Should high school students have to read Shakespeare?

[crich70]

Yes but people also had to grow up faster in those days as well since there was no child labor law and if you were lucky you might reach age 40 (assuming you survived childhood that is). Life was both short and hard back then. In Shakespeare's day there were no actresses either. A girl just didn't go on the stage back then. Even in the 19th century Actress had a different meaning than now. It was another name for prostitute. Instead of a girl all female parts were played by young boys back then. I believe that in Japan they still have men playing women's parts on stage. Or at least that's what I've heard.

Originally Posted by bevdeforges

Reading Shakespeare isn't just about getting through the language to figure out the story. It isn't just about "reading" or "English" - but about the themes and the history and the human emotion contained in the stories. There's psychology and philosophy, and all the dirty jokes, too! And getting at that takes a good teacher, who can encourage discussion and point out the "good parts."

When we read Romeo and Juliet in school, our teacher (I think it was Mr. Kazarian, who taught both English and Social Studies) spent alot of time on the opening scene, which is usually cut in production these days because it seems to be out of place. In it, Romeo is wandering around with a friend of his, moaning and gnashing his teeth over some girl he has been madly in love with - I think her name was Rosalyn or something similar. A scene or two later, he sees Juliet and BANG, he's madly in love again and old Rosalyn is forgotten.

We had a LONG discussion about how Romeo and Juliet were probably only about 13 years old, and taking a long, hard look at that first scene really casts a very different light on the play. It's a much greater tragedy if you see it in light of the kind of puppy love that is so typical of 12 and 13 year olds.

Then, too, we read The Taming of the Shrew with Mr. Sullivan, who took great pains to point out the "dirty stuff" - and definitely piqued everyone's interest in the play. A great introduction to word play and double entendre (and some education in basic anatomy for a few of us!).

You read Shakespeare as a teenager because there is so much stuff there. If the archaic language is an obstacle, there are the dirty jokes, or the psychology or the existential issues ("to be or not to be") that are part and parcel of adolescence. But you need a great teacher to help you "get into it." I was lucky in that we had several really great teachers when I went to school.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Curiously enough, the same thought occurs to me when I listen to American high-school students talking .

The English language, the final “squirmish” in the American War of Independence.

[Crowl]

Late to the topic, but personally I think they simply shouldn't bother doing Shakespeare at all if they aren't actually going to read the play, just pick some other classic literature instead.

Stuff like comic book versions, film, tv or live performances should be used to enhance the actual play itself rather than replacing it.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Curiously enough, the same thought occurs to me when I listen to American high-school students talking .

There are Cliff Notes for that too.

[Love.Forever.]

Well, I liked the movie version of it (with Leonardo DiCaprio). But yeah, they really did love each other

Originally Posted by Quexos

Romeo and Juliet huh ? interesting choice. Did you notice how Both Romeo and Juliet come first to each other, even over their families ? That's what I remember from that play. they loved each other and even their family did not come first, they came first to each other. So u can imagine how friends would totally not come first.
Hmm sorry I digress. I wonder why I said what I said

[Quexos]

I liked the one with Meg Gibson better. He seemed passionate enough as Hamlet as I remember.

Originally Posted by Love.Forever.

Well, I liked the movie version of it (with Leonardo DiCaprio). But yeah, they really did love each other

[wyndslash]

Originally Posted by Love.Forever.

Well, I liked the movie version of it (with Leonardo DiCaprio). But yeah, they really did love each other

i just thought they were rather foolish, but :P

[Love.Forever.]

For some reason back in grade 10, the movie caught my attention more and it was easier for me to understand the play back then through that. The Leo version is the only movie version that the teachers showed, I'm not sure why though lol

Originally Posted by wyndslash

i just thought they were rather foolish, but :P

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

Same here, queentess.

I've come across a very few poems that impressed me. They were strongly structured with rhyme and even rhythm, making them almost spoken music.

One of the things that can help, if you are the kind of person who has this kind of trouble or lack of enjoyment reading poetry, is to read it out loud, or even out loud to someone else. Part of the fun of poetry is the sounds the words make together (not just end-rhyme and meter, but also internal rhyme, alliteration, etc.). Think of a Dr. Seuss books...Fox in Socks, etc. Just fun with syllables, basically. I read a lot of nonsense poetry as a child and I think that helped me appreciate the more serious stuff as I aged.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by crich70

Even in the 19th century Actress had a different meaning than now. It was another name for prostitute. Instead of a girl all female parts were played by young boys back then.

Women started appearing on stage in England during the Restoration period. There were some respectable actresses, but many of them did supplement their income from the stage (which wasn't great) the old-fashioned way.

I started Zola's _Nana_ (19th cent. French novel) and there's this great opening scene where the audience refers to the theatre as a theatre and the theatre owner keeps correcting them, telling them it's his brothel. The heroine appears to be an courtesan with perpetual financial trouble who can't act very well but no one cares because she's lovely on stage.

[mvprincess]

A lot of times, teachers aren't teaching Shakespeare to expand vocabulary or know how to read Shakespeare- because the language itself isn't applicable to today. We still read the plays because of his characters and plots and there's a lot for students to learn through them, and also because when you know the basics of Shakespeare, you pick up on a lot of things in the literature that followed him. So reading a graphic novel isn't a bad thing. It's a case of quality over quantity- is it more important for the student to have a quality understanding of the text or is it more important for them to spend time slaving through a language that just isn't used anymore? There's so much other literature out there that they need to read. Plus, we shouldn't keep doing things just because that's the way it has always been done.

[crich70]

Touche. I meant that the female parts were done by boys in Shakespeare's time. Though even in the 19th century actress meant something different than it does now. My error in not making my meaning more clear.

Originally Posted by Joykins

Women started appearing on stage in England during the Restoration period. There were some respectable actresses, but many of them did supplement their income from the stage (which wasn't great) the old-fashioned way.

I started Zola's _Nana_ (19th cent. French novel) and there's this great opening scene where the audience refers to the theatre as a theatre and the theatre owner keeps correcting them, telling them it's his brothel. The heroine appears to be an courtesan with perpetual financial trouble who can't act very well but no one cares because she's lovely on stage.

[Carriebear]

Originally Posted by mvprincess

A lot of times, teachers aren't teaching Shakespeare to expand vocabulary or know how to read Shakespeare- because the language itself isn't applicable to today... It's a case of quality over quantity- is it more important for the student to have a quality understanding of the text or is it more important for them to spend time slaving through a language that just isn't used anymore?

I find the view that Shakespeare's language isn't "applicable to today" to be quite interesting, given that he was the first to use some 1700 words in the course of his playwrighting. Words we still use today, like: amazement, control, gloomy, courtship, dishearten, dislocate, obscene, pious... etc. and etc. I also think calling "Shakespeare's English" a "language that just isn't used anymore" to be a little misleading. Granted, we don't speak the language the same anymore, but it's still the same language, if I'm making any sense. I think a study - even just introductory - of Shakespeare is a necessity, both as a study of language and as a study of literature. And no movie or graphic novel, to me, is a substitute for the actual work.

Then again that's the former English major in me talking, so feel free to ignore me

[ebusinesstutor]

Wow, some intriguing discussion here.

I think the focus on education is wrong. I believe the focus should be to create confident, creative, lifelong learners with excellent research, work habits and good social skills and a balanced approach to life and career.

We no longer teach our children to chip hand axes out of flint so perhaps teaching 16th century playwrights, no matter how wonderful their writing was, is also something to be set aside.

Certainly a course on important writers in English history would include him, but not something everyone needs to learn about.

I would rather see school children learn how to write, direct, act in and produce their own play for the web. These creative skills are ones that they can use in their future careers.

Creative, adaptable people are more successful and happy than "well-educated" people who do not continue to learn and adapt once they have finished their formal schooling.

Creative adaptable people can always look up or research any topic and can adapt to changing circumstances. These are the people who create businesses when they are laid off and the authors who self publish when old, staid publishing houses turn up their nose at their manuscripts.

These are the people who change the world. And many of them will find Shakespeare because curiosity is one of these success traits.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by ebusinesstutor

Wow, some intriguing discussion here.

I think the focus on education is wrong. I believe the focus should be to create confident, creative, lifelong learners with excellent research, work habits and good social skills and a balanced approach to life and career.

Fair enough, but I don't think you can create these individuals without giving them a real education. It's hard to be creative when you don't know anything.

We no longer teach our children to chip hand axes out of flint so perhaps teaching 16th century playwrights, no matter how wonderful their writing was, is also something to be set aside.

We don't teach our children to make handaxes because there are better alternatives available - like Grunfors axes from high carbon steel.

We still teach Shakespeare because there are not yet any better alternatives. David Weber might be easier to read, but he's not Shakespeare.

Certainly a course on important writers in English history would include him, but not something everyone needs to learn about.

Yes they do.

I would rather see school children learn how to write, direct, act in and produce their own play for the web. These creative skills are ones that they can use in their future careers.

Unless they have a decent background in playwriting, they will just produce feel-good garbage. That's not real creativity. Nor is putting on a play at school as part of an assignment particularly creative.

Creative, adaptable people are more successful and happy than "well-educated" people who do not continue to learn and adapt once they have finished their formal schooling.

You are begging the question. It is much more likely that people who are well-educated will continue to learn and adapt once they've finished formal schooling because they will have a much more substantial foundation to build upon. There's no such thing as creativity in a vacuum, and you can't be truly creative unless you have a real basis of knowledge.

And I'm also skeptical that schools can even teach creativity and adaptability.

Creative adaptable people can always look up or research any topic and can adapt to changing circumstances.

They can only do this if they have some basis to build upon. And I still see no evidence that reading Shakespeare won't lead to creative, adaptable people.

These are the people who create businesses when they are laid off and the authors who self publish when old, staid publishing houses turn up their nose at their manuscripts.

These are the people who change the world. And many of them will find Shakespeare because curiosity is one of these success traits.

Of course, it's a lot easier to actually read Shakespeare if you've been exposed to the language in high school and had to work through it.

I don't see the world being changed by uneducated people. And I don't think that substituting something else for Shakespeare in HS is more likely to make people creative or adaptable.