Should high school students have to read Shakespeare?

[HarryT]

School kids here still do, it seems, go to performances of Shakespeare. I went to an excellent performance of "A Comedy of Errors" a couple of weeks ago, and the theatre was mostly full of what were very obviously school parties.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.

Isn't that all the more reason that they should read this stuff? Shouldn't they be exposed to a world beyond what they know? And anyway, the reason these works endure is that they are filled with universal truths that go beyond the actual setting.

[seagull]

We've done a fair bit of Shakespeare in school. I'm in the Scottish equivalent of 9th Grade and we've studied Macbeth three times and The Merchant of Venice once. Being an ardent reader I've been quite disappointed that we haven't had a broader scope of Shakespeare titles. My teacher also likes to skip, in her words, "boring or unnecessary scenes". We also watch the film, normally the Roman Polanski version but I support this as Shakespeare titles are plays after all and it is the closest we're going to get without going to the theater (and very rarely are there Shakespeare productions in Aberdeen as far as I'm aware)

Having said that however I do feel that reading the original Shakespearean text isn't necessary, it's quite clear my classmates do not understand it and to be perfectly honest I find it quite difficult to understand without a dictionary next to me and even then it is far from an enjoyable read. I find the Sparknotes 'No Fear Shakespeare' series good for this purpose but do think they unnecessarily simplify things. For example "To be or not to be? That is the question" becomes "The question is: is it better to be alive or dead?"

[HarryT]

The Roman Polanski "Macbeth" is a favourite in all British schools, I think. The nude sleepwalking bit always goes down well, an English teacher friend of mine tells me.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by taustin

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.)

It was edited. Nearly every movie version is. If it was less than 4 hours, it was edited somehow.

Mel Gibson's Hamlet really switched around the order of the scenes and stuff--it drove me crazy, because I had those parts of the play memorized and I was like hey! THAT didn't happen next!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Joykins

It was edited. Nearly every movie version is. If it was less than 4 hours, it was edited somehow.

But, in fairness, the performed plays are also normally edited. Pretty much nobody (except Kenneth Brannagh, of course) would dream of doing "Hamlet" unedited - it's just too long.

Four hours is a bit of an exaggeration for "Romeo and Juliet". I have the UNedited BBC version of it which is 2h 47m. The Dicaprio film is 1h 55m, so yes, it is heavily edited.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Four hours is a bit of an exaggeration for "Romeo and Juliet". I have the UNedited BBC version of it which is 2h 47m. The Dicaprio film is 1h 55m, so yes, it is heavily edited.

Or they talked really really fast.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

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.

That's somewhat oversimplified, but essentially accurate. Every play has low humor/contemporary slang/slapstick kind of stuff in it as well as the highfalutin poetic language meant to appeal to the aristocracy--he had something to entertain each part of his audience, even if you didn't get one part totally, you could still follow another. But the plot itself would have been accessible enough to those watching the play, since the actors would have been able to get the gist of the scene across no matter what the language/style.

[HarryT]

I should add to my previous comment that, even though the Dicaprio film is indeed heavily edited, I think it's a great film. It puts "Romeo and Juliet" into a setting that kids today can understand (rival gangs in LA). It's fast-paced, exciting, and has a great musical score. If it gets kids to enjoy Shakespeare, it's done its job.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Isn't that all the more reason that they should read this stuff? Shouldn't they be exposed to a world beyond what they know? And anyway, the reason these works endure is that they are filled with universal truths that go beyond the actual setting.

The reason these works endure is that they are filled with truths that resonate strongly with upper-class white Christian men. Works filled with equally relevant and beautiful truths, that did not resonate with that class, were not reprinted & widely shared.

(Which doesn't mean they're not great art, and doesn't mean they don't contain great truths. It's just that there is equally great art that got shoved aside because it didn't appeal to the people--the men--who ran the printing presses for a very long time.)

Kids should be exposed to these worlds--but a lot of schools, and a lot of teachers, forget how great a gap they're working across. It's not just "some of the language is archaic and we'll have to seek out the definitions of some words, including some that you know but use differently." It's not just "this is written in poetic meter and poetic style." Not just "there's a lot of subtle wordplay going on, which you're not used to." Not just "these story themes are mature; they assume a level of life-experience you don't quite have." Not just "these take place in a setting with laws & assumptions that are unfamilar to you." And not just "these are about characters built on archetypes that may not resemble anyone you know."

It's all of those things. That's a lot to cover; failing to make sure all of that is addressed means a lot of the kids' reactions are "meh, another boring 'classic' that's supposed to be important to learn about. I shall memorize a couple of names and who-killed-whom."

Plenty of teenagers can tell you that Romeo & Juliet fell in love, their families forbade them to marry, they married anyway, and tragically killed themselves to escape the family dramas. They can't understand why this tragic love affair is any more important to learn than Amidala & Anakin's in Star Wars.

I suspect schools would have better luck teaching kids to appreciate the classics by mentioning them in passing and saying, "oh, you're too young to understand that yet." That would get them to read and try to comprehend them.

[Joykins]

I was required to read _The Catcher in the Rye_ in high school, probably the most "relevant" thing we read, and, believe me, I'd rather read the entire Shakespearean canon again than spend one more minute with Holden Caulfield.

Taking this back briefly to one of the twists this thread has taken . . .

Originally Posted by queentess

fwiw, my little brother and I both went to a public school, and I lucked out and had some amazing math teachers, but by the time he came along, they had left. In his algebra II class he was completely lost (as were most of the other students), so I spent a few minutes with him at home explaining it, and he caught on with very little help from me. The teacher was just that incompetent. It's one thing to understand something (which the teacher did) and another entirely to explain it (which the teacher could not).

On the other hand, in my high school calculus class, the entire class failed two exams. Rather than take it out on us, the teacher would say, "Well, I obviously did a poor job explaining that. Let's go over that chapter again." And we would. In detail. He was more concerned that we understand everything than he was about speeding through the textbook. I was able to pass out of the first two math classes in college because of that man.

You are so spot on about the difference a good teacher can make. When I was in the 6th and 7th grades my performance at school suddenly headed south. I had always been a very good student, being particularly precocious in my reading level. The problems I was having were more due to social and emotional problems, both at home and school, but my school counselor suggested to my parents that maybe I should be placed in a special education class. Then in 8th grade I had Mr. Parnwault for a class in physical sciences (an introductory mix of physics, chemistry, and astronomy). His teaching of that subject just lit up my life. In a sense academics, and in particular mathematics and science, in my opinion saved my life. All the other problems remained, home life actually got worse all through high school (my parents both became heavy drinkers), but school saw me through to the day I could turn my back on home and start college. I ended up with BS and PhD degrees in engineering from a top university, not bad for a kid that should have gone into a special education track.


Anyway back to the idea of letting children pick their reading material for schooling for being worried about them being intimidated, or for it being over their heads, or for their not relating to the material. Well education is not supposed to be entertainment and pushing students' boundaries should be part of it. Or that's my opinion. There is all sorts of things students are taught in schools that may never be of any direct interest to them or seemingly be of any future use. How many here, speaking to those not still in the education system, have ever had a use for the quadratic formula? For knowing about the three types of chemical bonds? May be I am totally out of date, but I still think all students should be provided a complete education in liberal arts and natural philosophy.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Shared culture is important.

At that age who knows what is best for their future and they should be prepared to go through any door.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But, in fairness, the performed plays are also normally edited. Pretty much nobody (except Kenneth Brannagh, of course) would dream of doing "Hamlet" unedited - it's just too long.

Four hours is a bit of an exaggeration for "Romeo and Juliet". I have the UNedited BBC version of it which is 2h 47m. The Dicaprio film is 1h 55m, so yes, it is heavily edited.

Not to mention any film version of David Copperfield. Or War and Peace!

Seriously though that is part of the problem of substituting a film or a bowdlerized version for the original. Maybe that's why I like Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V so much.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

Not to mention any film version of David Copperfield. Or War and Peace!

Seriously though that is part of the problem of substituting a film or a bowdlerized version for the original. Maybe that's why I like Kenneth Brannagh's Henry V so much.

I'm partial to the 1944 Lawrence Olivier version myself. It's pure war propaganda, of course, but it's stirring stuff. Wonderful musical score.

Originally Posted by seagull

We've done a fair bit of Shakespeare in school. I'm in the Scottish equivalent of 9th Grade and we've studied Macbeth three times and The Merchant of Venice once. Being an ardent reader I've been quite disappointed that we haven't had a broader scope of Shakespeare titles. My teacher also likes to skip, in her words, "boring or unnecessary scenes". We also watch the film, normally the Roman Polanski version but I support this as Shakespeare titles are plays after all and it is the closest we're going to get without going to the theater (and very rarely are there Shakespeare productions in Aberdeen as far as I'm aware)

Having said that however I do feel that reading the original Shakespearean text isn't necessary, it's quite clear my classmates do not understand it and to be perfectly honest I find it quite difficult to understand without a dictionary next to me and even then it is far from an enjoyable read. I find the Sparknotes 'No Fear Shakespeare' series good for this purpose but do think they unnecessarily simplify things. For example "To be or not to be? That is the question" becomes "The question is: is it better to be alive or dead?"

First I happened to be in Edinburgh about twenty years ago on a brief trip to Scotland. It was getting to be late afternoon with me looking toward an evening with nothing to do. I just happened to pass a local theater with a playbill for a production of Macbeth that evening. I immediately went in to inquire if seats were still available [Yes!] and so that evening was treated to one of the best productions I have ever seen and in a very intimate theater.

The original Shakespearean text not essential? Just consider your example.