the best of his time but his time is over now. Move on!

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Also: This is the thread where you make a case for why you think Shakespeare is overrated

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:09 (6 years ago) Permalink

Rorty once said the value of having the same texts on curricula over time wasn't so much their appeal to "eternal virtues", but rather that kids would be able to talk to their parents and their grandparents about the same books. I think there's something to be said for that.

Also, I'm not sure Shakespeare is studied at the expense of anything else. Schoolkids read lots of other writers too.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

We didn't do any Shakespeare at school.

When I hear the word 'canon' I reach for my thermonuclear weapon. I'd compare Shakespeare's canonical status with Arsenal canonical status this season and I react the same way.

Use of cultural product to make something seen as highbrow universalised. Cultural materialism to thread.

A deeper issue - reading plays instead of seeing them - classic or dud? Isn't it like reading guitar tabs and going on about how fucking great the music is?

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dude, I'd much rather a bit of Shakespeare than the sodding Ian MacEwan that I had to read for a-level. S is enjoyable, beautiful, interesting and yes relevant, for fuck's sake. A lot of the stuff that people have to study in school now is there because it's supposedly "high-brow" (unlike yr soap operas from Shaks) modern literature, and it's simply appalling to study.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's not 'best' but 'productive' that counts. As an A-level student, Shakespeare, 'Othello' especially, opened up vistas on to metaphysical/intellectual horizons that few other writers I've encountered since have done. We also studied Jane Austen, and she's a 'better' (ie more modern) writer in terms of technique &c (erm, and she's a prose artist, not a playwright), but to my mind there isn't the level of complexity over such a wide field.

Um, also, Shaespeare is *not* highbrow, for fuck's sake! Austen, produced exclusively for aristos and gentry, was highbrow. Shakespeare, who made plays, against protestant hatred of theatre, engaged a, well not popular, but more petty-bourgeois/Londoner crowd.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

He is overrated, but not unnecessary. I just feel that teenagers shouldn't have this "you don't know English unless you learn Shakespeare" attitude forced down their gullets. It just puts them off.
If they learn to love something more relevant at the ages of 14-16 then maybe later they can learn to appreciate Shakespeare for whatever values are still relevant.

Remember at the age of 14, many kids still have trouble reading. Many teenagers aren't in the habit of picking up a good book and I'm sure a play written about people cavorting about in leggings going "What ho Partario!" is just going to put them off even more.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:15 (6 years ago) Permalink

Um, also, Shaespeare is *not* highbrow, for fuck's sake! Shakespeare, who made plays, against protestant hatred of theatre, engaged a, well not popular, but more petty-bourgeois/Londoner crowd.

Think about it this way, who reads a Shakespeare play nowadays?

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

Schoolkids. Students. Who reads in general?

What's 'relevant' though? Shakespeare is more relevant to me than any McEwan/Kundera/Eco/yadda.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

-- Matt DC (runmd...), May 19th, 2004.

Lots of people who say Shakespeare is the best writer also say The Beatles are the best band. It's the unthinkingman's choice.

It's all down to opinion. A lot of people like Shakespeare cos they were told to, or cos they feel clever for doing so.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dog Latin OTM. Shakespeare might not have been highbrow in his time, but has become the epitome of it and a metonym for clever, cultured, etc

xpost - enrique - the majority of the school population do not share you empathy with the 16th century.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:21 (6 years ago) Permalink

S IS highbrow, for Dog Latin's exact resons.

Saying otherwise is like saying Latin isn't "because all those latin drain cleaner used to speak it"

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

A lot of people like Shakespeare cos they were told to, or cos they feel clever for doing so.

This is almost certainly the case, but it is a rubbish argument for NOT studying Shakespeare in schools.

Doing English to any serious level without reading Shakespeare strikes me as the equivalent of studying physics without learning about Einstein.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think if taught properly Shakespeare's plays are probably some of the most accessible and enjoyable texts anyone can study in school - certainly they were the things I enjoyed most. Of course there is the qualification 'if taught well', and there is this counter-productive and erroneous attitude that Shakespeare is the be-all and end-all of English lit which shouldn't really exist.

I mean, I don't like canons at all, but you have to teach the kids SOMETHING, right? The point of studying texts in school is to provide an entrée into the wider world of literature, not just provide a reading list - I think Shakespeare provides this very well.

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Thematically 16 year olds might identify with the themes in Shakespeare; as maybe they do with Achilles in 'Troy' or the way 19th century Van Helsing. In the same way that his audience had no problems with pays about Romans. I would never say of anyone that they are 'the best writer' (except for Ian Penman), but it does make sense to me that S-Peare shd be taught. In an ideal world, they'd give over time wasted on teaching math, gym, etc, to other major writers, but what can you do?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

By the time I was forced to read Shakespeare (Macbeth) I'd already read a hell of a lot of better stuff.

Our English teach was at pains to point out that Shakespeare was the Neighbours/Home and Away of his day, in an attempt to bring him to the kids. Gnarly dude.

She was right of course, but only cos N/H&AW were trashy air-time filling pap.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

Enrique, I had to do Othello and Mansfield Park at A-Level. Uncanny.

Also, I'm not discrediting Shakespeare as a thinker or saying that his tales have no value - far from it. There should certainly be some Shakespeare taught at A-Level, but not at the expense of other writers.

It's like he's the default writer. From what I can recall, when I was doing GCSE's we had to study "one poem, one book (Hardy's "Far From The Madding Crowd") and one Shakepeare". I always thought it odd that the curriculum said "one Shakespeare" instead of "one play". Why did it have to be Shakespeare? And if it had to be Shakespeare then why didn't they say "one Hardy" instead of "one book"?

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:26 (6 years ago) Permalink

If shakespeare was that good they wouldn't need to force him on kids, word of his greatness would spreasd via playtime whispers!

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

As I said it isn't about 'better stuff'; though it'd be good if you could say what was better and how. In teaching, you are introducing the kids into a culture. A 'good writer' (like, say, for argument's sake, F Scott Fitzgerald, Dickens, Austen) is more parochial and limited than Shakespeare, more specific. As entry-level texts.

dog latin, erm East Anglia area?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

Matt DC is a running dog of prole oppression.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:29 (6 years ago) Permalink

Enrique - you didn't go to Hills Road College did you?

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

I mean, why didn't we do Douglas Adams, or Arthur C Clarke, or Jenette Winterson, or Michael Bond or Dr Seuss or William Burroghs or Hunter S Thompson or Arthur Conan Doyle or Flann O Brien or something about rock music or something sexually explicit or about radical politics or Islam or something fun and/or timely?

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

dog -- yes. fuck. it finally happened.

mei -- I read Burroughs voluntarily (and HST as friends know too well). Yeah, run it up the flagpole I guess.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

I always thought it odd that the curriculum said "one Shakespeare" instead of "one play". Why did it have to be Shakespeare?

I vaguely remember that the Tory government specifically inserted compulsary Shakespeare into the GCSE syllabus, to calm down all those old people (who are all Tory voters, natch) who say "ooh, schools today aren't what they used to be, you know".

(we did Macbeth)

― caitlin (caitlin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

We did Jeanette Winterson as well as Shakespeare!

I don't know anyone who was ever turned off literature by having to learn Shakespeare, and quite a few who really got into it despite what they initially thought. A good teacher will always make it clear that there are worlds of books out there which aren;t Shakespeare and point the kids in their direction.

(I did Othello, The Tempest and Romeo and Juliet)

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

When I (and dog) did it, Luhrman's primo 'R&J' was a hit.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

mei OTM. There are history classes for learning about the past. English classes should be about learning and appreciating English as we know it. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm quite obsessed with the history of English language so it's not as though I'm completely ignorant to that side of things. But it wasn't Shakespeare that turned me on to historical linguistics, it was Bill Bryson!

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

omg wtf, that bryson was *so* on the HRSFC Eng lang and lit list circa 1996. gah!!!!

― ENRQ (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

Lol Enrique. I hated HRC more than life itself. It's put me off setting foot in Cambridge other than the odd shopping trip. Luckily I've pretty much erased all memory of that place from my brain.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

wtf, i thought it ruled. in which case possibly yopu loathed me with it. most amusing. teacher initial (english) KS?

― ENRQ (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

Enrique: yair, I read Bryson before joining the college in sept '97. This is quite weird actually. I remember studying some Greek play (why study a translation in an English class?) Aristopheles (I think that was the name, as I say I've suppressed a lot of memories). Anyway, the teacher just stopped the class and said "Does anyone actually like this play? Because I don't!".

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

I did Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth - one was popular with kids because it had a popular film that went with it and the other one has lots of killing and ghosts and witches and stuff. Both are short and relatively accessible, and I'd recommend them for under-16s. I wouldn't give them Hamlet or Othello.

I don't really advocate Shakespeare as a one-size-fits-all English standard, of course its not necessarily going to go down as well in rough inner city schools and plush home counties schools, its up to how you make the subject relevant and interesting - if Shakespeare isn't going to work for that then fair enough.

Its worth pointing out that there is a sizable proportion of schoolkids who will whinge at having to read ANY book, Shakespeare or otherwise.

― Running Dog of Prole Oppression (Matt DC), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Christ we studied a minimum of 4 Shakespeare plays in high school English. Us Canadians sure do love our Anglo history! I recall mine were:
-King Lear
-Macbeth
-Hamlet
-Midsummer Night's Dream
-Twelfth Night
Some other teachers mixed it up a bit. The classes that got the Richard/Henry history plays always bitched about having "the boring ones".

― Rob Bolton (Rob Bolton), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

Enr: I had "The Doctor" (B4ldwin) and Mr F0ster for English. It wasn't the place that was so bad, just the cliqueness of the Cambridge masses. Don't think I made one good friend in the full two years I was there, and not through lack of trying. I think it was something to do with coming from out of town that made it like that as everyone already had their mates from school.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

it's a very big college, i grant you, but, well, it beat school, and i met some brilliant individuals. true abt cliqueishness, but i wasn't in any of them, i was from the evil p3r53 school for poshos, so... like the bloke in 'cutting it'.

― ENRQ (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

If you gave pupils the option of splitting into groups and studying Shakespeare or one other playwright, what proportion would opt for Shakespeare, I wonder?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

Shakespeare was always more fun in high school than the other things we had to read, especially if my class was unlucky enough to have a teacher that made you read the whole book out loud (a yawnfest for novels) since then kids could take parts and would really seem to listen to it more. That said, I didn't really get into Shakespeare until I was in college and had to take it for my major. I had a terrific teacher who taught us to see past arcane grammar and references and into the characters. Shakespeare (however much the one name as author is problematic) knew a lot about human nature--audiences always like something that teaches them about themselves.

And I had lots of fun that semester reading Macbeth while a crazy autumn thunderstorm raged outside...

― sgs (sgs), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

vs brecht, beckett, and buchner

xpost

― m0mu5 (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 09:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

dog -- northern blerk teacher? he was good. i joined '96. the play was aristophanes: 'the birds' as i recall, and we all treated it w/ amused contempt because the matriarchy of the play was sort of less interesting than the matriarchy that was our class.
it's a very big college, i grant you, but, well, it beat school, and i met some brilliant individuals. true abt cliqueishness, but i wasn't in any of them, i was from the evil p3r53 school for poshos, so... like the bloke in 'cutting it'.

Yes p3rs3 kids were especially poncey. I don't think we did "The Birds" - the Aristophanes we did was all about women rebelling and locking themselves in a cave or something or other. I never saw the point and found it rather childish so I don't think I actually bothered reading it.

Of course what play you are taught and how it's been taught can totally catlyse your interest Shakespeare. I wish somehow I'd done M*cbeth or Hamlet rather than soppy old Romeo and Juliet and Othello as a teen. I think I'd probably really appreciate Othello nowadays mind you.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, maybe it wasn't the birds. I forget.

Yes p3rs3 kids were especially poncey.

Indeed. Pink Floyd *and* F R Leavis went there. QED.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Like Greek drama and the Bible, the study of Shakespeare is pretty essential in understanding particular tropes in dramatic/story structure, where we get certain archetypes and stereotypes (Othello and The Merchant of Veice to thread). Also it is essential in the study of English language and literature for examples of historic representation of the English language and in providing numerous plot points.

My high school English classes were fantastic and taught by very knowledgeable teachers who liked to find ways to make Shakespeare etc. accessible for their kids, including the ones who were not nearly so demanding as me and some of my friends. We read Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Merchant and Macbeth but none of the Henrys and Richards (I did Shaw, Coward, Wilde, Beckett and the '50s/'60s kitchen sinkers and had a good working knowledge of British/Irish dramatic history by the time I ws 16, but much of this was independent study of the 'I'm reading it anyway, I'll just snag me some extra credit' variety).

I'd have liked to have done at least ten of Shakespeare's plays in HS. We also did the Sonnets thanks to the closet dyke teaching us AP English. We assumed she was suffering from Lesbian Bed Death and wound her up by suggesting that the dramatic plot model (action, climax, denoument) was an unconscious duplicate of the sexual model.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:11 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, even though I doubt I'll want to read Shake again it's something everyone should have under their belt. Don't give Skye Sweetnam the satisfaction. My 11th grade Eng teacher made us read three Margaret Atwood books and hated rap music so much it was wise just to never mention it.

― LC, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

Three Margaret Attwood books? Your poor fucker...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't think English should be taught "as we know it" at all. No field of study is really comprehensible without understanding its development. In all my psych classes they still taught us about Freud and other psychologists from so long ago that none of their ideas seem directly applicable any more; but they are necessary in order to understand why the ones we use now are the way they are. Shakespeare shouldn't (only) be understood as an artifact from the past "in historical context" (like "this is what literature was like in the 16 century!") or in terms of modern literature, but as a sort of stepping stone for understanding why literature is the way it is today.

But and also you said that "...the French language, American culture, technology, psychology and the media.." all have been as important to English as Shakespeare. Are you conflating English the language and the study of English literature? 'cause, I mean, obviously there's no doubt that Shakespeare is significantly less important overall to the former than the latter, right? Choose one.

oh god it's 6:30 a.m.; I'm quite certain this post will make no sense in "the morning".

on review: and The Frogs is much more entertaining than The Birds! It's a shame you didn't do that one!

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

It was about women going on strike during a war. Maybe it was the frogs we did.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:25 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's Lysistrata, and they go on sex strike.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

BLAMMO! yeah, that was it. long, long time ago, 1998.

― eNRIQUE (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

(It's really funny - I can see the footprints of my HS drama and English and World Lit syllabi all over the films of the Coens, who had the same teachers 15 years earlier).

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

-it's like lenin said, if you look for the person who'll benefit, uh...
-that fucking bitch
-um?
-i am the walrus
-that fucking bitch
-then, uh, you know...
-i am the walrus...

know what you mean.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

:-)

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Should Shakespeare still be taught in schools? Jesus, I know he had trouble spelling his own name but how many years can you put the guy back?

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 10:53 (6 years ago) Permalink

Lysistrata, yes that was it. I really don't understand the point in reading a translation from the Greek in an English lit class - it always confounded me.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

Very good N.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

ok so obviously its not like shakespeare shouldnt be taught in schools, and that is what people who are pro- seem to be arguing against here, but the real thing for me is dog latins "one shakespeare" thing. like, the question here that i think dog wants to ask is maybe not "should shakespeare be taught in schools?" but "should it be an essential and unchanging part of the curriculum?". No Are the pro- arguments here arguing for its continued obligatory appearance in english classes up and down the country? (NB this is poss. UK only).

also, the whole reading-plays is pretty weird. doesnt the intense textual analysis remove almost all importance of dramatisation from what makes up the play?. Do those studying it even read it as a play?

Im not sure what way there is around it, as trips to the theatre for disaffected teens are expensive and difficult to make happen, but i think theres questions to be raised about the validity of studying plays just from texts, and never seeing the play actually acted.*

also the sort of grim faced "shakespeare is unavoidable because it has affected the development of every literary/theatrical work ever since" is a bit...joy-less. like, you study einstein in physics because physics is a science. But Literature isnt science. I think theres an argument for studying shakespeare, but i don't think the "you must study it cos its so important for reasons that will become apparent to you 20 years hence" is it.

* what about watching tv/film versions of plays? how useful is that?

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

re greek theatre - presuming that in most schools there isnt the chance to study ancient greek/class civ*, it seems useful to me to have a look at the forebears of all our theatre, seeing as you arent gonna get a chance anywhere else. that is if you have the luxury of time to do so.

* dont know the situation in yr old school obv.

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

the question here that i think dog wants to ask is maybe not "should shakespeare be taught in schools?" but "should it be an essential and unchanging part of the curriculum?". No Are the pro- arguments here arguing for its continued obligatory appearance in english classes up and down the country? (NB this is poss. UK only).

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm asking. I'm not saying it should be banned or anything.

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Ambrose, we got Greek tragedy and Greek, Egyptian, Norse and Roman myth in our Western civilization class, the Odyssey in 9th grade English, and plenty of other Greek plays in various compulsory and elective English classes. No Latin or Greek in the school, sadly, which was teh suck.

If you are fascinated with the way that the English language is an acquisitive, progressive mutant beggar thief of a lingo there is nothing better to reinforce that fascination than Shakespeare and nothing better to teach the form of drama than the Greek play and its conventions. In the Humanities there is no real 'disconnect' between subjects and I've always been attracted to learning models which promote this.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

"you are fascinated with the way that the English language is an acquisitive, progressive mutant beggar thief of a lingo there is nothing better to reinforce that fascination than Shakespeare"

yeah that is totally cool, but we are talking about kids in school. not to assume that they are uniformly uninterested in the way that etc ect etc but i think we can work on the basis that this is not the general attitude. therefore it might be better to work on arguments for teaching shakespeare in schools that works on a reason why the kids themselves might get something from it other than Very Useful Linguistic Knowledge, ie enjoyment.

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

wow, that was poorly expressed by me.

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm enjoying Dog and Enrique's voyage of discovery, which in itself is almost Shakespearian. At first fate seems to be bringing them inexorably together, but then, just as friendship seems sealed, it's revealed that they are actually sworn enemies - the posho and the pleb. The difference is poigntantly highlighted by the discovery that they studied different Aristophanes plays.

Act 2: The lez up.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

Fakest movie cry ever: Claire Danes letting out that one sob that sounds like a pre-puke hiccup in Romeo and Juliet. Our whole class saw it in theatres and even the most gullible kids laughed.

Realest movie cry ever: Penelope Ann Miller in Carlito's Way when Carlito is dying. I bet those tears taste like the salt of the gods. Oh who am I kidding, I'd drink her snot.

― LC, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

That was a fucking great film although the only part I can remember are those long fluorescent lights in the subway tunnel.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

There's another thing right there (xpost Romeo & Juliet). It's a noble idea, but if kids just don't want to read old shit, trying to reshape it into something appealing for kids is such a precarious, imprecise undertaking. Hip-hop Othello or skateboarding Macbeth on paper seems like a very promising idea but I've seen it fail everytime. Kids' sensitivities to cornballitude and anachronism are far higher than we give them credit for, we chase them in this regard, not the other way around. The best way I think is to keep the raw shit raw and draw kids to it by other means (I don't know).

― LC, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:46 (6 years ago) Permalink

Shakespeare Gaping Anal!

(xpost yes the tunnel scene is great - do you know who did the verbatim recital of the scene's voice-over for the Jay-Z album?)

― LC, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Isn't 10 things I hate about you (AKA The taming of the shrew 2001) actually a good movie, though?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

I don't think this is quite the case anymore.

The syllabus I did last year (A Level English - OCR Oxford and Cambridge) did feature Shakespeare, but it also encouraged reading a wide variety of literature.

We did a big study on American Literature (because our english teacher let us vote on what we wanted to do) which included Hunter S, Tennersee Williams, loads of beat poets and writers and artists, BOB DYLAN (English teacher was a HUGE fan, lots of black writing as well as American 'classics'.

We also had to study Shakespeare, but this was only a small part of the course. AFAIK what you study is pretty much up to your teacher who decides from a huge list of books divided into groups where you have to pick one or two out of each group. I guess most teachers choose Shakespeare because it is something they will be pretty hot on. I was lucky enough to have the coolest English teacher in the world who let us choose the books we wanted to read, even if it meant he would have to do a load of work to get comfortable with it.

― TomB (TomB), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 11:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

"you are fascinated with the way that the English language is an acquisitive, progressive mutant beggar thief of a lingo there is nothing better to reinforce that fascination than Shakespeare"
yeah that is totally cool, but we are talking about kids in school. not to assume that they are uniformly uninterested in the way that etc ect etc but i think we can work on the basis that this is not the general attitude. therefore it might be better to work on arguments for teaching shakespeare in schools that works on a reason why the kids themselves might get something from it other than Very Useful Linguistic Knowledge, ie enjoyment.

Indeed, as a Language and Linguistics graduate I understand that one can learn a whole lot from Shakespeare's writing. But isn't literature different?

Regarding the Greek plays I am finding it hard to remember an instance where the significance of Greek literature was pointed out to us in class as an influence on English. In fact the closest thing Aristophanes had to do with anything English that i can think of was the Carry On films. That is not to say that Greek lit didn't have an influence on English lit, of course it did - but then so has practically everything else so why study a modern translation of an ancient Greek play?

― dog latin (dog latin), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 12:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

Literature versus drama? As someone who's been in and also stage-managed Shakespeare plays, they make FUCK ALL sense to most people if you read them. They are PLAYS. They are meant to be PREFORMED. I get such a bee in my bonnet about this. I loved Shakespeare at school but that was cos I was able to do them the right way.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 12:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yes.

― the bluefox, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 12:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

PReformed. Yes. Z For Zachariah, anyone? I think that was GCSE.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 12:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Unman, Wittering and Zygo to thread!

(I did it pre-GCSE I think?)

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 12:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

Funnily enough I much prefer to read Shakespeare than see it performed. the way the actors generally mug and ham their way through the soliliquies always puts me off and embarasses me.

Although Robert Lindsey as Edmund in Lear is excellent! especially in conjunction with old whatsername from the Avengers. You know what, Mel Gibson is good as Hamlet too, although I hate to say it.

In a lot of the Shakespeare I've seen in the last few years, performers have tended to go way over the top in accentuating the perceived bawdiness and vulgarity of the elizabethan theatre too much, turning everything into farce, which I suppose is the converse of hamming it up.

― Dave Amos, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 12:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think the initial difficulty of shakespeare is actually a point in its favor! Once you figure out what it's all about, it's so rewarding (in pure visceral plot and action as well as the great language) that it will lead you to more literature--you figure out that the effort of examining lit is worth it in the end rather than just shutting down when confronted with a book that is at first glance boring or dense or unintelligible.

― teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 13:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Literature versus drama? As someone who's been in and also stage-managed Shakespeare plays, they make FUCK ALL sense to most people if you read them. They are PLAYS. They are meant to be PREFORMED. I get such a bee in my bonnet about this. I loved Shakespeare at school but that was cos I was able to do them the right way."

This has been the orthodox view for at least 50 years. As undergraduates we were constantly being hectored about the need to understand Shakespeare AS THEATRE.

I love reading him, but am bored rigid by performances of his plays. Shakespeare's reputation was never higher than in the Nineteenth century when he was read more and performed less.

― Hidayglo, Wednesday, 19 May 2004 13:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

personally, i couldn't stand reading most of the crap required in K-12 english classes, because most of it struck me as dumbed-down, boring pap. reading the two or three shakespeare plays i did was honestly a RELIEF, after all those books that were meant to "appeal to my age group."

in 11th grade we spent about a week on "hamlet" and about six weeks dissecting the symbolism of "lord of the flies." that pretty much says it all.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Wednesday, 19 May 2004 19:23 (6 years ago) Permalink

but i LIKE lord of the flies :-)

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 20 May 2004 06:48 (6 years ago) Permalink

"As someone who was forced to read Jurassic Park in an "advanced" English class in HIGH SCHOOL..."

But that's THE greatest achievement in modern literature, ever! By brillaintly dispensing with "characterization", "human warmth", or "interesting prose", Michael Chrichton was able to give literature what it always wanted: hot dino action!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 20 May 2004 08:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

god's sake, i mean really "Jurassic Park"? What is there to dissect there? You'd be better off analysing the descriptive content of a packet of crisps than that.

Really, I can't remember a whole lot of texts that I actually really enjoyed at school. English Lit was always one of my better subjects but when I think back on what I was made to read...

Mansfield Park: Sentences the length of your arm, people bickering about being out in the sun too long and jumping over ha-has and hee-hees for a bajillion and seventy-two pages. I never finished it.

Far From The Madding Crowd: A bit like Emmerdale farm but with more descriptions of sunsets and sideburns and sheep with extreme gas. Didn't finish it.

The Crucible: I didn't mind this one, if only for the smart allegorical statement. Everyone else in my class hated it.

Julius Caesar: Just when it's about to get scarey ("Ides of March" etc), it stops and then they kill him and then the end. I remember liking the cartoon adaptation we watched.

Lysistrata: A comedy based on the premise that if women went on strike, men would be bent double with priapisms. Not funny, actually rubbish, and I used to get told off for this kind of scatology when I was younger so why study it now?

Othello: A good one. As I say I think I'd enjoy it more now than when I was 17.

Romeo & Juliet: For girls.

Various Coleridge: Really good this actually. Grim avicidal sailors, sexy vampyre bitches, crazy smack filled palaces - Samuel really had it going on!

― dog latin (dog latin), Thursday, 20 May 2004 08:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

Has anyone noted that as a rule, in school you do not learn about Einstein in Physics. You may learn some of his associated theories (but to be fair even the theory of relativity is a bit advanced for A-Level) and the relevance of Einstein's wakcy life and hair - with the exception to relating to Van Der Graff generators is minimal to the knowledge of physics.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 20 May 2004 08:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

I preferred Jurassic Park to Frankenstein.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Frankenstein is pretty piss-poor. Especially the eight layers of meta-narration going on at one point.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

I like the intense dismissive beauty of the phrase:

Romeo & Juliet: For girls.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

The best thing about studying Shakespeare at school is that when you have to write an essay on Hamlet or King Lear or whatever even the school library will have stacks and stacks of prewritten crit to pour over and steal your ideas from. I owed Richards and Leavis a huge debt long before I knew who they were!

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

Oh what was that one, two sets of twin brothers, each seperated from the other, etcet...

Comedy of errors. Yeah. I was in that one. I carried a spear. We all wore glasses (as a metaphor), and took themoff at the end to see the truth.

Anyhow, I do have to agree, it works better as a play to be seen. You don't often see people in a theatre going "Oh bollocks to this, "Who wants to be a millionaire" is on in a minute"...

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Damn right. By the middle Frank... in about the seventh-person.

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:07 (6 years ago) Permalink

Pete v OTM -- i remember trying to explain this to my history tutor (by way of explaining my total lack of knowledge of de Tocqueville? who knows). maybe in 50 years they'll get round to it, with 'insignificance' as crib.

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Without Shakespeare, I may never have got an A at A-Level. OK, not strictly true, but I have enjoyed his work since I can remember and if it still had value when I was 18 after centureis, that's good enough for me. The Shakespeare plays were usually the best ones performed at school too.

Also, props to Finney.

― Barima (Barima), Thursday, 20 May 2004 09:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

i can't get over this notion that teachers should make an actual attempt at educating their students!

we read (or were supposed to read), i think, "the most dangerous game", a heavily condensed odyssey, and romeo and juliet in year 9, antigone and a scene of a midsummer night's dream in year 10, hamlet, read aloud, in class, for an entire semester in year 11, and i don't think i even recall year 12 because like everyone else, i wasn't even half there.

and that's pretty much it! i'm glad too, because who the fuck wants to read anything for an assignment?? the great novels, plays, and poems deserve better!

i mean looking at dl's list up there it's awfully lucky for me i wasn't subjected to a similar curriculum, because in all probability i would've been completely turned off of authors i now very much like (it's really a miracle i can stand shakespeare).

seriously, i think high school teachers should just go grade school and tell everyone to pick out a book of their choice, read it, and write a book report at the end of the month. that way if anyone's serious about literature, they can get their educating from professors who actually know what the fuck they're talking about (hopefully), and if they're not, at least there's a chance they'll be turned on to reading instead of off it.

― John (jdahlem), Saturday, 20 November 2004 01:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

5 years pass...

I am currently studying Shakespeare, mainly Romeo and Juliet as I am in grade 10 and this is exactly what my feature atricle has to be about. I think that it should be studied... i love shakespeare. from the comments i have read no one talks about the timeless themes he has, love, hate, ignorance ect. they all still relate epecially to teenagers. And yes i do believe that we should be taught modern and contempary books but without such classic writer that is shakespeare we will have nothing to compare and contrast between.

― xx.learning.xx, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 06:11 (4 months ago) Permalink

Shakespeare, blech!

Gimme Twilight any day of the year.

― banaka, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 06:21 (4 months ago) Permalink

Full title of Wayne's World II was Wayne's World II: Ben Hurl?

― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 16:39 (4 months ago) Permalink

yes

― conrad, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 16:41 (4 months ago) Permalink

Article was written in May 1992, only a couple months after the first one came out, so I'm assuming that's a jokey speculative title.

― HOOS zing-steen (jaymc), Tuesday, 13 April 2010 16:42 (4 months ago) Permalink

thread question yes

― conrad, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 16:46 (4 months ago) Permalink

I should have learned to close read that Wayne's World article (they never taught us close reading in school, probably because of all the time used up by getting through Shakespeare).

― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 16:48 (4 months ago) Permalink

Hi tenth grader, did you watch a Romeo & Juliet film in class? If so, was it the '90s one starring a tranny pulling an invite out of his butt, or the '70s one starring a glimpse of a titty?

― Ponies are horse children (Abbott), Tuesday, 13 April 2010 18:44 (4 months ago) Permalink

I just read Timon of Athens & I think I would have been down with it in high school, moreso than Macbeth, which I read in tenth grade.

― Ponies are horse children (Abbott), Tuesday, 13 April 2010 18:45 (4 months ago) Permalink

xx.learning.xx = would be my display name if I did display names

― iatee, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 18:48 (4 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.