Should high school students have to read Shakespeare?

[ATDrake]

Hey, don't knock graphic novel versions. They can be both fun and educational as far as presenting the core of the story and "best-known scenes" goes. The new manga versions of Shakespeare are especially cracktastic.

But yes, it's best to use adaptations as supplements to the actual text.

However, the actual text can be a bit overwhelming for people who haven't gotten into Shakespeare before, and so adapted versions in any media can be a nice lead-in to people genuinely understanding and enjoying the plays, rather than finding them just another imposed-upon curriculum chore that they don't "get".

And stuff like Akira Kurosawa's Ran and Throne of Blood, the Ian McKellan version of Richard III, Julie Taymor's Titus and Romeo + Juliet and 10 Things I Hate About You kind of show the universal applicability of certain of Shakespeare's stories by taking them well out of their regular stage setting and "period" context. A lesson to be learned in that, I think.

Anyway I think I'll leave* with a mention of Connie Willis' hilarious short story Ado, which shows the other things that can go wrong when one tries to teach Shakespeare in the future.

* Tempted to say "exit, pursued by a bear", but I've already done that twice this week.

[Freeshadow]

*shrug* I'd have complained and asked to be allowed to leave class and read the play at home if I 'd been forced to watch a DiCappucino movie.

[GraceKrispy]

I agree that the movie could have been used to give the plot in a way kids can understand, but the real text should, imo, be tackled if it's in the curriculum. We are just moving right along on the visual train from the verbal people we used to be.

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

*shrug* I'd have complained and asked to be allowed to leave class and read the play at home if I 'd been forced to watch a DiCappucino movie.

we also watched it in class. i couldn't stop giggling.

[Fbone]

I Cliff Noted them. It was the only way to get through them.

[snipenekkid]

reading and analyzing classic literature teaches things beyond basic reading skills. There is realizing when you don't understand a word or phrase it's OK to look up the meanings, it teaches abstract analysis, the idea that everything is open to interpretation so almost all opinions about a work are valid, it teaches one how to defend your interpretation of whatever is being studied but also how to accept you might be wrong. It also instills the ability to discuss often controversial ideas in a mature calm manner. All of these things are pretty much completely absent from todays K-12 educational system in the US. Just look at what are the most viewed shows of daytime and late night TV.

Using a graphic novel to introduce the idea is fine as a start. If the course then proceeds to more advanced versions of the same work, great. But if that is not the case then the instructor needs to be shipped out to teach Phys. Ed. Oh, wait many schools no longer offer that, cool, then I guess that instructor is out of a job. That way everybody wins.

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by ATDrake

But yes, it's best to use adaptations as supplements to the actual text.

Yeah, that was my feeling too Hey, if they want to read easy stuff, they are more than welcome to read the sparkly vampire crapola on their own time I feel like school is about giving them a general overview of things; history, geography, literature etc. And if you are doing literature, Shakespeare is part of that. Fine, show the movie or use the comic book too. But I have a real problem with kids walking away from this thinking that Shakespeare was an acclaimed author of graphic novels

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

reading and analyzing classic literature teaches things beyond basic reading skills. There is realizing when you don't understand a word or phrase it's OK to look up the meanings, it teaches abstract analysis, the idea that everything is open to interpretation so almost all opinions about a work are valid, it teaches one how to defend your interpretation of whatever is being studied but also how to accept you might be wrong. It also instills the ability to discuss often controversial ideas in a mature calm manner. All of these things are pretty much completely absent from todays K-12 educational system in the US. Just look at what are the most viewed shows of daytime and late night TV.

Using a graphic novel to introduce the idea is fine as a start. If the course then proceeds to more advanced versions of the same work, great. But if that is not the case then the instructor needs to be shipped out to teach Phys. Ed. Oh, wait many schools no longer offer that, cool, then I guess that instructor is out of a job. That way everybody wins.

That's what I was trying to say, only I did not do it near as well. Reading say Romeo and Juliet is not about learning what it was about; who the characters are and what happens to them. Sure one could learn that just as well from a film, or as someone suggested, Cliff Notes. It is about becoming a better reader, expanding vocabulary, and learning to understand all the nuances.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

That's what I was trying to say, only I did not do it near as well. Reading say Romeo and Juliet is not about learning what it was about; who the characters are and what happens to them. Sure one could learn that just as well from a film, or as someone suggested, Cliff Notes. It is about becoming a better reader, expanding vocabulary, and learning to understand all the nuances.

As well as learning to appreciate the work of the man who was among the greater writers of English ever to put pen to paper.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

I think the article was full of scat. It is absolutely not necessary to understand every nuance of each word for the casual non-scholar.

I lead newbies to the plays in a specific way. First, forget iambic pentameter, rhyme, poetry, and all, and just read it through as paragraphs, instead of lines of a poem. You can see the lightbulb go on in their faces when it becomes a regular play for them and is suddenly accessible to anyone.

I miss teaching. Sigh.

This is how I preferred reading it. And reading aloud is really the best way to understand Shakespeare (for me). The language is so archaic, especially to high school students, as to make the effort worthless otherwise.

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

That's what I was trying to say, only I did not do it near as well. Reading say Romeo and Juliet is not about learning what it was about; who the characters are and what happens to them. Sure one could learn that just as well from a film, or as someone suggested, Cliff Notes. It is about becoming a better reader, expanding vocabulary, and learning to understand all the nuances.

A high school student can expand his or her vocabulary reading the latest Rothfuss. If that's the only reason, they should pick more engaging books.

[John Carroll]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Well as I see it there are two reasons to read Shakespeare:

1. To achieve a common education in our literature and culture.
   
2. To enhance reading ability, expand vocabulary, and teach the ability to grasp and analyze the written word.

I agree with these points. Movies can be a tool to help education, but at some point, the real language needs to be taught. Shakespeare is an excellent teaching tool that actually require's a student to use their brain.

Try IMing with a teenager these days. The fact that English is being taught with movies instead of books becomes clear pretty quick.

[Keryl Raist]

I'm primarily a history wonk instead of a lit wonk, so I'd like to see the plays performed, and barring that, watched.

There are a lot of skills you should learn in English, the ability to sight read out loud would be a good one. The ability to not freak out about speaking in front of a group would be good, too. Live reading Shakespeare would be good for that.

S. wrote plays that were preformed in what was at the time modern costumes and modern English. They were plays that the Elizabethan equivalent of Joe Sixpack could go see and enjoy. Now we've got it so steeped in the mythos of "It's Shakespeare" that we forget these were well written soap operas. We forget they were meant to be seen, not dissected.

For a high school class, watching DiCaprio, who did a very nice treatment of the play, makes perfect sense.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by John Carroll

I agree with these points. Movies can be a tool to help education, but at some point, the real language needs to be taught. Shakespeare is an excellent teaching tool that actually require's a student to use their brain.

Try IMing with a teenager these days. The fact that English is being taught with movies instead of books becomes clear pretty quick.

Yes it does.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by GraceKrispy

I agree that the movie could have been used to give the plot in a way kids can understand, but the real text should, imo, be tackled if it's in the curriculum. We are just moving right along on the visual train from the verbal people we used to be.

But Shakespeare was originally intended to be performed in front of people who ranged from well-educated to functionally illiterate. I guess you take your high school English class where they are in terms of that

Since some of the language is not very accessible to modern groundlings, I think learning more about the period as background would be useful. I don't remember that in my actual high school classes, but there are marvellous opportunities outside of the school-- I had a fellowship here my senior year and it was awesome. There are also workshops given by area theaters and universities that teach things like period music, combat, culture, probably even cuisine...it's too bad that most high schools students can't/don't participate in them.

[ShooterMcGee]

Public school is prison without bars IMHO. I am currently researching curriculum so I can homechool my boys starting in the fall. My older son is allegedly receiving Special Ed services, and yet is still failing several classes. When he asks for help in math, he's told "you should have learned that last year" or "you just aren't paying attention, you know this." I had him do a placement test for prealgebra (mind you he will be a freshman in Sept) and the results brought tears to my eyes. He can barely multiply! What in the world kind of special ed services are they providing?! Oh yes, the services are to help with his behavior issues. Well sheesh, if you helped him actually learn and feel less of a failure, he might behave better!!!!

The homeschool route will allow ME to choose the curriculum and the method. I can't believe some of the shortcuts being taken in the schools here, and Virginia allegedly has pretty good schools! Everything taught (and I use that term oh so loosely) in the classroom is focused on the SOL testing required. The kids are taught material to pass a test. I can't be the only person to see something wrong with that!

Oy, I will get off my soapbox now...sorry for the ranting. As you can see, this is near and dear to me and quite the hot topic.