[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It was pounded out of them in their younger years, when they quickly learned that they got rewarded for RIGHT ANSWERS and penalized for anything else.

This might be true. This would also explain why so many people are afraid to think for themselves. They are taught that there is a "right answer," if only they go and find it, like in a cliffnotes.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Any pack of 5- and 6-year-olds in school will consider any new material given them as a challenge, a fascinating topic for "what can I learn from this; is it fun; what can you do with it?" By five years later, they've learned to narrow their focus down to "what will I be tested on?"

Partially true, but I think that if you give a kid a choice between playing video games and reading, they will probably choose video games. Kids want to do what is fun, not necessarily what is best. If they did do what is best, you would not have to force them to brush their teeth and eat their vegetables.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Teaching US public-school kids to *enjoy* literature (setting aside the issue of whether a play should be studied as text or enactment) requires a subversion of the entire grade system. They're not graded on "enjoyment," so they don't put any effort into it. (And enjoyment takes effort. It takes relaxation, which can be deadly to their grades in other topics. It takes time, which they're not often given.)

Well, they don't have to be taught to "enjoy" literature. There is a difference between enjoyment and appreciation. I don't have to enjoy surgery to appreciate its importance and the skill involved in it. Additionally, enjoyment is often dependent on mastery and skill. In other words, the better you get at something the more enjoyable it becomes, as well as fulfilling. Learning to ride a bike sucks. You fall. Again and again. You scrape your knees and elbows. You get bruised. You crash into curbs (hopefully not cars). But when you get good at it it is fun, exhilarating, liberating, and natural. Learning to read Shakespeare is a skill that requires practice and patience. Admittedly, most teachers probably don't teach Shakespeare well, but that is the fault of the teacher and not of the bard.

Something else to consider is that you don't have to enjoy something, you don't even have to like it, to get benefits from it. My college required everyone take at least one biology class. The intro to biological sciences class was very hard and required memorizing lots and lots of technical terms and processes. Not only did students have to learn hundreds of definitions, but they also had to remember and draw models on the tests, so it required the ability to memorize pictures as well. The class was unyielding and unforgiving. Either you knew the material and passed, or you didn't know the material and you failed. Almost every student who passed the class was forced to develop new study skills and habits, and many could attest that even though they didn't develop a love of biology, they developed skills and habits that aided their success in their college careers and beyond.

It is important to get students to do things they don't want to do, because in life there are lots of things you have to do that you may want not want to do, so you might as well learn to tackle these things head on. I say students should have to read some books that they may not like, if only to teach them this reality. The big question, however, is whether Shakespeare should be the one we throw under the bus to teach that lesson.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They're not graded on "understanding," either; they're graded on lists of facts and the ability to generate meaningful-sounding phrases with the right buzzwords. And they're expected to forget most of those in the space of about a month.

That wasn't my experience in English classes, but obviously I can't speak for everyone. When English is taught well it teaches you to think, analyze, and to communicate complex ideas effectively. Probably the best way to do this is to get students to write essays on the text, essays that force them to make original readings and arguments over the text, arguments supported by sound analysis and evidence. In my experience using “buzzwords” in an essay was the fastest way to get an F. The teachers I had didn't want a rehash of someone other person's arguments; they didn't want the opinions of Cliffnotes; they wanted their students to show that they could read between the lines, dig beneath the surface, derive meaning from an ambiguous text, and then to communicate that meaning with lucid language and to support their arguments with evidence. In other words, the goal was to teach both critical thinking and communication skills, especially in situations where ideas are not black and white.

The counter to this point that students often make is that teachers will grade them on “right views” rather than on the quality of their arguments. Again, I find this argument, for the most part, to be bollocks. I have written many essays where the teacher wrote on my paper “I disagree with you, I think you are wrong,” but on all of them I got A's. In those same classes I had peers who said that the only reason they got C's or worse was because the teacher disagreed with their views.

This all points to the problem that most people with the notion of an opinion: “I have my opinion, you have your opinion, there is no right or wrong, just opinions.” This is a profoundly undemocratic view, which seems paradoxical, because one would think that a “respect” of everyone's opinions would be the ultimate form of democracy. But it is profoundly disrespectful, not to mention demeaning, to dismiss another person's “opinions” merely because it is not your own. Debate it. Discuss it. Come to a middle ground or consensus. Dignify it with your attention and intellectual efforts, with your arguments, but don't dismiss it altogether like it is nothing but a fleeting fancy, like we are all just nobodies with nobody opinions.

None of us is an island. Everything we do, or fail to do, reverberates throughout society. Other people's beliefs and opinions can and do affect you. As a democracy it is important to be able to discuss ideas and to communicate our own and to ultimately come to some consensus on some of them, or to at least yield to the majority as long as they are not infringing on our rights.

Additionally, you may not be able to debate the rightness or wrongness of an opinion, but you can debate the validity, the sense, and the effects of that opinion. For instance, you could say it is good to eat only food that you think tastes good because we should all ultimately do what is pleasurable. That is an opinion; there is no objective measurement of what is good

. But what if the only food you find pleasurable is junk food? Is it still good? Well, there is no objective answer. But you say it brings pleasure, but does it? Suppose you spend one hour eating a day, and there are sixteen waking hours in a day. That's one hour of eating, and fifteen hours of doing other things. Is that one hour of immense pleasure really worth fifteen hours of sluggishness and fatigue? Suppose you find all healthy food to be nasty. Is that one hour of misery not worth the fifteen hours of feeling energetic, vigorous, and euphoric? In this case your opinion may not be wrong, but it is certainly invalid by your own logic, since the pleasure foods seem to bring more pleasure than displeasure. And what about the long term effects. What about diabetes, and heart disease, and obesity? What about the pains those conditions provide, in addition to the humongous costs they will amass that will deprive you the means of buying other pleasurable stuff, or of aging gracefully and happily?

The problem is that most people are unable to deeply analyze any opinion, or belief, or theory, or argument. It is mostly shallow thinking developed from a life of avoiding any thoughts, texts, ideas, arguments, or opinions that might be discomfiting, esoteric, complex, controversial, inconvenient, or foreign. We only care about what is easy and “relatable.” The problem is not that we fail to train our students to think. It is that we train them how not to think. Even worse, when we pander to their tastes(nothing wrong with personal taste, but it shouldn't be the basis of a curriculum), or allow them to read only what they will find enjoyable, we legitimize this anti-thinking perspective, that all that matters is what they find pleasurable and easy.


You could argue that critical thinking can be taught with any text, that it does not have to be Shakespeare. This is true, but it is important that you try to analyze things that are foreign to your own experiences, that are not immediately understandable, that you do not necessarily relate to. Studying someone like Shakespeare expands your critical faculties; it develops your ability to understand different uses of language and different ways of thinking. Sometimes you have to struggle to understand something, to grasp its complexity, nuance, connotations, and implications. Even the things we think are simple are often not so simple, and Shakespeare is one of the best exercises for your mind. The inability to understand and analyze difficult or complex or foreign concepts is endemic in our own society. People can't understand anything unless it is packaged into slogans and thirty second sound bytes.

Additionally, the problem with studying contemporary authors is that you do not know if they are worth studying. Every generation and culture has its own perspectives and biases. But a classic work transcends those generations, and it creates a common culture that connects us to our past and to the future. I don't know if Stephanie Meyers, Dan Brown, Stephen King, or J.K. Rowling have anything truly worthy to offer. Only time will tell. But their work could be nothing more than ephemera, fads, trends, and reflections of only current perceptions. In another generation they could be considered useless or laughable, if not altogether forgotten. We should try to break students out of their parochialism, not nurture it.

The most important reason you study Shakespeare, especially if you live in an English-speaking country, is that he is the greatest writer in the history of the language. His words, not the actions or interpretations of actors, but the words themselves, have resounded for centuries. If you are going to study writing, why not study the greatest writer? If you are going to learn how to communicate, why not learn from the writer that can still speak to us about human nature hundreds of years after he is dead? Generations have come and gone, each with their own perspectives and realities, but something in Shakespeare is transcendent, there is something in him that connects us to those who have lived before us, and to those that will come after. The endurance of his works is proof that there is continuity in the affairs of humanity, that there is something about us that endures through the ages. Ideally, we could study Homer, but that cannot be done unless you can read Ancient Greek; otherwise, you are not studying his words but another person's interpretation. With Shakespeare, we can read his words. By studying the master, we can learn the power and capabilities of the language that we use.

I conclude this post with a quote from Bertrand Russell, on the majesty of the past, which I think applies to literature:

“This is the reason why the Past has such magical power. The beauty of its motionless and silent pictures is like the enchanted purity of late autumn, when the leaves, though one breath would make them fall, still glow against the sky in golden glory. The Past does not change or strive; like Duncan, after life's fitful fever it sleeps well; what was eager and grasping, what was petty and transitory, has faded away, the things that were beautiful and eternal shine out of it like stars in the night. Its beauty, to a soul not worthy of it, is unendurable...”