Should high school students have to read Shakespeare?

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

People are afraid of Shakespeare. A kid mentions a homework assignment and parents groan and moan about it. Educated adults are familiar with the plays. Thinking about the plays does not fit into their mindless over-filled schedules.

Just completing a play does as much for their self esteems as a whole season of sports/music/math extracurricular activities.

Unfortunately, I think people are afraid of classic literature in general. Perhaps our expectations need to be managed better, so that we do not approach every classic work as if it is supposed to be a ton of work, or that it is supposed to transform our lives somehow.

A great piece of fiction can be appreciated on many different levels by people of all kinds of different education levels. On the surface level, there is the plot to enjoy, and with any Shakespearean play there are lots of juicy twists and turns. It can be appreciated for the poetry of the language, and on a deeper level, for all its linguistic nuances, wordplay, and metaphor. It can be appreciated for its interesting characters, and if you want to go deeper, for its insights into humanity.

A great classic work should be subject to the Simpsons test. The Simpsons, before the show went downhill, was a show that could be appreciated by almost anybody. On the surface level it was funny and had quirky characters, but it also subtly (today not to subtle) was able to parody and critique and analyze current events, structures, and trends.

I am curious about the graphic novels that people have mentioned. Do these have the full Shakespearan texts, or are they just abridgments. How do they do the lengthy monologues? Do they break them up into several frames?

As far as plays and movies, I once read that it was unlikely that even those who lived in Shakespeare's time understood half of what he wrote. His language is not archaic, but poetic, and hence has always been difficult to understand. What really makes Shakespeare comprehensible is the performances of the actors, how they convey the words and the emotion they express. Shakespeare did not come alive for me until I saw the 1953 version of Julius Caesar, with brilliant performances by John Gielglud, James Mason, and of course the immortal Marlon Brando. Every one knows about the funeral oration, but my favorite part of the movie was the dogs of war monologue.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Unfortunately, I think people are afraid of classic literature in general. Perhaps our expectations need to be managed better, so that we do not approach every classic work as if it is supposed to be a ton of work, or that it is supposed to transform our lives somehow.

Half the problem, though, is that we put children off great literature for life by forcing them to read what are very definitely NOT children's books before they're able to appreciate them.

It will come as no great surprise to many people that one of my favourite authors is Dickens. Like every other British schoolchild I was force-fed Dickens at school and HATED his books. It was only when I was in my late 30s that I rediscovered him and learned to love his books for the great literature that they are. You just can't appreciate Dickens' biting social satire when you're a teenager (or at least I couldn't).

[Freeshadow]

+1 to that HarryT
It even doesn't need to be what is widely regarded as great.
The 1st time I read Catriona (translated to PL) I was preteen aged.
The last time I did, (Gutenberg source) I was in my mid-20s

I was amazed about how much more the book offered to me.

I think this is true with a lot of material labeled as aiming younger readers.
Just because an author may write suitable for younger public - it doesn't mean s/he is of infantile personality.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Doesn't the Leonardo Dicaprio version use the Shakespearian language?

Yes. Not only did they use the Shakespearian language, it was virtually unedited. I recall catching maybe one or two words that had been changed. It was literally "screenplay by William Shakespeare." (Of course, if you tuend the sound down, it looked like a Spike Lee movie.)

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Half the problem, though, is that we put children off great literature for life by forcing them to read what are very definitely NOT children's books before they're able to appreciate them.

It will come as no great surprise to many people that one of my favourite authors is Dickens. Like every other British schoolchild I was force-fed Dickens at school and HATED his books. It was only when I was in my late 30s that I rediscovered him and learned to love his books for the great literature that they are. You just can't appreciate Dickens' biting social satire when you're a teenager (or at least I couldn't).

This is true. In high school I was required to read All Quiet on the Western Front, a modernist war novel, and I still have a bad taste in my mouth. I wonder is someone has come up with a list of classic books to be read at certain ages, like books to be read in your thirties, books to be read in your forties, etc.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Half the problem, though, is that we put children off great literature for life by forcing them to read what are very definitely NOT children's books before they're able to appreciate them.

A thousand times, this.

Shakespeare's humor and drama isn't opaque to kids because the language is different (although that's part of it) but because Shakespeare dealt with adult themes--which is not a euphemism for "sex." The sex part, the kids tend to understand; it's why Midsummer Night's Dream is popular for high school productions. But family politics, royal negotiations, arranged marriages, banking contracts... most modern kids have no context for these, even if they could understand the flowery language and the bits of archaic vocabulary.

A number of the classics that *were* suitable for kids eighty years ago, no longer are; today's kids are working across a cultural barrier to understand them. American kids have no concept of the class issues in Great Expectations, and the poor-orphan protagonist is so different from the way poverty shows up in the US today that they generally can't understand anything beyond the basic plot points.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

A thousand times, this.

Shakespeare's humor and drama isn't opaque to kids because the language is different (although that's part of it) but because Shakespeare dealt with adult themes--which is not a euphemism for "sex." The sex part, the kids tend to understand; it's why Midsummer Night's Dream is popular for high school productions. But family politics, royal negotiations, arranged marriages, banking contracts... most modern kids have no context for these, even if they could understand the flowery language and the bits of archaic vocabulary.

You mean you didn't play the banker and the negotiator when you where a kid? You didn't pretend to be in an arranged marriage with your childhood sweetheart?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

You mean you didn't play the banker and the negotiator when you where a kid? You didn't pretend to be in an arranged marriage with your childhood sweetheart?

Of course not! Everyone knows marriages are only arranged between people who hate each other, or where there's a 40-year age difference. There are no books about arranged marriages between peers who wind up happy together.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Unfortunately, I think people are afraid of classic literature in general. Perhaps our expectations need to be managed better, so that we do not approach every classic work as if it is supposed to be a ton of work, or that it is supposed to transform our lives somehow.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

A number of the classics that *were* suitable for kids eighty years ago, no longer are; today's kids are working across a cultural barrier to understand them. American kids have no concept of the class issues in Great Expectations, and the poor-orphan protagonist is so different from the way poverty shows up in the US today that they generally can't understand anything beyond the basic plot points.

As Elfwreck says (though I'll argue this for adults too, not just kids), it's more an issue of relatability (I am declaring that a word). I have problems relating to a lot of older works. I can tackle vocabulary, but if I can't love/hate the characters, I don't give a crap. If I'm reading fiction for fun, I prefer to read something more contemporary. Though I don't like many of the "classics", I actually really love the handful of Shakespeare stuff I've read. Shakespeare and Poe are fabulous, and I approach anything else labeled a "classic" with the same trepidation I feel for Dan Brown.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by queentess

Shakespeare and Poe are fabulous, and I approach anything else labeled a "classic" with the same trepidation I feel for Dan Brown.

Dan Brown is not to be feared, but pitied. Did I say pitied? I mean envied. How can I get paid millions to write badly?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Shakespeare did not come alive for me until I saw the 1953 version of Julius Caesar, with brilliant performances by John Gielglud, James Mason, and of course the immortal Marlon Brando. Every one knows about the funeral oration, but my favorite part of the movie was the dogs of war monologue.

Oh, I love this movie. After being introduced to Hamlet and Macbeth in high school, I found this movie on TV one day, watched it for Marlon Brando, and fell in love with it--I immediately had to read the play, just for myself. Great film, with an incredible cast, especially Brando--what an actor he was!

[queentess]

Originally Posted by queentess

Shakespeare and Poe are fabulous, and I approach anything else labeled a "classic" with the same trepidation I feel for Dan Brown.

Let me clarify that... I fear them for very different reasons, but the end result is the same: I'm pretty sure I won't like it.

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Dan Brown is not to be feared, but pitied. Did I say pitied? I mean envied. How can I get paid millions to write badly?

Step 1: Pick a controversial topic
Step 2: Make every chapter a pointless cliffhanger
Step 3: PROFIT

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by queentess

Step 1: Pick a controversial topic
Step 2: Make every chapter a pointless cliffhanger
Step 3: PROFIT

I guess the talent must be in picking the right topic, because thousands if not millions of writers follow step two, yet it usually does not lead to step 3.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by queentess

Step 1: Pick a controversial topic
Step 2: Make every chapter a pointless cliffhanger
Step 3: PROFIT

It worked for Dickens. That's exactly how his books were originally published - weekly (or sometimes monthly) serials with a cliffhanger at the end of each episode.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Half the problem, though, is that we put children off great literature for life by forcing them to read what are very definitely NOT children's books before they're able to appreciate them.

It will come as no great surprise to many people that one of my favourite authors is Dickens. Like every other British schoolchild I was force-fed Dickens at school and HATED his books. It was only when I was in my late 30s that I rediscovered him and learned to love his books for the great literature that they are. You just can't appreciate Dickens' biting social satire when you're a teenager (or at least I couldn't).

Yes, the maturity to appreciate a work is part of it, but I also think the teacher matters greatly. In thinking back, the literature I did like in HS was all taught by the same teacher who introduced me to Shakespeare. She had the ability to lead us to an understanding of what we were reading.