Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
It's not that something is difficult that's the problem. It's that it's useless. When are kids ever going to need to know how to read the version of English that Shakespeare wrote in? Never. I had to deal with Shakespeare in school and I've never wanted to go back after. It wasn't fun. It wasn't relevant. It was just a waste of time and effort.
Give kids something difficult that will give them useful skills and that's good. Give them something difficult that's not going to give them useful skills and that's a waste of time and effort. Being able to read Shakespeare is not useful.
Also, reading books that have no relevance because they are too old and outdated in the way they were written is a poor way to get kids interested in reading. A good example of a poor book is The Canterbury Tales. Outdated, not relevant and just plain boring. making kids dissect such an outdated work is not going to help the kids learn and it's not going to help them want to read.
|
My early, voluntary immersion in Shakespeare has been useful to me. I didn't know it was literature and believed it to be a wonderfully illustrated, exotic book of fairy tales. Plus, when you read it aloud, as you should, it offered thrilling dramatic opportunities. The fact that it was far over my head did not discourage me since everything was over my head. So I learned to love books and that the way words are put together can make them sound awesome, which was useful.
Most useful later was that grasping Shakespeare allusions in other books added immensely to the pleasure of reading. I realized how important that was when I read
The Satanic Verses last year and understood few of the Rushdie's allusions. I suspected the book would rock if I only understood its foundations.