"Shakespeare Week" Should we still be teaching this?

tim_wand

So apparently its Shakespeare week.

I remember many moons ago studying English Literature O level and the Syllabus contained at least one if not two Shakespeare texts. Can't say I really ever enjoyed it or got it?

Years later when I left the Army I needed to do an A level access course to qualify for University entry and choose English as one of the A levels to study.

I was nearly 30 and this time around enjoyed the Shakespeare text (Hamlet), but still to this day (I occasionally take cover lessons in secondary schools), If I get an English lesson that's Shakespeare I dread it.

I don't dispute the influence the man as had on our language and theatre, but I do think its kept on the syllabus to appease the luvies and would be better covered in History.

Sirius631

Don't think of it as being forced to study Shakespeare, think of it as doing something other than constantly studying grammar and spelling. Now it's fun!

neilo23

I'm the same. I did English and Drama A'levels and also did an access course and went on to (briefly) study English. I tend to read "difficult", literary books but with Shakespeare I always felt as if I was having to translate the texts from a foreign language which meant that I didn't understand a lot of what was happening. Nor did I notice the subtleties. I speak fluent German but still don't read German books for the same reason. So no, scrap him :-D

monkimark

Making 14 year olds read Shakespeare is a great way of putting them off reading - making it seem a chore rather than a pleasure.

There are plenty of great novels out there that could be chosen to appeal and encourage rather than just picking shakespeare because it's the done thing. I grew up reading for pleasure and got through books at quite a rate when I was younger, yet when it came to english literature at school, it seemed as if they were doing their best to strip any enjoyment from it - left me under the impression that all 'classic' literature is to be avoided and completely put me off studying english any further. I realise of course that school is supposed to be for learning rather than fun but the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Why the hell anyone would read a play is beyond me anyway, surely you read a book or watch a play.

Sirius631

monkimark wrote:

Why the hell anyone would read a play is beyond me anyway, surely you read a book or watch a play.

Surely someone has to read plays. How else would actors learn them and be able to perform them? :P

Mikey23

Shakespeare is pretty cool. Loads of sex, violence and general naughty behaviour. There was some drama types teaching primary school kids on the breakfast prog this morning and they were loving it. Like most things I suspect it's about how it's taught not what is taught.

monkimark

Sirius631 wrote:

monkimark wrote:

Why the hell anyone would read a play is beyond me anyway, surely you read a book or watch a play.

Surely someone has to read plays. How else would actors learn them and be able to perform them? :P

Just read the York notes and blag the rest.

rick_chasey

finchy

A picture can speak a thousand words.

Unfortunately I think you said it all in Dutch, Rick.

RDW

Is it clearer coming from a famous Shakespearean actor?

RDW

Seriously, anything can be taught badly. One thing that makes a huge difference is seeing it performed well. There are films that do this in an interesting way (e.g. Ian McKellen playing Richard III as a fascist dictator in a 30s-style London; the Baz Luhrmann Romeo and Juliet), but a good live performance is still the best way to make converts. I've been to Stratford a couple of times, but the most memorable performances I've seen were in a large park in Lancaster, where the local theatre company put on outdoor shows of The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream in the early evening, using the hills, woods and lake of the setting to full effect, with the audience following the actors around as they moved from one location to another.

rolf_f

God knows, the world isn't dumbed down enough as it is. We are missing opportunities to make the adults of the future even stupider than they are going to be.....

mr_goo

Never did Literature at school. But now wish that I did. I think if taught correctly and gave relevance to history and where we are today in society, then it is a valuable subject.
I saw King John a couple years back at the Swan Theatre. It was exceptionally acted and very moving. Everyone should see a Shakespeare play.

finchy

Why would dropping Shakespeare necessarily be "dumbing down"? There are plenty of other great authors and playwrights out there.

ballysmate

I think dropping Shakespeare would be dumbing down. As people on here have said, they found it difficult. Dropping it in favour of something more easily understood, would on the face of it be 'dumbing down', unless the replacement would need to be studied to a far deeper level.
Works are chosen for study with the intention of stretching the student, so I think there is a place for The Bard.

finchy

I'm not actually arguing in favour of dropping Shakespeare, I just don't agree with the claim that studying anyone but Billy would be dumbing down. After all, other authors are studied at A-level and university.

Personally my biggest gripe is with the way that Literature is taught in this country. Studying one book for 6 months really can kill it stone dead IMO. Surely better to study more books but without analysing every last sentence, and exposing pupils to a wider range of books would increase the chances of finding something they enjoy and turn them into bibliophiles rather than bibliophobes.

RideOnTime

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wand'rest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to Time thou grow'st.
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

seanoconn

RideOnTime wrote:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wand'rest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to Time thou grow'st.
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

That's so lovely You have real talent ROT

RideOnTime

I too have been to Stratford...

or was it...

awavey

monkimark wrote:

Making 14 year olds read Shakespeare is a great way of putting them off reading - making it seem a chore rather than a pleasure.

making 14 year olds read any famous author/playwrite is a great way of putting them off reading. because its the way you get taught, makes it a chore. Shakespeare particularly as its often taught as a role play, with pupils picked on to read out individual lines, you dont understand fully whats happening, I still dont understand Midsummer Nights Dream because it bored me senseless having to do it for a whole term at school and Ive never liked it since, even though I loved reading books at the time. now Im <cough> a bit older </cough> I do find I enjoy reading Shakespeare alot more than I did.

but just making them accessible is really tough on kids, and as much as I love Baz Luhrmans Romeo & Juliet as a film, its not the total answer either.

airbag

neilo23 wrote:

I tend to read "difficult", literary books but with Shakespeare I always felt as if I was having to translate the texts from a foreign language which meant that I didn't understand a lot of what was happening. Nor did I notice the subtleties.

Pretty much my experience (albeit without studying arts subjects to A-level - straight into physics here). I went to a very good school, but if there was one thing wrong it was that we were given Shakespeare way too early - or perhaps that we were expected to understand the deeper levels of it at that age, rather than just becoming familiar with an archaic language. We don't start maths or physics with Riemann tensors, so why is it dumbing down to not start english with a literary equivalent?

Actually, a better analogy is construction. This:



to me may as well be a force of nature - I know someone arranged things that way for a reason, but I've no idea what that reason is. This:



I can break down and understand the reasons. English at school always seemed the former to me.